Reviews

I saw the very first Star Wars movie back in the summer of 1977. For the time, the special effects were outstanding, the story one of hope and positivity, and the characters fresh and engaging. The original trilogy was good enough. Then, there was the Lucas Grand Plan to make a total of nine movies, three prequels and three sequels. Finally after over 42 years we're done.

Was the Rise of Skywalker great? It was okay. The special effects, as always, were terrific. Instead of "Luke, I am your father", we get "Rey the husk of a geezer is your grandfather." There was quite a bit of suspension of belief in physics, like jumping onto the top of a moving spacecraft and miraculously being able to hang on at high velocity...

Was it worth seeing? Yes, if you're a Star Wars fan and want to see a conclusion to the story arc. To this movie goer, 42 years seems like one hell of a long time to wait for a story to be told. Frankly I'm glad the wait is over.

Red Sparrow is a nicely done spy thriller with classic trade craft espionage in the vein of Smiley's People. Jennifer Lawrence is perfect as ballerina turned spy Dominika Egorova. The film is rated R for some unsettling violence and sex training scenes reminiscent of "Story of 'O'." And like good sex, the story starts slow, builds, teases, pulls back, teases some more, then builds to a crescendo.

If you're expecting a James Bond action film this isn't it. If you're looking for a intelligent story well told with plenty of plot twists, then this is for you.

Saw this film today in a discount theater. Worth the $2.50, but would have been disappointed at Saturday night date prices. The acting by the two principle characters (Dane DeHaan and Cara Delevingne) was often hackneyed and painful to watch. Part of the pain wasn't just the actors, it was the very clichéd dialog. It wasn't all bad, but there were several scenes that would have benefited from a second (or fifth) take.

The rest of the characters were about what one would expect from a sci-fi flick with a couple of pretty faces as the leads. The special effects and CGI were all terrific. The beach planet Mul was nicely done as were the inter-dimensional chase scenes and space battles.

There was a very loose thread in the plot where the Major Valerian character makes an enemy with a Jaba the Hut type smuggler and the tension was never resolved -maybe that will be a sub plot (or the entire plot) of a sequel.

It's not Shakespeare, the eye candy effects are good, the pole dance by Rihanna is very hot, and you have a couple of bucks to burn on a rainy afternoon it's worth the time.

"John, what is it you really want?" "Meeting Evil" is a story of a man who becomes caught up in a escalating sequence of events which become bigger than himself. Reminiscent of "U Turn" starring Sean Penn, or old Twilight Zone episodes, the story is creepy and compelling. Samuel L. Jackson, as usual, delivers a terrific performance as the quiet, calm, yet seething with chilling intensity serial killer. This was a decent enough movie for a rainy Saturday night. It had enough twists and turns to make it interesting.

A true test of the impression that a film makes is whether I remember that I've seen it before. I watched "Fast, Cheap, and Out of Control" on Crackle last night. About half way through the film, I had a moment of deja vu and realized that I had watched this same film many years ago. Clearly, my sub conscience had tried to suppress the memory for some reason.

The film is a documentary about four men, a lion tamer, a topiary sculptor, a mole rat biologist, and a robotics engineer. I tried very hard to find the common thread between these various professions. Was it that filmmaker was trying to demonstrate complexity through much simpler systems? Perhaps a look inside the mind of several eccentric geniuses and glimpse at how they arrive at solutions to organic problems? Or, is it just an entertaining look at four unique professions which would have been less intriguing as four short films? The editing style bounces from man to man, from profession to profession, and has many cutaways to segment clips from various "B" (or maybe "D") movies. The key phrase in the film, and in the story telling, is said by the robotics engineer when he describes a proposed exploration system as "fast, cheap, and out of control." After thinking about the movie and what message, if any, it was trying to convey, my conclusion is that the film itself it was is "fast, cheap, and out of control" and that any deeper meaning than that is overexertion on the viewers part in trying to find connections that do not exist.

It seems like of the Mad Max saga the even numbered films are the best. My all time favorite is the Road Warrior, and this one is second to that.

Fury Road once again captures that post apocalyptic grittiness that gave the Road Warrior that great mise-en-scène. The notion of people flocking like sheep to be lorded over by the messianic tyrant Immortan Joe is a perfect statement of people's willingness to be led even if the leader is a cruel maniac. The human need to believe in some light at the end of the tunnel is exemplified in the "War Pups" willingness to die for "shiny" glory in service to Immortan Joe even as they are riddled with sores and deteriorating from radiation sickness.

The action scenes are some of the best I've ever watched. You've probably seen the previews of some of the bad guys up in the air on long poles attached to moving vehicles. Well you haven't seen nothing yet! As usual, there are the odd and often unique cobbled together weaponry and the odd bits and pieces to just-make-stuff-work in a world where there is no longer spare parts or manufacturing. Look for the gas pedal in the truck made from one of those foot measuring devices you see in a shoe store.

Very cool film. Go see it. 9/10

Based on some of the lousy reviews I almost passed on this movie. Today disregarding those negative reviews I accompanied some friends to see it. I was pleasantly surprised by this Disney flick. Without giving too much away, because that will spoil the surprises, early in the film the young imaginative Frank Walker while attending the 1964 World's Fair is recruited to go to Tomorrowland. Years later, a teenager named Casey Newton, the daughter of a NASA engineer, gets a similar invitation. These invitations have unexpected consequences which lead to them both on a quest to fix the future while being pursued by mysterious men dressed in black (definitely not the MiB).

There were some decent special effects, however one was overused in two different transport types. The story flowed well and had a few good laughs.I enjoyed it. Go see it with an open mind.

I've been up slightly later than normal lately partly since I'm enjoying watching David Letterman wind down his show. Since the "Late Late Show with James Corden" follows immediately afterward I've caught some of those shows.

So far what I've seen is, bad monologue, silly banter introducing the guests as they pop out of their various green rooms and warrens (more on that), bad skit, and finally an ensemble interview.

I'm not quite sure what they have in mind when they introduce the guests and then peek the camera into the green room while the guest munches on craft services food, talks on their cell phone, of yuks it up with their pals or entourage. Isn't it enough to just mention the guest's names? Later, as the guests enter the stage from the back or the room, they are required to navigate a gauntlet of audience members who try to shake hands, fist bump or slap hands with the guests. I'm a bit surprised that the guests go for that close personal contact, many seem uncomfortable.

James Corden is conversant enough with the guests, but in a fawning sycophantic manner. The interviews are merely a platitude and not at all deep or particularly informative. Because of the couch ensemble style, the interviews seem awkward and stilted.

The set, and especially the curtains that the guests push aside to enter the stage appear low budget and cheap. It doesn't help the show any if entire stage area looks slightly worse than the old Doctor Who sets.

The show does get kudos for having the band members with the most hair. Sadly, that's not enough to maintain interest in the program.

The preview/teasers looked good. I enjoyed the first episode, it was a bit like Cast Away but in Tuscon, AZ. Shown as a travel montage, for two years Phil, the "last man" has traveled the country in search for survivors of a viral epidemic. I expected more of a man on his own with some comedic adventure and excitement, but they started introducing new characters by the second episode. Now we're up to four altogether, not exactly "last man" on earth is it? Phil, the "last man" starts off humorously psychotic, but now that he has other people to deal with has become really just another bozo. Rather than learning something from his two year solo experience, he is now devolving into the lame individual he was before the demise of humanity.

I noticed that Fox is starting to run back to back episodes which often indicates that they realize that the series is a turkey and they're trying to fulfill a contract commitment. Too bad too, the show had potential, but suffered from introducing new characters too quickly and not exploring the "last man" scenario further.

What I expected was a so so Japanese version of a sort of sci-fi/alien/Terminator type story. I was pleasantly surprised to see the story develop into something original and unique.

Milly travels back in time as the cusp of an alien takeover of Earth. Her goal is to prevent the aliens from reaching the point where they are too strong to defeat.

The story was well told with not only sci-fi alien invasion and time travel, but it was also a Asian gangster and revenge flick. There were a couple of E.T.esque soppy moments, but the film was had a good amount of action, explosions, subtle humor, and an interesting multifaceted story.

I didn't have any idea of the story line or plot prior to seeing the film. I had only seen the trailers and it looked like the sort of kooky film that I often enjoy.

The story follows the relationship between M. Gustave and his eager new protégé lobby boy Zero. M. Gustave takes a liking to the young man and attempts to groom him into his ideal of the perfect hotel manager.

There are terrific moments of absurdest comedy, taking a stand against the brutish single minded authority of an occupying army, as well as some tender moments and a couple that make you say "eewww." The film is liberally sprinkled with unexpected cameo appearances (look for William Dafoe's skull rings).

The cinematography has a extremely rich look as well as some goofy, yet charming special effects.

I highly recommend this movie, see it on the big screen.

The film starts off strong with a cleaver escapade, then a false teaser about the driver's main profession, but then the story starts to drag. There are long brooding scenes then moments of Sam Peckinpah style violence.

The main character doesn't have much emotional range, perhaps this is done as a means to justify and explain his contemplative nature. The effect however loses something as it gives the character a somewhat flat performance. Given that The Driver character is initially set up as a clever get-away driver for hire, as the story progresses it doesn't make much sense that he would risk everything to help out some ex con who he barely knows and in whom he has no vested interest.

It's not the worst movie that I've ever sat through, but is surprises me that it was rated as highly as it was.

I'm really very surprised at the number of good reviews. I just left the theater having seen this with a group of friends. One of those in the group walked out and exchanged his ticket for another film.

What I did like: Cate Blanchett - she was excellent. The supporting cast - all very good actors. Good job all around. The cast is the only reason I gave this a rating of 2 and not 1.

The story was weak. It was a watered down version of Street Car Named Desire without any classic dramatic moments. Sort of a Blanche DuBois meets Bernie Madoff movie. For Woody Allen the dialog was unusually not clever. The characters didn't evoke any empathy. When you learn that one of the characters died you simply don't care. Throughout the entire movie no matter what happens you have no stake in the characters and no sympathy for their poor decisions.

Sorry Woody, this wasn't your best work.

I have an awesome sense of humor. And, I know the difference between what is good and what is not. Tosh.o is very simply a lousy, derivative television program. I checked out the program because it had good reviews and was completely disappointed. Clearly the good reviews were some kind of horrible joke.

The Tosh.o show basically plays internet videos with the Tosh character adding snide commentary very much like the "America's Funniest Home Video" show does with home movie clips.

Since the internet and content is available to anyone with a computer there really is no relevance to the Tosh.o show. Anyone can find the videos and watch them at home and draw their own conclusions. The side commentary about the videos in the Tosh.o show is insipid and pedestrian, there is no value, no content, and it doesn't add to the viewing experience and to top it all off it simply isn't funny.

No one whose mind is functioning at a reasonable level should ever watch the show and it should be canceled swiftly and speedily.

Another failed attempt by Fox to fill the cursed half-hour-after-The-Simpsons time slot. The animation is uninteresting, the jokes predictable and pedestrian, the plot line weak --Premier show was about possible problems with health inspector who happened to be an ex boyfriend of Bobs wife. Seen this before in several movies and other shows.

There was an itchy crotch joke. Sort of the same thing as fart and booger jokes isn't it? Oh yes, come to think of it there was a fart joke involving the megaphone.

The best thing about the show is that it frees up 30 minutes on Sunday nights to wash the dishes or vacuum the house.

I was less impressed with this film than the reviews and awards led me to believe. The film follows the seasonal transition of 16 year old Juno's pregnancy. Juno is a smug pseudo sophisticate teenager typical of suburban girls of a certain age who have discovered their sexuality and now consider themselves "worldly". My impression was that the parents were more together than the teen daughter (see line: "Do you think that this was Bleeker's idea?"). Although Juno was a nice "slice of life" film I didn't really see that it made a point. There was no moment of overcoming an obstacle other than the pregnancy itself – there was no "there" there.