Reviews

This movie isn't one fight scene after another, nor is it so crammed with gee-whiz SFX that it has little else to recommend it. I sometimes get the feeling that's all some superhero fanpeople are looking for. There's also no overly-complicated back stories and tangled plot lines the viewer must understand in order to enjoy the film. (Are you listening, Marvel?) In fact, this movie is very enjoyable on a lot of levels. The plot, while familiar in many ways, is relatable. Billy Batson is a kid who's been through too many foster homes, has abandonment issues, and a distrust of authority that's spot-on for many kids "in the system." These young people often develop a snarky, seen-it-all shell as protection from more hurt, and Billy demonstrates this very well.

His foster brother, roomie, and ultimate best friend is Freddy, who's familiar with all the superhero tropes, and ends up as the most valuable resource Billy has, once he's invested with superpowers.

Some have said his discovery of his powers isn't funny. My husband and I thought it was hilarious. In this "everything online" age, the boys' experimentation with what Shazam can do is completely believable, and very funny. The scene in the convenience store is precisely what a 15-year-old boy would do if he suddenly finds he's bulletproof and looks 25.

Although there is a serious side, there's a joy in this movie that's completely missing from most of the Marvel or other more recent superhero flicks. There's comedy and there's joy, and this movie captures both very well.

The storyline of caring, loving foster parents is refreshing, and the scenes where Billy is at home break up the action sequences nicely, giving the viewer a chance to breathe.

Overall, the PG-13 rating is appropriate, since there is some violence that may bother younger viewers. But the plot putting emphasis on humans, not merely characters, was a real change of pace for the genre, and a good one. The acting was good, SFX were tip-top, and overall, this was just a fun movie. Looking forward to the sequel.

In the Netflix series "Five Came Back," top Hollywood directors examine the effects World War II had five of the top directors of the time. William Wyler, who directed this film, is one of them.

No less an iconic director than Stephen Spielberg analyzes Wyler's career, his work during WWII, and this film in particular, which snagged seven Academy Awards, including Best Picture, and Best Supporting Actor for Harold Russell, who lost both hands in a training accident during the war.

The plot, which covers three servicemen returning home to their lives and families, is a familiar one, but Wyler insists on showing the American public that not every returning veteran slides right back into peacetime civilian life. The children have grown up, the wife isn't interested in her husband unless he's the romantic Flyboy, and the sailor without hands ponders on whether his girl will still love him and want to be with him in his changed condition.

Spielberg said he watches this movie at least once a year, and always tries to see it with someone who hasn't seen it before, because it has such an impact on newbies. He particularly likes (and I agree with him) the scene where former bombardier Dana Andrews is in the field with the junked airplanes and comes up on a B-17, which is the plane he served on. The cinematography is beyond fantastic, and the score meets the challenge with equal effectiveness.

Every performance is spot-on, and the screenplay is tight and effective.

I mean, if Spielberg considers this one of the finest American movies ever made, how can you argue? It's as compelling and effective now as it was in 1946. If you get the opportunity, see this film. It's worth your time.

Visually, this movie was 100% Baz Luhrman, which is not necessarily a bad thing. It certainly worked in "Moulin Rouge." It was visually stunning, and Austin Butler did do a great job of bringing this version of Elvis to life. But that's about where the positives end.

Tom Hanks is downright creepy as Col. Parker, which may have been the point, but it doesn't make for a good movie-watching experience.

The only person I gave two cents for by the end of the movie was Priscilla. No one else was remotely likable, including Elvis himself. That's a tremendous disservice to the man, since he was known in the West Tennessee/North Mississippi/North Alabama area as a kind and generous person. The tales of him giving a car or valuable piece of jewelry to someone in need are legion. But in this movie, Elvis is all about Elvis, and that's the end of it. He was no angel, and had his share of demons, certainly, but in this movie, he has no redeeming characteristics, except for a great voice and good looks.

His mother, Gladys, comes off looking like a shrill, drunk weirdo. Dad Vernon is just a grifter who took shameful advantage of his son (which may have a great deal of truth in it).

The story is piecemeal and hard to follow, the scene cuts are kooky, and the soundtrack, by and large, is terribly disappointing. It's all surface level, and feels like it should be set in some kind of replica Earth. The Australian locations, while beautiful, don't feel like the Southeastern US. I live here, so I know. It's just a shallow, strange movie that's too odd for me to connect with. All hat and no cattle. A disappointment all the way around.

I guess one reason I love this movie is because it doesn't pretend to be anything more than it is. It doesn't aspire to great movie-making. It was just supposed to be 90 minutes of entertainment on the big screen, and it's still entertaining. Take your brain off for a while and have fun with it.

There are hilarious lines, some funny pratfalls and even a bit of home-grown wisdom: "How ignorant you are depends a lot on which part of the United States you're standing on." Or something like that. I get a kick out of watching the convoy/rocking-chair scene every time. Makes me wonder how in the world they got around Birmingham, but that's suspension of disbelief for you. LOL.

Wish director Hal Needham had remembered that Alabama State Troopers drive Fords, not Pontiacs, but that's a small thing. My dad remarked on it every time, though.

It's just cornball entertainment, rare enough these days. Pop some popcorn and have a blast watching it.

This movie was only a name to me until I saw it last year. Immediately, I was riveted by everything about it. I've always been a casual fan of The Band, and of Levon Helm in particular. However, I'd never been bowled over by Bob Dylan, except as a songwriter, so much of The Band's work remained unknown to me as well. I wouldn't say I've become a rabid fan, but I am much more interested in their work, now.

It's a Scorsese film--how could it not be beautifully photographed, but Scorsese managed a difficult feat: he keeps himself out of the movie, except as interviewer during those sequences. This is not really Scorese's vision of a rock concert. It happened mostly organically, certainly with mistakes, gaffes and grit. This is part of its charm.

There are better singers than the guys in The Band, but few better musicians. This can be illustrated with Robbie Robertson in the Clapton song: Clapton's guitar strap comes off and Robertson, with one beat, picks right up on the solo. It looked planned, but wasn't. Joni Mitchell was notoriously hard to back up, due to her original guitar tuning, and ragged song phrasing, but bassist Rick Danko fills in every space with intricate bass figuring.

Perhaps we have become too accustomed to the overwrought, over-hyped, overproduced, overexposed, shiny gack that passes for popular music to appreciate the raw, the imperfect, the sheer humanness of this music. Scorsese shows it all. The guys in The Band were largely worn out and sometimes strung out in the interviews. They are tired, scrawny, empty-eyed from the excesses of the road. Rick Danko is hovering on the ragged edge, as his band is dissolved, and he says his goal is to "keep busy." Richard Manuel looks lost as he says "I just want to break even." These are two musicians who desperately needed the music, but who were murdered by the road. We see their bleak destinies in their eyes in this film.

It is bittersweet certainly, but also a moment in time, crystallized into something great by the music, the love of friends, the willingness of the director to simply stand back and allow the music to happen. It also reminds us what good music used to sound like and makes me wish could exist again.

I must agree with Dr RJP in his/her assessment of this movie, especially with the comment that the characters speak the nautical language so easily. I was reminded of the language of the novel "Mutiny on the Bounty," which also evokes the same basic era. Our spoken language has changed greatly since then, but these actors deliver their dialogue with native grace and flair.

This is a huge movie in scope and sweep, but has actors with sufficient screen presence to handle it. Russell Crowe can command a screen. I don't know if I would compare him to Erroll Flynn--perhaps more with Clark Gable, as in his role as Fletcher Christian in "Mutiny on the Bounty." Flynn's characters were more suave, more refined than the tough seaman Jack Aubrey. Actually, Crowe reminds me of Robert Mitchum in his acting style: both men's men, a little rough on the edges, not afraid of roles that challenged them.

The whole "feel" of the movie is authentic, and hearing some of the old sea chanties was wonderful. I could smell the saltwater above, the tar and gunpowder and humanity below. I could feel the wind blowing across the deck.

I enjoyed this movie from beginning to end, and I feel this movie and "Hidalgo" are Hollywood at its very best. The flaws were minor compared to my total enjoyment of the movie.