Reviews

I'm sorry, but I loved this movie. After reading all the whining, negative reviews, I was blown away by how enjoyable it was. A lot of people seemed to take offense that Natasha Romanoff was too tough, too powerful . Not me. That's why I pay money to go watch movies on the big screen--to be wowed, to be surprised, to watch the heros of the show kick serious butt. (If a favorite sports team has won 12 games in a row do fans whine that they're TOO GOOD, and they wish they would lose a few to make it more interesting? Hell no. You NEVER hear that. Why should cinematic heros be any different?) Great action, great CGI (mostly), good story, lots of humor, big production values, good acting. Of course it wasn't perfect. Spoiler alert: There was a 15 minute family reunion type event in the middle that was too long and too sappy. If I had known it was coming I could have used it for a bathroom and snack bar break. Other than that, for me it was an awesome movie. 8-1/2 stars out of 10.

PS: I liked Captain Marvel too.

I know this was for charity and they were broadcasting from homes and maybe I should give em a break, but this was awful. Worst sound editing ever. A number of singers, the greats of music, and pros in the business, were drowned out by their own instrumentation. Didnt anybody do mic checks before they were broadcast on all three networks to the world? Was there no feedback from broadcasters like--turn up your mic or sing louder? Also, some of the greatest singers on the planet were off key or exhibited shakey vocals like amateur karaoke night. YouTube vids shot with smartphones by 10 year olds are more professional than this. Part of the problem seemed to be poor song choices. Heartfelt messages from celebs became repetitive and tiresome. We ended up reading, surfing on our phones, and flipping thru channels to find something less cringworthy. The recent and similar country music special was WAY WAY better done. This was a massive waste of talent and resources and an epic fail.

Kind of cute. Kind of funny. Kind of poignant Kind of real in some ways. (Yeah, I know what it's like to stay with someone you're not sure of against your better judgement.) Not sure how long it'll be good for, but I liked the first one. Way better than something like that creepy, awful Long Shot and those ridiculous "reality" shows. Likeable actors. Good family interactions. 7 of 10 for me.

I've been an NCIS fan for 16 years but I had to turn this off after 20 minutes. Writers must have asked their kids' elementary school class to write an episode. Kasie and Jimmy alternately bossing, begging, and mouthing off to 3 trigger happy thrives who are supposedly holding them hostage. I wanted to shoot them myself. Maybe it's time to end this show before it becomes an embarrassment.

First off, I tend to disregard ratings of 10 of 10 (or 1/1) for any show and there are way too many 10/10's for this show for my taste. Like a car salesman trying to convince me a car is a good buy, when it's not. This is a good looking show but seems to have very little substance. Baby Yoda is the most exciting part of the show after 8 eps and my primary feeling is meh. Characters that added a little flavor like Cara Dune or IG-11 are here for a show or 2 and then gone. There's none of the "can't wait to see the next episode" like I got from The Expanse or Firefly or even Humans. If I could only watch either Mandalorian or NBC's Manifest, I would currently have to pick Manifest. The Mandalorian reminds me of that old Woody Allen joke: "This restaurant has terrible food. And in such small portions!" They can barely come up with enough iinteresting ideas for a 30 minute show, plus after 8 episodes one has to wait 10 months for the next season. I suspect that after I've rewatched all my favorite childhood Disney movies and the Marvel movies and a few movies I missed, I'll probably cancel my Disney Plus subscription and sign up for Prime so I can continue The Expanse. The Mandalorian has failed to generate enough interest to make me hang around for what comes next. 6 of 10 for me.

I liked this movie. Of course to be fair I liked T-Salvation and T-Genisys. I think the problem is how you look at these sequels. Some viewers seem to think they ruin the original story line. I view them as bonus movies, extras, side stories branching off the original. Maybe the question is whether when a time line is altered does the old one disappear while the new one continues, or are they both alive and running simultaneously and how do you know which one you'll end up in if you jump time? Furthermore, do you suppose an AI capable of practically destroying the human race and orchestrating the rise of the machine world wouldn't have it's fingers in a whole bunch of different pies? Terminator Dark Fate has all the right Terminator stuff, old and new characters, virtually indestructible terminators, a plethora of cool weapons. action galore, impossible battles, dry wit Arnold, sarcastic Linda, gungho new guy McKenzie, and new reluctant future leader Natalia. Yes if you want your Terminator story to be a single, unchanging reality thru past, present and future, maybe you should skip it. If you can look at it as a new parallel/branching time line to an old familiar story --you might enjoy it. Hey, any Terminator is an improvement over T3. I give it a 7.5 rounded to an 8 out of 10.

This is really annoying. "Faceoff" was a story about guys having their appearance changed to look like someone else, so they could pretend to be them. "Criminal" is about taking the residual memories from a dead guy and putting them in a live guy so they could learn what the dead guy knew and had done. What do these two stories having in common?? Nothing. If you must compare it to another movie, try Source Code (memories of a dead guy put in another deadish guy) or Star Trek Wrath of Kahn (Spock puts part of his conciousness in Bones). People who compare Criminal to Faceoff apparently failed to get the gist of either movie. I really liked Criminal even though I'm not a big fan of in-your-face brutal violence. Costner does a great job of portraying a criminal psychopath who has zero concept of right and wrong. Badguy Jordi Molla and his girlfriend Antje Traueare are psychopaths who want to destroy governments . The supposedly good guy government agents are pretty brutal on their own. It's great fun watching Kevin Costner switch from unbridaled random viciousness to specific viciousness directed against the bad guys. Tommy Lee Jones was a decent, out of his usual character meekish doctor/scientist. Gal Gidot shows that she can do a hell of a lot of acting just by changing her expression. The kid was cute. This movie takes you on a wild ride from the depths of cruelty to the heights of love and caring, with a nice little twist near the end. The biggest downers for me was that Gary Oldman's character was just too repetitiously stupid to be believable and bad guys having no trouble tracking an experienced agent thru a busy crowed city. Other than that 8 of 10.

I think this was a pretty good movie, but as you may have gathered from the title you have to watch pretty closely in order not to miss something. The biggest problem is that the movie jumps around between a number of small groups and individuals on both sides--both resistance fighters and collaborators plus a few assorted political and enforcement persons. In the end I got the gist of the story including a fairly nice twist at the end, but I have a little difficulty sorting out in retrospect, whether some of the minor players died or escaped or why they were there in the first place. If you follow most of the story I think you will appreciate it. If you miss some of the pivot points you'll end up lost and discouraged. By no means should you go to this movie expecting the story to unfold like a straight line action movie. Consider it more of a challenge or a test, than entertainment. The best venue for watching this movie is probably on DVD with a number of mystery loving friends where you can pause the action and ask questions. I give it a 7 out of 10 on first viewing. I might upgrade it after rewatching several times.

Really, can't see what all the whining is about. This was a wonderful movie. Brie Larsen was cute, clever, funny, warm, friendly and kick ass awesome, all at the proper moments. One of the better Marvel Movies for me. Kept waiting for her to become the cold, heartless, threatening woman the viewer reviews are complaining about and it didn't happen. The whole cast, in fact, did an amazing job. If there was a weak moment for me, it was near the end of the movie after her potential powers have been revealed, and the writers, director, whoever tried the amateur gimmick of making her look vulnerable and "at risk" several times--pretty pathetic guys. Can't put the Genie back in the bottle once she's out. Much as I love Gal Gaidot in almost anything, I personally have to give this Captain Marvel a slight edge over Wonder Woman for the favorite female superhero movie (and tied with Alita B A). 8.5 (rounded to a 9) of 10 for the awesome Captain Marvel.

If you want to compare it to Wonder Woman ( and I love Gal Gaidot in almost everything) I would put Captain Marvel slightly ahead, say an 8.5 compared to an 8.

I actually liked it. Sort of a female version of the Mentalist with some spy tech thrown in. I'm a little puzzled why they gave away her reason for being a "traitor" in the trailers. That would have added an extra little twist to the premier. I like Jennifer Carter and appreciate her grim stoic appearance which would have sold the initial idea that she was a heartless traitor. I'm being optimistic and giving it an 8/10 .

After watching the trailers, I was a little concerned that the CGI girl would be a disappointment. If they could do a movie like The Matrix 20 years ago with human actors, surely they could do Alita with humans with todays tech. In the end she was good enough. Her face was pleasant and expressive. She was great in her everyday cyborg body. She was amazing in her silver battle suit. Her abilities were beyond what typical superhero movies promise-- and seldom deliver. Alita is what I so wanted Ready Player One to be and it wasn't even close. The plot was interesting, the characters were engaging. The city was impressive. The CGI action was wonderful. Awesome movie with guts AND heart. 9 of 10 for me.

If I were to review this based on the numerous rave reviews of 8's, 9's and 10's, I would have to say I was disappointed. My biggest beef was that I thought it was slow. It dragged on numerous occasions, mostly during extended conversations. Talk, talk, talk. It reminded me of some of these user reviews where they turn a 1/2 page review into 3 pages--just rambling because they like to hear themselves talk. The script writer(s) must have enjoying hearing themselves talk. Also, I found the storyline based on the psychiatrist's multilevel agenda somewhat unbelievable. The BIG WOW moments came out as small to medium wows. The action sequences were good. McAvoy's performance was amazing. Everyone else did OK. I found this to be a mediocre movie overall--though in all fairness, some of Shyamalan's movies have to be viewed several times to get to the real heart of the message. I would suggest seeing it with low to moderate expectations at best. 6/10 for me.

Wow, I almost let the whiners and amateur critics keep me from seeing this movie. What a terrible mistake that would have been. The bad reviews puzzle me, because I was never bored, the action was virtually not stop, just varied in intensity. I thought the chemistry was great between the leads. I liked and cared greatly for the supporting heroes, and properly despised the villains. The visuals are stunning, the score is beautiful, the CGI is solid, the world building is imaginative. It has stylish and retro-futuristic elements similar to Jupiter Ascending, Mad Max (the new one), Elysium and The Great Wall, but a way better story than any of those, imo. It's a steampunk smorgasbord. The storyline is fairly simple and straight forward with a few gentle twists and surprises and none of that getting lost in it's own cleverness. A Star Wars ripoff? Maybe one scene near the end was arguably similar. On the positive side I don't think managing to evoke a similar swashbuckling feeling of fun, adventure, heroism, and kinship throughout the movie can be called a ripoff, but just good movie making. I give it a 9/10 and would add a half if I could.

I thought it was a actually good movie-- probably more likable to me than Rogue One. Good visuals, likable characters, decently paced action, good story that fit fairly well into what we know about Han's past. The problem for me was: it wasn't Han Solo. The new Han want-a-be was too cheerful, too friendly too short, too high voiced. If I was going to do a Han Solo movie I would scour the universe for Harrison Ford look alikes and then cull those for the closest to that deep voice and signature scowl. It was the right universe, just not the right guy to convince me we were seeing the young Han Solo. If Star Trek could find seven young actors who look, act, sound, and have creepily similar mannerisms to the old crew, couldn't these guys manage one Han Solo?) I give it an 8/10 for a decent Star Wars story. Nothing for a believable Solo.

Yes, I read the reviews saying, if you read the book don't go see the movie. But I've been waiting for this movie for 6 years--I had to go see it. And yes I found it disappointing. They changed the story a lot. They left out a lot of the actual challenges that it took to find and win a key. They eliminated a good bit of the clever maneuvering it took to outwit the evil corporate bullies. They ignored most of the nostalgia that made the book so charming. (Yes I owned an Atari 2600, a Commodore computer, and played the arcade games and pinball machines). The question that always bothers me is: if someone wrote a book that, out of thousands published, had just the right ingredients to be a best seller--why would you take the risk of changing it? What difference will it make to the people who haven't read it? None. what difference will it make to the millions of people who read and fell in love with the book, a lot. Where I would have probably gone back and seen the movie 2 or 3 times in the theater in both standard and 3D, I won't waste my time and money now. Where I would have bought the movie on DVD or Bluray to have and to keep, I won't do that either. (I may rent it eventually just to confirm it really was as disappointing as it felt in the theater). Where I would have given it a high rating and written a positive review and urged people to go see it--I won't. If millions of book fans feel the same way that's potentially a lot of lost revenue. Of course if the movie makes a decent amount of money, it will still be a win for the director and the studio regardless of what it could have been. The book fans are the people who promoted this story to level of being movie worthy. Too bad we got crapped on.

The idea of a story being told by people singing to each other is rather silly on the surface, but it can work amazingly well with beautiful/soulful or catchy music and an engaging story. I watched Les Miserables mostly on the strength of the reviews and found it perfectly awful. The story was so so, the acting was blah, and the singing was cringworthy. Producers of musicals tend to cast singers who can also act to some degree because a "musical" mostly relies on the music. Here we have decent actors who can't sing and consequently seem out of their comfort zone in the acting department as well . Listening to them struggle thru their various songs was more tortuous than watching the terrible injustices their characters were living out in the story. I've seen high school musicals with more impressive talent and with a far more engaging production. A sympathetic 5 out 10 stars for this waste of 2 hours.

This is an awful movie. Why is it getting such positive ratings? I guess some of the other reviewers are right--people are rating their feelings associated with the real event and not this movie itself.

The bombers were portrayed as smart and competent and brave. The cops were portrayed as inexperienced, frightened klutzes.

Except Wahlberg, who strutted and wisecracked uselessly in front of the camera for 2 hours. Lucky you Mark--I like your brother better.

I give a 10/10 to the real people of Boston. I give a 3/10 to this sad, pathetic attempt at making a positive informative (advertised as heroic) movie.

I remember when I walked out of the theater after watching Alien, my stomach hurt from 2 hours of gut wrenching tension and horror. When I walked out of the theater after watching Life, I was wondering if 5 viewers at $3.24 each, who didn't buy popcorn or drinks, would pay for the cost of showing the movie. It really frightens me that if this theater goes out of business I'll have to pay regular admission prices to watch first run movies.

Oh yeah, the movie: Life was a pretty decent looking movie, with realistic CGI and props. Most of the characters were actually fairly engaging and relate-able. But I recognized "scary alien lifeform creature" almost immediately--he's the starfish guy from Spongbob Squarepants in his first real life, big blockbuster, serious sci-fi movie roll. AND because he was inexperienced and only 100% brain and 100% muscle they had to help him out by using the time honored scary movie trick of having his victims do stupid, foolish and illogical things and by letting him defy the laws of physics. Bring your eyeballs and your sympathy, but leave your brains at home. 6 of 10 for spending a lot of money on special effects and cast.

Yeah, their premise for why the Great Wall was built is pretty out there but the action, humor, and production values were pretty amazing. Just the number of extras they used must have been staggering. The mechanized artillery and other weaponry was impressive and they didn't scrimp on the CGI. Matt Damon is still an entertaining lead, and the chemistry between him Tian Jing was good but not overdone. An ambitious project that probably will not pay off but provided an enjoyable "private screening" for me--me being the only one in the theater for that showing. 7+ stars for effort and entertainment.

What? I guess they've lowered the minimum line requirements for reviews as compensation for eliminating the message boards? Maybe they should have just limited the length for the message boards comments. Even though they were often rude and annoying, I still miss them.