Reviews

At the risk of being accused of understatement, "Sisu" does have a few credibility problems. Plot holes? Swiss cheese does come to mind. However, we watch documentaries to be informed and movies to be entertained. This movie must be taken for what it is. But what is it? I don't think it fits neatly into any genre. As a war movie it comes with more than a hint of the spoof, even a comedic turn with a splash of magic realism. It is beautifully filmed and well-acted. I've watched it twice and enjoyed it more the second time because I knew what I was going to get. I'm scoring it 8 out of 10. My advice: Put aside all thoughts of credibility problems and Swiss cheese, grab a beer and some pizza, sit back and be entertained.

I'm a science fiction fan and I particularly love the time travel genre. So as soon as I heard about this movie I put on my list and was even keener to see it once it was slated for the Oscars. Talk about disappointment! How did such a B grade effort get seven Oscars, including Best Picture? The acting was okay, but nothing special. The plot was very ordinary and once you were told what it was about there was simply more of the same with a rather weak attempt at some sort of moral lesson at the end.

Every now and again we see a movie that must've had some sort of 'woke' boost, like 2016's "La La Land" (still sporting an 8 on IMDB - amazing). I believe "EEAAO" is another example of the Emperor's new clothes. I am so angered by the thought that I could have used the two hours to watch something else.

Oh, come on, come on! A litany of woes, misery and sad memories does not a story make. No story, no real action, no character growth, no revelations and only a minor resolution - boring. Me thinks this is another example of The Emperor's New Clothes (like the critically acclaimed but extremely poor "La La Land"). Frances McDormand is a topflight actor (I try to see everything she does) but this was nowhere near a star turn (almost any actor can do a 'sad stare'). If you want to see Frances at the height of her considerable powers watch "Fargo" or "Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri" (with "Three Billboards" you get the bonus of seeing Sam Rockwell put in a fantastic performance). Sorry, this movie is a waste of time.

This movie didn't quite work for me. Jodie Foster, usually excellent, seemed somehow misplaced and so did Jeff Goldblum. I didn't notice any real character growth anywhere. The main plot twist was 'thin' at best. And of course we had to be subjected to the usual Hollywood anti-capitalist meme. With the level of availability these days I'm sure there is a much better way to spend your entertainment time. On my 0 to 9 scale I can only go a 5. Sorry Jodie.

"Deadwood" has been mentioned several times in the reviews but I would add: This is "Deadwood" without the constant, overpowering foul language (my wife and I had to walk away from what I know is an excellent series. We aren't prudes; we watched all of "The Sopranos" with its 'normal' level of swearing. I don't believe stories suffer when the swearing is muted. Take "Breaking Bad" for instance).

I didn't see the story telling as slow but some of the scenes could have been edited a little. I saw no bad acting and Jeff Daniels was brilliant; he 'owned' every scene he was in. Purists will see some plot holes and there were credibility problems, particularly in battle scenes - lots of breaking cover unnecessarily - but we see that in so many movies. You have to give the writers some leeway when they are trying to tell a story. Given that this isn't a multi-season show (just seven episodes), I recommend giving it a watch - particularly if you've been hanging out for some western action. On my 0 to 9 scale, I've given it a 7.

Yes, yes, congratulations Macon Blair. Anyone who enjoyed "Blue Ruin" and "Green Room" has to give Macon's first offering as writer and director a go. "I Don't Feel ..." is different, weird and wacky, a wonderful black comedy, but for all that Macon makes it move forward rationally, credibly. You don't know what's going to happen but when it does it fits, seems natural, but let me add, certainly not boring. The opening scenes could have been truncated a little (I don't know if you read these crits Macon, but that's my opinion for what it's worth). In fact my wife, not knowing anything about the development of the story, said: "I'll give this just another five minutes." She was thinking: This looks like one of the indie films that is entirely made up of introspection and navel gazing. So, if you think it's a little slow at first, give it time. My wife ended up thinking it was a great movie. And so do I. I hope we see a lot more of Macon Blair and I hope he doesn't get seduced by Hollywood and falls into their formula & PC traps. On my 0 to 9 scale an 8.

I watched this movie because I so enjoyed Jeremy Saulnier's "Blue Ruin" in which I thought all the characters were 'real' people and the action believable. If you want a brief respite from Hollywood's high-dollar, high-tech gloss then you will probably enjoy this depiction of a nitty gritty, down and dirty, all out, no holds barred fight for survival. Set aside a couple of hours and give this movie a watch. The acting was good, particularly from Patrick Stewart whose appearance in this Indie effort lent it some Hollywood 'depth'. The movie would have been just fine without him, but it was good to see him playing a cool part in a low budget show. Okay, there were a couple of 'oh-I-wish-I'd-had-my-eyes-closed-when-that-happened' moments but nothing too far out. As in "Blue Ruin", all the characters had a 'real people' feel. Highly recommended - by me anyway. On my 0 to 9 scale an 8.

I read the book 10 years ago. I've read most of Tim Winton's work and I must confess to always ending up a little disappointed because I'm always looking for another "Cloudstreet"; a work of genius I've read three times. (the three-part TV mini-series is worth a look as well). But back to "Breath". The book opens with an horrific scene which gives meaning to the title. The movie does not. After the opening scene in the book the story presses on with purpose. The movie does not. And nothing in the movie really does give meaning to the title. I found it kind of directionless and ultimately unsatisfying. Tim Winton was involved with the screen play - I think he wasn't paying attention. The surfing scenes were well done but nothing you can't see on YouTube. I was really looking forward to seeing this movie, but I can't give it a high score. 4 out of 10. Wait for the DVD.

Most movies fit into a genre and follow a formula. In my opinion "Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri" defies classification. If you are hungry for something which is 'from' Hollywood but not 'of' Hollywood, then go see this movie. Okay, there are some plot holes and few times when you might find yourself saying, "Oh really !!". But, man of man, this movie is entertaining. The story line is totally unpredictable. I understand Francis McDormand is married to one of the Coen brothers and the flavour of the movie makes me suspect her husband and brother-in-law were sending a few suggestion notes in through the back door.

The production standards are good, much of the dialogue is brilliant, and the acting is fabulous (great soundtrack as well). Francis has to be one of Hollywood's top players and Sam Rockwell was simply brilliant. Don't be surprised if he gets nominated for his performance. He has been on my A list since I first noticed him in "The Green Mile" way back in 1999, and since then, with pieces like "Matchstick Men" and "The Way Way Back", he has never disappointed. Woody Harrelson has come a long way since "Cheers" and has matured into a great character actor.

Some contributors here have slammed this movie, and I can see why - it is not without some faults, but "Three Billboards" really is something different. Do yourself a favour, go see it and make up your own mind. But, if you are going to get bent out of shape by questions of racism and political correctness, like some reviewers, then don't bother.

I'm forgiving the plot holes and awarding a 9.

Come on people, step back a bit and get some perspective on this show – put aside the Hollywood hype. The story here – trying to make it big in LA – has been done a million times and this attempt failed to show us anything new. I respect Ryan Gosling as an actor; I think he has great range and has shown this in many vastly differing roles (Drive, The Big Short, Crazy Stupid Love, The Place Beyond the Pines, Gangster Squad, Lars and the Real Girl, Fracture), but he is not a song and dance man. Emma Stone is a competent actor; I've never seen her do anything badly, but nothing that would promote her to my A list, and she should leave song and dance alone as well. Even the fantasy scenes were nothing new or special. I thought the ending was something new and very well done, but that's about it. The story, boring and ordinary, was presented at a snail's pace (I overheard someone near me, in a packed theater by the way, say, "Oh, come on, get on with it.")

If you want to see a real musical, dig through your old DVDs for "Cabaret" and "Sweet Charity", both musicals that owe nothing to anything that came before and stand as living tributes to the genius of Bob Fosse.

I'm not listening to the Hollywood hype and marking this at a 3 (barely worth watching on DVD).

Oh why, why, why, why, do they shoot a whole movie using hand held cameras apparently manned by cameramen with Parkinson's disease? In some action scenes the camera moved so much you couldn't actually see what was happening. Even when they zoomed in on a phone expecting the audience to read the displayed message they had the phone jump around on the screen. Why? The never-stay-still camera work made this movie almost unwatchable. The plot was ordinary and predictable. Never at any time did I feel any tension because the outcome was always known (here they are chasing him again and here he is getting away again). It put me in mind of watching an old James Bond movie but with a lot less character depth and a lot more destruction. There are so many ground breaking movies out there with absorbing plots and characters to spend my time and money on. It's time to introduce something very different into the Bourne franchise or let it die a welcome death. I can't go any higher than a 3.

I use IMDb a lot but for someone who sees around 200 movies a year I have written few reviews but when I do I always write the review before I look at what others have written. Then I look before I post. Now, having seen the slather of 'hateful' reviews I feel I must say more before posting. I think if any other director had made this movie the reviews would have been, in general, somewhat different. We should allow Quentin to make a non-Tarantino movie once in a while.

This is what I want to say: In this latest offering from Quentin Tarantino I give Quentin 10/10 for story telling. No standard formulas for our Quentin; he unlearned them a long way back. For the movie as a whole I was hanging back from a 10 because a section of exposition in the early going was somewhat drawn out, a little slow, verging on becoming static (here I agree with the 'slow' verdicts). However the overall atmospherics, the dialogue, the directing, the camera work settled into a satisfying pace and I, for one, failed to pick the twists and turns and didn't find myself becoming bored at any point even though most of the movie was set in one room; kind of like a stage play, but that didn't bother me (I had the same sense of being trapped by the storm as the characters did). I do agree it could have been shortened a little. But, overall, I enjoyed the movie and so did my wife. When it was over I figured QT deserved the extra point for doing his civic duty, economy wise, by keeping the fake blood manufacturers in business. I suspect this is one of those movies that gets panned initially but 'matures' with reflection. Probably not quite another "Django Unchained" - but 10 out of 10 from me.

Okay, I'll say it. I agree with the reviewers here who thought this movie was rubbish and I think those who say it was great are in the 'emperor's new clothes' arena (If you fail to 'get it' then you are intellectually inferior). In science fiction you can go anywhere and do anything (that's the beauty of the genre) as long as you stay within the confines of the premise, the 'logic' of the premise driving the story, and the 'rules' set down. This movie stayed in the premise but the audience was never told why the premise existed in the first place, why certain "rules" were instigated and why most of the things that happened happened. Much of what turned up on the screen seems to have come from the writer's random thoughts with no real chance for the audience to get involved in the story and therefore to feel any empathy for the characters. Makes for very poor story telling. I was bored and disappointed. And I've seen Colin Farrell do much better than this (I hope he takes the weight off – the few extra pounds have made him look very ordinary). 2 out of 10 for me.

An extremely good effort. Given that this production did not have a Hollywood blockbuster budget it has to be given top marks. When I saw the previews with the 'back home' flashbacks I was worried that this would be one of those war movies where there are just flashes of action interspersed among long 'back in Australia' scenes. My fears were unfounded – back home scenes were just a few minutes at a time and did bring meaning to the story. The action was intense and brutal and very convincing. At least one critique here on IMDb said the acting was poor. I disagree. Kodi Smit-McPhee was the perfect boy soldier. He certainly didn't overact; in fact his performance was somewhat subdued (when Robert DeNiro or Al Pacino do this we call it genius acting). And I couldn't fault any of the other actors either. This show – although it is a mini-series – has made it into my top ten war movies, right alongside "Saving Private Ryan", "A Bridge Too Far", "Generation War", "Black Book", "Stalingard" and "Full Metal Jacket". On a scale of 0 to 9 I give it a 9.

Unlike Johnny Depp' efforts at 'camping it up' in the Pirate movies where he absolutely nailed it, his attempt here just missed the mark. He gave us such great performances in "The Lone Ranger", "Dark Shadows" and "Alice in Wonderland" just to mention a few. But with this he put me in mind of a small-town theatre company actor having a bash at an upper crust English accent. I was disappointed because I really like Johnny (he is on my A list). Ewan McGregor and Gwyneth Paltrow's efforts were good and did not make me cringe, but overall, except for a few chuckles here and there, the whole movie was like some low-grade romp from the 1960s. I will give Johnny another chance but I'm sorry I wasted my money on this one. I'll go 5 out of 10.