Reviews

I'm pretty even-keeled with most movies; even if I don't really like it, I'll probably still give it a 5- or 4-star rating. But this thing ... so many "why" questions here. Did we really need this cute-looking raunch-fest? The only saving grace for the lack of story and character here is the voice-acting by Foxx and Ferrell and others. Obviously they do well, but otherwise I found myself regretting the money and the time I was investing in an unfunny and often offensive movie. I hope its box office failure is a wake-up call to the producers that the market for this kind of drek is pretty narrow. Looking forward to seeing a reduction in advertisements for it now. At least the popcorn was good.

It's very easy to watch this and remark how crude this series is -- seriously, it's like they cannot not make a vulgar joke at every opportunity. I had to remind myself that the original Brooks movie was full of this stuff too, although this series just makes it seem so much apparent and in-your-face.

Apart from this crudity, however, the series seems to have lost some of the charm that made at least of few of the gags in the movie worthwhile. I'm not sure which writer was responsible for what here, but I generally tolerated scenes with Barinholtz more than the ones with Kroll, and the concept of a 70s TV show with Sykes was at least unique to have some interest.

One particular joke kind of encapsulated the unfunny feeling of the series for me -- Galileo ends his little talk by saying love and "pisa ......... the leaning tower." Are we really that stupid as an audience not to get the "Pisa" connection? And then to repeat this same joke again? This is just one of hundreds of 2x4 jokes throughout the series. On top of this hamhandedness, many of the jokes are going to be outdated very quickly. References to things currently in the news in 2023 are going to be old within a year.

Brooks' "History of World Part I" was not that great of a movie in the first place, but at least it recognized that the off-color jokes were playful and that comedic timing is generally required for laughs. This "Part II" doesn't seem playful, and in some cases even mean-spirited, and generally an example of following the format without following the spirit.

I wish I could unwatch this now. The one or two jokes that worked did not make the whole series worth watching.

It looks like I'm not the only one who was disappointed with this movie ... what a major letdown. Probably my personal biggest movie downer since The Dark Tower. In this case, the action sequences were generic (could have happened in Bourne or Marvel or Bond), the camera work was self-absorbed (e.g., let's get a great color shot without regard to story or other composition), and the story. What a weird mix of boring moments and unearned surprises.

For me, it boils down to a character suddenly and inexplicably gaining superpowers toward the end of the film; bad enough itself for poor storytelling and character development, but then not really doing anything with those powers? Sudden "plot twist" (if you can call it that) with no payoff. The movie is full of these.

The actors do a pretty good job (although the Bugs actor could open her mouth a bit more to avoid a near-mumble), and some of the shots were genuinely impressive. But that's not enough to get around a ridiculous central plot that never quite lands.

One more piece of evidence here -- maybe I'm sheltered, but I have never heard a live audience react so negatively to a movie before. Plenty of pointed comments aimed at the screen. Lots of disappointment to go around.

The movie had so much potential but They tried to be too clever for their own good.

Well, this was ... interesting. None of us knew exactly what to think about this short film. On one hand, the animation and artwork and sound design were all on point, but the trajectory of the storyline was perplexing and disturbing. If I recommend this to any of my friends, it will be along the lines of "You won't believe what they did in this video!" and not for other qualities I might normally make recommendations on. When all is said and done, though, I did learn that sheep are not that smart, so there's that.

With names like Jolie, Weber, Hoult, Gillen, and Perry, I was expecting a lot more from this ... this ... movie? To be sure, the acting itself wasn't bad (and in the case of a central actor -- Finn Little -- pretty outstanding), but otherwise this was about as cliched and sophomoric as one might expect from a film school final project.

One early scene, I think, captures many of the problems with the movie. As we see Jolie and her firefighter cohorts watching a new recruit swearing-in ceremony (and why were they watching it?), we were supposed to gain some empathy for these rough-and-tough characters. Instead it came off more like a group of middle-school boys trying to act tough and show off their newly found swear words. And that pseudo-heckling of the recruits was the end of the camaraderie establishment of these firefighters. There was a later strange empathetic phone call from one of them, but since they never showed him, it came off more like a benevolent stranger giving good advice. Anyway, I think they missed a great opportunity to show why these people who fight forest fires are worthy of our respect, and to utilize them more in the plot.

Overall, it was utterly predictable in plot, and the writing reminded me of George Lucas trying to sound wise and witty but ultimately coming off as cheesy. Cliffhanger with Stallone had roughly the same plot and setting as this movie, but established character and relationships so much better. Can't believe I'm saying this but ... go watch Cliffhanger instead of this weak attempt. You'll have much more fun.

I believe this series is trying to aim for something like "Thoughtful Twilight Zone" or "Cerebral Outer Limits," but I'm not sure it quite gets there. There's lots to like about the show -- much of the acting is top-notch (special nod to Jonathan Pryce, as usual), the cinematography is lush, and it is a breath of fresh air to see a show take its time with character and plot.

However -- and this might seem paradoxical -- perhaps it takes too much time. There are long stretches where the focus seems especially fascinated with the banal, and the conversations can often become stilted and awkward. One might argue that's how people talk in real life, but then we get into the age-old debate about how much art ought to imitate life.

Anyway, the pacing was frequently too slow to justify some of its desired emotional punch. In addition, the motivation for various actions was sometimes enigmatic despite taking an eternity to get to such actions. It's a tricky business to create an angsty atmosphere and to try to have an emotional payoff at the end, and I'm not convinced the show's creators succeeded here.

It's a unique show, and kudos for trying something innovative. I just wish it would have had a little more punch to it.

Short review here, since there are already thousands of others making their voices heard .... In essence, I really liked this movie. It's still not a great movie by any means, but honestly, how many of the nine Skywalker movies have been "great"? I hope that everyone who complains about this movie not living up to the legacy of Star Wars remembers that the legacy has been broken for a long time. This particular movie righted some of the wrongs of The Last Jedi, touched briefly on touchstones of all previous eight movies, and told a pretty good story along the way. In the end, I breathed a sigh of relief that at least this "last" movie wrapped things up fairly well. It's a solid "B" all around, which is what we all needed at this stage in the saga's history.

I like documentaries in general; they provide a look at a slice of reality in a unique way that helps to position thinking, belief, and even action. However, often there's a typical "documentary style" that becomes routine, in which the subject of the film is analyzed for detail and the humanity becomes secondary. Such coldness is not universal, of course, but for my friends who dislike the documentary genre, this style is often what they point to as problematic for them. It's the old "show vs. tell" dynamic at play, and when a documentary only tells, it misses the heart of the issue.

The Fourth World has plenty of heart, and it breaks down this concept of "standard documentary" by detailing the lives of specific individuals within each of the three communities. If the goal is to make this "fourth world" of poverty and slum living real and relatable to viewers in the "first world," this film does so quite effectively. Instead of showing the poverty of Guatemala's slums via architecture, dirt, tattered clothing, and an objective eye, this film takes us through the life of one courageous woman who faces multiple hurdles in life and faith. Without such a direct, focused, relatable person at the heart of the story, talking about slums becomes only a mildly interesting academic exercise.

The film handles other slums around the world in similar fashion, and no viewer can remain unmoved by the plight and the success of the people featured. Full of evocative cinematography, focused storytelling, and strategic character development, this is a great example of a film that models showing instead of just telling. It's a film that can change lives by showing the humanity and reality of other lives.

I had the pleasure of seeing one of the early premieres of this film, and was impressed by the depth of tone, cinematography, sound design, and acting. Since World War I is not the most popular war to portray, especially compared with the Civil War, World War II, and the Vietnam War, just bringing some of the issues of the Great War to light is a worthy achievement in itself. Overall, this is well-made and anyone fond of war films in general will enjoy this film.

It is difficult to review this film effectively, because as I talk about it with others, I often have the caveat of "for a regional film" or "for an indie film." That is, "This is a pretty good movie for a locally produced movie." And it's true. For a movie outside of the mainstream this, again, is very remarkable in many ways. When a comparison to bigger movies begins, though, The Great War suffers in contrast.

Not horribly, mind you, but there were a few things that were especially difficult to ignore. First was some of the dialogue using some war cliches. I don't think it's a spoiler to say that some people die in a war movie; in this case, a character's dying words sometimes seemed verbatim from countless other war movies. I will say that one character's final words did fit in with the movie's theme and character much more effectively.

Another area was simple blocking issues. In our little movie-watching group, one particular scene stood out as an example of this where a character was within talking distance of a group of the enemy ... and the enemy basically just stood there while the character did his thing. There were a few instances of just not blocking out the action in a believable manner. However, there were plenty of other exciting, gripping action sequences that hold their own against other war movies.

The biggest issue for our group was the basic storyline, though. Namely in how similar it was to Saving Private Ryan. Beat for beat, the sequence of events and even character development echoes what happened with Captain Miller as he looked for Private Ryan. Details of setting and specific actions are a bit different, but in effect this is a World War I version of the 1998 blockbuster. I will say, though, that in some ways, The Great War earns its emotional connections more honestly than does Saving Private Ryan.

Overall, this was a good movie, and I don't regret watching it at all. A few flaws here and there ... what movie doesn't? In the end, the message of the brotherhood of arms resonates strongly in this first major effort by this director. He, the crew, and the actors will all be people to watch in the coming years.

Like many other people, I was a bit underwhelmed by this latest Terminator movie, but not to an extreme. It's a well-made movie that keeps better to the tone of Terminator 2 than the intervening three movies did, but does not offer much new material at the same time. In other words, it holds its own but provides nothing new.

I could spend more time reviewing the actual movie, but instead I'd like to do kind of a review of reviews. That is, to look at the movie in light of some common gut reactions I've seen. There is no way that this movie deserves a "1" or "2" or "3" rating, or a "8" or "9" or "10" rating either. It's a decent, albeit cliched film. So when a review such as this one:

One liners, boring villains and no heart. Please just follow the original 2 and stop trying to appeal to families and the LGBT community..... worry about THE TASK REAL FANS. (adenmartinez)

makes huge claims without support, it makes me wonder more about worldview rather than effective critique. Using this particular review as a basis, let me explain.

One Liners -- I imagine the full argument is that Dark Fate has too many one-liners and not enough substantive dialog. Have these people seen Terminator 2? That movie is chock-full of one-liners, and I might suggest that they're delivered in a clunkier style than what Dark Fate does. ("Hasta la vista, Baby," for example.) Terminator 2 was a fun movie, but let's be real -- it had plenty of flaws and limited storytelling itself, and tended to be some of the "preachiest" of all the Terminator movies. Not sure why Dark Fate is singled out to be especially flat in comparison.

Boring Villians -- Yes, true, but not any more so than any of the other movies. T1 and T2 were novel experiences, and all the other movies have tried to recapture that mood and failed. Much better here than in Salvation or Genysis, though, right?

No Heart -- Have to argue here on this one. Dark Fate has plenty of heart. It's just not as overt as in Terminator 2 or as contrived as in Genysis. The actions of Carl and Grace and Sarah are all full of poignancy and meaning, although perhaps a bit too subtle for some people, and perhaps too dependent on knowledge of the other Terminator movies.

Try to Follow the Original Two -- I think it did, although I agree John's character development was an unfortunate decision on the producer's part. Sarah's character fits right in with T1 and T2, and undoes the travesty of T3. And the storyline makes coherent sense, although maybe some of the relabeling of T1 and T2 aspects was too distracting.

Political Correctness -- The only reason people are complaining about the "feminist" Dark Fate is that it has three strong female characters. These characters simply do their job without making social commentary, and don't even have a "Female Hero" scene like Avengers Endgame did. If these three characters had been male, there would have been no argument, right? So simply having female characters is now somehow "liberal"? I just don't understand the logic.

I wanted this to be a much better movie, but it just couldn't find the original Terminator atmosphere enough, nor uncover sufficient new territory. It landed in a limbo of concept and timing, and will now be regarded as the biggest Terminator failure. Which is unfortunate because it's not a terrible film, and at least better than #3-5, and brings back the real Sarah Connor. I had fun watching it, but still wish there was a better follow-up to the original two movies.

I was pleasantly surprised to discover this movie on Hulu a few night ago, and since Much Ado About Nothing is one of my favorite Shakespeare plays, I was eager to dive in.

For the most part, it doesn't disappoint. Whedon, as usual, has a good eye for mood and for how dialog impacts action. The visual of the "mourners" coming down the hillside with candles was in itself an amazing feat of cinematography and setting, for example. The acting was superb as well, and in general this modern translation of the play captures its essence and impact.

Some specifics for me:

1) The actress playing Beatrice -- amazing job. Hate to say this, but I think she may have done a better job of interpreting the role than Emma Thompson in many ways. Very believable incarnation, and this helped to make the humor of her biting wit more comprehensible.

2) The backstory -- Not that every little piece has to be specifically addressed, but I didn't quite get what Don Pedro was the "prince" of. Not sure if he and his "soldiers" were Mafia, or actual royalty, or what, but that lack of clarity seemed to hurt the credibility a bit.

3) The actor playing Benedick -- I've seen him before in other things, and he's generally good, but I don't think this was the role for him. As much as Beatrice sold her role to the audience, Benedick did not, especially in the dramatic scenes. He was okay in the purely comedic scenes, granted, but for me and others, his lack of "presence" hurt the relationship between him and Beatrice. Benedick is a difficult role, and perhaps another Whedon associate could have done it more justice. Tudyk, perhaps? Or put Fillion there instead of Dogberry?

4) General interpretation -- Lots of little things throughout to really help make the action and the words clear, or perhaps to put a little different twist to things. When Claudio sees Hero faint, for example, he instinctively starts to go to her but is restrained by Pedro; nice touch. The music is fun, and I'm going now to find this version of "Hey, Nonny, Nonny." Not quite sure why black and white was chosen, but no complaints; it adds some "classiness" to this movie. Acting in general was good -- Don John, Don Pedro, Leonato, Claudio, Ursula -- nearly everyone gave Branaugh's version a run for its money.

5) Diversity -- Not sure why this was so very, very white. I think there is a danger in diversity for diversity's sake, but no major roles in other ethnicities at all?

6) Dogberry -- It's going to be difficult for anyone to top Michael Keaton's take on Dogberry, but Nathan Fillion does a pretty good job here. I think one weakness is that somone (Whedon?) decided that Dogberry ought to have some credibility, so Fillion had to navigate tricky waters with the character. Not sure it completely worked, but Fillion did what he could with what he was given.

All in all, a fun rendition of a great play. I enjoyed the risks Whedon took, and the overall feeling of "a party gone wrong and then put right again."

I wish I could give this movie 10 stars -- there's a lot to like here. Some of the camera work is incredible, the premise is outstanding, and -- of course -- little Pihu is completely captivating. Seriously, I don't know when any other film has made me so anxious, so concerned with the welfare of the characters on the screen. Wanna-be thrillers, take note -- to create authentic tension, make sure we care about the character in the first place. On a minor note, other movies could also learn a lot about how to incorporate credits into the main plot from this film; very nicely and seamlessly done here.

As others have noted, though, the pacing in the second half is a bit off. As much as I was terrified for Pihu, there's only so much you can do with that. I think by trimming this down by 10 minutes or so, that would have helped with attention and focus. I also found the tone of the last two minutes to be a bit ... I don't know ... anti-climactic? Jarring? It just didn't seem to fit the tone of the rest of the film. There were also a couple of moments of continuity problems; nothing huge, but a bit distracting.

But, overall, kudos to the directors and producers and actors -- the mother should get some sort of award for not breaking character, by the way. And, above all, little Pihu now has my heart. All the best to you in whatever you do with your life!

First of all, I will admit that this is a gorgeous production. The sets, the puppets, the cinematography ... everything looks and sounds great. And I appreciate the winsomeness of it all as well; really, what's not to like?

I have to confess a bit shamefacedly that I was simply bored by this show. I lasted about 30 minutes into Episode 1 before I fell asleep -- which hardly ever happens.

Who knows? Maybe I was especially tired or something, and maybe when (if?) I try again I'll be more engaged. But if I had to put a finger on why this just didn't grab me, I might suggest that it tries to create emotional connections with characters that haven't earned it yet. We see a romance in the first half and it's cute as all get-out, but I don't know these two well enough to really care at all by this point. We see a character suddenly get attacked by a creature. It's supposed to be abnormal behavior for the creature, but the setup and follow-through are too brief to really feel for the character's bewilderment. Even the most interesting of the three heroes' storylines (the princess and her introduction to the Skeksis) rushed things a bit.

I had a similar complaint about The Force Awakens -- Why should we care what happens to characters like Snoke or Holdo or DJ when we've been given very little investment time with them? Without effective characterization, even the slickest-looking production ultimately will fade into obscurity. My prediction is that as much as many people like this series, they won't remember or recall it much -- if at all -- in the coming years.