Reviews

Very similar story to that perpetual "permanent spot on every top 10 Twilight Zone episode list," Twlight Zone Season 2's "The Invaders." This time Kaitlyn Dever taking on the Agnes Moorehead role. Throw in a little "Invaders of the Body Snatchers," Kim Darby in "Don't Be Afraid of the Dark," and there you have it. It has very appealing humanoid-creature effects and Dever gets to use box cutter, boiling water, a broken mop, a kitchen cabinet door, gasoline, and much more to engage in some entertaining hand-to-hand alien combat. It's diverting ans suspenseful and little gory, Devers is a good actress, and ultimately, it's a nice way to spend a rainy day.

Love Island had a semblance of reality to it in Season 1 & 2. You cared about the contestants and got invested in their lives. Then it got very formulaic although Season 4 picked up a little. Now with Season 5 it is so fake and glossy and performative that the contestants all seem like actors. When all the contestants have whiter teeth than the host, something is amiss.

The elaborate intro with everyone doing their real job and then stripping down to their swim trunks / bikini is so cringey. I'm sure the Nashville nurse-the one who drops the dozens of self-conscious F-bombs within her first hour on television-who lets her critical care patient flatline when she gets the Love Islant text will go over well with her employer.

The conversation level has become even more ludicrous and monosyllabic: "I want a boy...but a man not a boy...do you know what I mean?" & "What's yours names?" the latter being an example of the rare plural form of "your."

Get ready for an assault of outdated text-speak such as "literally," "basically," "like," "omg," "whaaat?" "fire" and "as well."

For a show that always deliberately overused the puerile "boy" and "girl" in an attempt to balance out the central concept of strangers sharing a bed every night and keep it G-rated, the introduction of f-bombs and other expletives and trashy slang does not really work.

A cut above the rest largely due to the writing and depictions of stereotypical generational attributes. X, Y & Z are represented. The tensions-and multiple snarky comments about age-are very entertaining and provide a clue to the plot.

All the actors are into it which also adds to the enjoyment factor. It's a bit on the low pulse side but it is short and does not have an abundance of bad decisions made by characters. Winona is super convincing as "gullible" so it works. It's not too difficult to guess where it's going, but that can be satisfying. Keep in mind, this is not an action movie, more of a "what's going on movie?" There is a satisfactory explanation, although the last few moments are a bit odd.

Well balanced history and overview of Xanax, the pros and the cons. I'm unclear why so many reviewers are angry about this. It in no way villifies benzos or patients. The stories / case studies represented a broad demographic of patients. The clinicians from the mental health community were very careful and succinct in their language. The only segment discussed that did not fare well was the medical community (regarding the patient who was misdiagnosed at Mayo Clinic). It doesnt go terribly deep but it does cover a lot in an hour. I also appreciated the history of anxiety treatment as well as the advertising that was discussed.

Sincere, likable, but oddly low energy reimagining of an extremely high energy moment in time. The ensemble cast is game but the entire enterprise is underproduced, low budget (I kept expecting to see the boom mic make an unscheduled appearance) and lacking versimilitude.

The series is lacking volume, scope, and velocity. There are not nearly enough extras in the big, set piece scenes and the club looks like it was filmed in somebody's basement. The cast never quite gels together yet they're appealing one on one. Nanjiani and Bartlett are very good, but it's not enough to sustain a season.

Ultimately, I wanted Boogie Nights but I got That 70s Show.

You think you know what you're getting into, but then Significant Other takes a turn about 1/3 of the way through and the story goes in a different-and thoroughly enjoyable-direction. Taut (84 minutes), a tight script, two excellent lead actors, and confident direction make this a sleeper-surprise. Plus, for a movie of this genre...everything made sense. You didn't need a lot of exposition because the set up was familiar to any sci fi fan. Instead, the focus was on the characters and an extended game of cat and mouse. There were no moments at all where you thought "how could he/she do that/be so dumb?" Nope. This was lean and intelligent. It also had comedic moments which broke the tension and fit in seamlessly. Extra points for innovative use of a shark.

A slight film which belongs in the festival circuit. Manages to be pretentious while ostensibly skewering the pretentious.

Everyone talk talk talks far too much. The film is slick but seems very dated-chatter about Podcasts, Tinder, SXSW, Opioids-as if the script has been kicking around since 2017. Perhaps it has.

Issa Rae's character should have been a bit part, and probably was written that way prior to casting, but unnecessary scenes have been written to accomodate her. She's good, but superfluous. Ashton Kutcher is in over his head and also gets to talk talk talk.

But the main problem is that BJ Novak is not a leading man. He has limited charisma and it's hard to get Ryan from The Office out of your head when watching him. He should have cast another actor as Ben. He has miscast himself.

However, Texas comes across unscathed. Abilene's family is great-if a bit overpolished-and Boyd Holbrook fits the role well and brings something extra to it.

Surprisingly fun, somewhat because expectations were low. The old formula of "take from the rich (corporate) & give to the poor" gets a new spin. Similar to 1980's "How to Beat the High Cost of Living, as well as "Hustlers" and a little bit of "Catch Me if You Can." The leads (Bell, Howell-Baptiste, & Hauser) elevate the material and also have very good chemistry. It's also pleasantly adult (rated R) without being offensive or smutty. Those who write reviews complaining about casting diversity or female characters having a point of view or male characters being depicted as bufoons should invest in the new iPhone Pro and make their own movies. Ultimately, this was extremely watchable and a fun little ride!

So far, so good. Depends where the story goes. Gets an extra star for being experimental. The "wow" refers to so many reviewers here who seem to be taking the "cliche sitcom" sections literally. So it is "wow," as in "wow, people are really dumb." But that actually demonstrates that TV audiences are so conditioned to half-hour sitcom formats and lame writing that they actually accept that AMC would distribute a lazy sitcom with a laughtrack. (I'm not sure what they think is going on when the tone changes, however.)

My favorite part was when Anna's character sang The Cups Song in the galley of the spacecraft. Seriously, this movie is terrible. Another quickie production doled out to the hungry masses. Overlong. No tension. Insipid dialogue. Let's hope astronauts are not this whiney. Noomi Rapace was probably busy so Toni Collette continued her long strategy of saying 'yes' to every offer, usually to better results. And Anna chirpily delivering lines such as, "Hey, I'm Zoe, I'm a Doctor."

Since everything else has already been said about this lazy, unfunny, cringe-inducing movie...I'll mention one extremely minor detail which can be extrapolated across the entirety of the movie as an indication of how lazy the writing is: William "The Refrigerator" Perry was never, ever referred to as William "The Fridge" Perry, which is exactly what McCarthy says about a third in. Was it just too long to say? 2 stars for the costumes, especially Bobby Cannavale and Pom Klementieff.

Every time Mena Suvari says "baby girl," take a swig of your libation of choice. You will be wasted a third of the way into the movie, which is basically the best way to sit through it. It has some creepy/gross moments, a decent score, and the actors are on board, but you can't cover up the weak story, lame script, and gimmicky direction.

This movie gets a complex balance of themes just right...it's not quite a horror film...far too tongue in cheek and humorous. But the humor is subtle, not in your face. It has some messages but doesn't take itself too seriously. Most of all: the entire cast is extremely committed! Not one phoned in performance. Speaking of the cast, it helps to know the black entertainment industry because a ton of people are in this: where else can you find Blair Underwood, Usher, Laverne Cox, and MC Lyte in small supporting roles? This movie should have you smiling quite a bit...and Vanessa Williams never fails to deliver in her patented Dominique Devereaux attitude...who else can serve up a line like "My Killer Weave Support Group?" Meanwhile, you really don't need to know all but the rudiments of black hair and weaves to get the plot...if you don't: it's a movie in the vein of Death Becomes Her...where vanity comes at a price. Not for nothing, it also gets black 1989 perfectly. The clothes. The music. The conflict between natural and processed hair. The fact that this has such a low rating is incomprehensible to me.

I wish I could leave it at that. Big budget and gorgeous-looking but very almost-Disney television in its attitude and plotting and about 10 years too late (French companies do, in fact, use social media marketing). Meanwhile, the office dynamics seem imagined by a 13 year old and are more similar to those of "Don't Tell Mom the Babysitters Dead" and "Simply Irresistible" than "The Devil Wears Prada." The midwestern moxie and GenZ pluck of Emily are borderline irritating...as is her ignorance of most things French. Ashley Park and the actress playing Sylvie are great. It goes so fast, though, it's hard not to watch. It's like a box of macarons.

Interesting primarily from a marketing perspective. A story about good timing, a tenacious founder, and a chance encounter in Germany with a doll named Lil (sold in service stations and marketed to men!) gives way to a drearily self-important discourse in sociology. Yes, fine, Barbie was culturally relevant and yes this is a great big advertisement for woke mattel products. Guaranteed to give any survivors of corporate america (particularly in marketing & PR) severe agita. Trigger alert: Mattel employees with severe upspeak, vocal trill, and tragic buzz word addiction. 90 minutes seems like 4 hours.

A powerful revisiting of the 1989 Yusuf Hawkins killing in Bensonhurst. I myself was a 21 year old in Manhattan then, too busy partying in pre-Giuliani NYC than to follow current events much and it was far too easy to accept the narrative put forth by the local newspapers and broadcast news: that some kids had been in the wrong place at the wrong time and it was an accident, of sorts. It was also easy to accept the popular narrative that almost immediately casts doubts upon young people of color from the get-go. In the case of Yusuf Hawkins, that was cleared up in a matter of days (they were innocent) but with the Central Park Jogger it took decades to clear their names.

The reality with the Hawkins killing is that four young black men went to check out a car for sale in a neighborhood they were unfamiliar with and almost immediately after getting off the subway, they were circled by a group of 30 or so predominantly white men, primed for a fight and armed with bats. Yusuf Hawkins was shot dead and, in the days, and months that followed it became a cause célèbre, the foundation of which was a series of incredibly tense and racially charged protest marches in Bensonhurst. The marches brought out the worst in the mostly Italian-American locals who ranted and raved on camera. No one would damage the long-fought-for image of Italian-Americans more until the cast of Jersey Shore almost 20 years later.

To the reviewer here griping about the portrayal of Italian-Americans: there's not much to defend when you watch this film and see the things they did and hear the things they said to the protest marchers. As far as the number of African-American living in Bensonhurst in about 1990, the reviewer cites "2,000." I'm not sure what the reviewer's point was. Regardless, I think it was actually closer to 7,000...but that was within a population of 150,000. So, whether it was 2,000 or 7,000, only about 1% to 5% of the population of Bensonhurst was African-American. Minuscule compared to the white majority. If you want to get a pretty good idea of Bensonhurst at the time, just watch Spike Lee's 1991 Jungle Fever, of which he dedicated to Yusuf Hawkins.

What enflamed the media and therefore the public during the marches was the polarizing presence of Reverend Al Sharpton. He was at a low-point in his own public image having just come off the revealed-to-be-a-hoax Tawana Brawley incident, and many viewed him as a charlatan.

We get interviews with a lot of players, including Sharpton who certainly comes across as an eloquent and wise elder statesman now, not nearly as accredited as he should be.

Also heard from is the almost forgotten one-term Mayor of NYC, David Dinkins. He was in many ways elected because of the color of his skin but he turned out to be the whitest NYC Mayor since John Lindsay.

My favorite interview was with a NYPD Detective who explained his interrogation techniques with one of the suspects. Let's just say it wouldn't fly today but it certainly worked for him then.

A few intriguing threads are left on the table. For one, Hawkins's father Moses Stewart, appears to flourish as the press conferences and marches continue. He goes from a diamond in the rough to a very polished guy. I would have liked some positing on that and why he retreated from public life and his family. I also would have liked some more interviews with the Bensonhurst denizens. But sometimes a hint is all that you need, and the filmmakers certainly exercised a lot of restraint. Perhaps too much restraint.

Especially when viewed through the lens of 2020, the Yusuf Hawkins story is highly disturbing. At a very base level it demonstrates what the death of a son/brother/cousin/nephew could do to a family and on a larger level, it illustrates what one of the reviewers here erroneously called "pandemic," actually meaning "endemic," racism.

Fairly tight little programmer of the ilk of what you would usually find with Liam Neeson (Cold Pursuit) or Mel Gibson (Blood Father), a bit closer to Dragged Across Concrete & Brawl in Cell Block 99 but without the least bit of intensity. For those older, think late career Audie Murphy. Jai Courtney's lack of emoting serves him well for once, as the antihero, while Finn Wittrock & Arturo Castro do get to play against type. Overall, it's highly underwritten (why, again, is Oyster targeted?) and short on motion...a small scale, simple movie that doesn't quite succeed as a drama or action film, although its brief (99 minutes) running time, easygoing demeanor, and pleasing cast makes it watchable.

I wasn't a huge fan of the various SNL star's movies of the 1990s-e.g. David Spade, Rob Schneider, Adam Sandler, etc.-but these days, in comparison to most comedies being made, they are looking like comedy classics. Consequently, "The Wrong Missy"-produced by Sandler- is simplistically entertaining and maintains its tone and energy for the duration of the pleasantly diverting and short (90 minute) movie.

It never tries to be anything else other than what it is: a sorta low budget and lean-but very professionally-produced-basic comedy, with quite a few funny lines and situations. It doesn't overly rely on sight gags and toilet humor...and I don't think there was one gay-panic joke in the entire script-but best of all, David Spade is less snarky than he once was, therefore somewhat more appealing as an everyman.

The supporting cast is more than capable and peppered with friends and family of Sandler...such as his wife, daughters, and nephew...as well as other familiar faces from the typical Sandler ensemble.

But the real kudos go to Lauren Lapkus, who really had the make or break role in the movie. If one didn't buy into her character, that was that: the end. Too much energy and she would have been so annoying that one would have shut it off: too serious and she would have seemed overly pathetic...or demented. As it was, she was just right and struck a near perfect balance in her characterization...and while she was a caricature (of course she was, look at the team of the movie) it didn't go too far over the line. It kept you guessing throughout: "is she or is she not redeemable?" All things considered, this was not a waste of time and was actually pretty good.

Weak entry in the "average couple encounters danger" genre. Watching two actor/comedians riff in their familiar personas does not a movie make. "The Lovebirds" feels like it was created in a conference room: "let's create a project for Issa Rae and Kamail Nanjiani and and hope that it's more than the sum of its parts." It's not.

It takes an overly-mined Hollywood trope-that in the 1980s would have been a vehicle for Goldie Hawn, in the 1930s for Carole Lombard, in the 1950s for Betty Hutton, Doris Day in the 1960s, Diane Keaton in the 1970s, and on and on-and attempt to update it. More recent titles it resembles included "Date Night" and "Manhattan Murder Mystery." (All of the aforementioned are superior to "The Lovebirds," by the way.)

Basically, after a chance encounter, average couple meets with intrigue and danger, which ultimately adds spice to their life. Unfortunately, while Issa Rae and Kamail Nanjiani are both likable, their chemistry is more akin to comfortable office co-workers as opposed to romantic partners. They do get to riff a lot-incessantly, in fact-in their familiar personas, albeit watered down and one-dimensional versions...Rae never strays too far from Issa on "Insecure" nor Nanjiani from Dinesh on "Silicon Valley."

It's not intolerable in the beginning but after the first 20 minutes (of a mercifully short 86-minute movie) and a better-than-average car chase, it's as if everyone lost interest and phoned it in. Nothing much happens: the writing is exceptionally lazy and unimaginative and falls back on tired sight gags like absurd costumes, and forced, overly long moments-such as singing along to Katy Perry's "Firework" in the back of an Uber. Anna Camp and Paul Sparks add some much-needed spice as villains but far too little of them is seen...because, after all, this is a (weak) vehicle for its stars. Pass.

There are two reasons to watch this movie: Gordon Willis's cinematography & Elizabeth Ashley. It's not as lame as it is made out to be and has exquisite production values, but that being said, it is very niche, succeeding neither as a slasher nor a thriller, but occupying some odd space in between.

"Windows" also reminds us that you can be a great cinematographer but that doesn't necessarily translate to directing: in fact, Gordon Willis never directed another movie again. As far as Elizabeth Ashley, for those not acquainted she was sort of a Tallulah Bankhead of the 70s and 80s. She had a storied Broadway career and multiple husbands and was on The Tonight Show more than 20 times simply because Carson found her amusing. She is captivating, even in claptrap melodrama like this.

This movie was lambasted by the critics when it first came out, snuffing out Talia Shire's major studio leading lady career in the process. Shire had been a hot property after "The Godfather" and "Rocky" movies...but she made three high profile bombs in a row: "Old Boyfriends", "Prophecy", and, finally, "Windows." Film careers ending after a bomb or two happened to a lot of actresses back then and Shire was probably given more chances than most but the bottom line was she just couldn't carry a film.

The movie looks terrific. Ashley wears a series of shimmery Bloomingdales middle-aged Disco blouses and it is impossible not to look at her. She's very interesting as an actress. The city is shot like a lullaby...to Brooklyn (The Brooklyn Heights Promenade and Cher's Cranberry Street block in Moonstruck figure prominently, as does The River Café as well as Fulton Street near Brooklyn Bridge Park, or as it referred to in Windows: "River Street") and Pearl Street in Lower Manhattan. The use of locations is a wonder and everything is very desolate. It definitely creates a mood of unease.

Now, the problems. I don't have an issue with Shire's character, exactly. She is beyond mousey and nearly sexless, with her Prince Valiant hair and series of brown patterned sweater vests and plaid shirts worthy of an assistant librarian. She is certainly not someone one would expect Ashley to be obsessed with. Perhaps that is the point? But we'll never know because the entire story is underdeveloped. It seems to want to coast by on suspense but that is a flaw because there is hardly any suspense whatsoever. The film may have somewhat succeeded had it put some effort into characterizations. Instead we get some hints at what could have been and a choppy series of dull vignettes culminating in an anticlimactic showdown between Ashley and Shire. I do like that they don't spell everything out for you and, if you pause to think, the chain of events is coherent. But it's just not enough.

"Windows" could have been interesting. I think they were going for something akin to "let's make a women's picture about sexual obsession" but then lost their way. Ultimately, it is almost completely devoid of energy but a pleasure to look at and Ashley is always a treat to observe...even when she is wearing eyeglasses the size of dessert plates and stroking an enormous phallic telescope.

During Coronavirus I have seen my tolerance for mediocrity increase. Case in point: this is a watchable-during-Coronavirus yet extremely colorless telling of a played-out story with the typical cliché characters including the overachieving father who pulled himself up into the upper middle class, the controlling mother who needs everything to go according to plan, the husband's competitive nemesis at work, and on and on. You can anticipate every character's upcoming-in-subsequent episodes big yelling emotional scene within the first 15 minutes of Part 1. The production is very by-the-numbers-and very dragged out-and the acting extremely self-conscious. Like most of these types of productions, the actors cast in the minor roles are particularly amateurish. If you like network shows like "American Crime" and some of the network police procedural shows, this may be for you. Chris Evans is handsome but really just not a convincing actor. Every moment rings untrue.

Sometimes captivating story with some genuinely creepy moments. Shot very nicely with good use of locations and lush production design. Derivative of...Donnie Darko, Halloween III, The Sixth Sense...well, name your poison. Works best as a horror/paranoia/satire, a la Roman Polanski's The Tenant...until the obligatory (and unnecessary) twist. This could almost (stress on the "almost") be the one you watch with your non-horror fan friend/partner without them occasionally rolling their eyes and saying "you don't need to pause it" while they go to the kitchen.

This movie has barely any narrative. It is short bursts of imagery, music, and dialogue strung together into a 2-plus hour running time. There is no there there, just a concept movie that Netflix - in its ongoing massive thirst for cinema-respectability - keeps throwing at directors: even directors like Michael Bay.

This doc is a bit lazy (it does not go into much detail on the cultural relevance of Madonna at her peak of 1989 - 1991) but will appeal to those of us who were in our teens to mid-20s at that time. From the BA tour to the release of TOD, Madonna was the center of the universe. Her PR at the time said she was giving the dancers an opportunity and it was up to them to exploit it after the tour. (This was never mentioned in the film but is my recollection.) Sadly, none have achieved what would be considered success in the material sense: most seem to live hand to mouth. If they had more maturity and some good guidance at the time, they may have developed careers of note - perhaps even judging DWTS and choreographing big names but mostly spiraled down and those that sued Madge? Well, let's just say she holds a grudge. This doc is a little sad, yet their impact at the time on some was significant. Ultimately, this will appeal more to those of us born in the 60s - mid-70s and does not have wide appeal. Yes, Madonna exploited them but in her world view she also gave them an opportunity.