Critomaton Reviews

Road House (2024)

Ignore the haters, this is a great, fun action/fight movie

[8/10 · 23 March 2024]

I really don't know what the people who hate this movie expected. Sure, the original Road House is a cult classic, but it isn't so much of a pure classic that it is sacrilege to re-imagine it. I'd say this movie is very much in the spirit of the original - which is a soft-spoken tough guy forced into a lot more fighting than he wants, but it turns out he's up to the task.

It has lots of funny one-liners, and a lot of great action. The only stuff that is over-CGI'ed is vehicular: a few pickup truck crashes and a beat-up Chevy Nova that loses a fight with a train - most of the fight scenes contain really impressive stunt work.

And the people complaining about Conor McGregor are way off the mark. He was actually very good in this film. I mean, did the haters not notice that every single bad guy from the minor lackeys, to the police, to the "bad son" played by Billy Magnussen, were crazy over-the-top evil? Conor was really the only one who was convincing in (or at least, suited to) that role. Sure he had a smile on his face most of the time, but so did Jake Gyllenhall.

Jake got jacked for this movie but even with his low-key, smiling, jokey performance he had his own over-the-top scenes too, mostly involving barely noticeable (to him) stabbings. What better foil for him than another jacked fighter at the other end of the spectrum from "low key".

There are a lot of good boating action scenes as well, and some very interesting camera work.

This movie won't quite do for Jake G. What Deadpool did for Ryan Reynolds (not that Jake needs a win quite like Ryan did at the time), but that is what I thought of mid-way through this movie - this role was made for Jake (or vice versa). It was about the time I realized I was thoroughly enjoying the movie. Jake nailed the role, and I bet Patrick Swayze would approve.

Oppenheimer (I) (2023)

Nolan makes up for underusing Cillian Murphy as the Scarecrow

[8/10 · 13 August 2023]

This is one of Nolan's better movies. At the moment I think Dunkirk is his best, with The Dark Knight trilogy tied for second, and Oppenheimer in third place (or fifth, if you count the Dark Knight trilogy films independently, which I don't), though Oppenheimer is undeniably his most important film.

Most everything you hear about this movie is true. It's too long, doesn't need to be seen in IMAX, the Trinity test explosion is underwhelming, there are simultaneously too many side characters introduced and too little character development of the side characters, etc.

But the good stuff is true also: the score is powerful, especially in the two scenes that are the closest thing this film offers to "Rocky-style" training montages - one in which a young Oppenheimer is grappling with his theories about quantum physics and another in which he fully owns his role as project leader for the Manhattan Project (right after he ditches his military uniform). This powerful, imposing theme closes out the film as Oppenheimer imagines what could have been - and what might be - in a terrifyingly believable "imagination" sequence.

The performances by Cillian Murphy, Robert Downey, Jr., Matt Damon, and Emily Blunt are outstanding, and I'll be disappointed if there aren't at least 4 Academy Award nominations for acting and at least 2 wins.

My recommendation is to watch it twice: Once, go in a little tired, and see how long it can hold your attention. For me it was the first two hours. Don't feel bad if you catch yourself napping. The second time, go in fresh and wide awake, and see how much more you get from each of the film's three acts.

One thing that surprised me, but I really liked in retrospect, is how little time Nolan spent trying to explain the physics or actually teach the audience about how a nuclear bomb works. Kind of like how in Good Will Hunting they just put formulas on the board and people act impressed and that's how you know Matt Damon's character is a genius. In fact, the astronauts in Interstellar spent more time trying to explain wormholes, time dilation, and antigravity - with far less success - than was spent on discussing nuclear fission in this movie.

On the other hand, apparently the first atom bombs were fission bombs and the phrase "thermonuclear" is reserved for fusion bombs that use hydrogen? If that's true, I guess I learned that from this movie, which is way more than I've learned from any other film in recent memory.

I mean, I trust that the scientific jargon in Oppenheimer is technically accurate but it isn't overly didactic - the film is much more focused on how the scientists react to the strange new quantum world - and each other - as they grapple with how it works, how well they understand it, and what the moral implications are for the gadget they are building. This is to Nolan's credit and is one of the film's strengths.

I read a review that said this film was very cold and humorless, but there were several very clever - albeit dry - witticisms peppered throughout the film (at least as many as were in Interstellar, and much more audible this time).

This is a very powerful film and passes the "greatness" test - I couldn't wait to see it twice, and it was even better on the second viewing. I've seen Tenet, Inception, and Interstellar multiple times and they all get worse every time I watch them (Tenet just stayed horrible each time).

From (2022– )

It's apt that the title of this show is a four-letter word beginning with "F"

[2/10 · 8 May 2022]

What the eff is wrong with the effing writers of this effing show?!?! Practically every scene contains multiple characters gratuitously spouting the F-word, usually as their first reaction to anything. This is the laziest, nastiest writing I've ever seen/heard on a major TV show. It's beyond Tarantino-level cursing.

Worse, it's quite often said in front of children, not just incidentally, but usually targeted at someone who is interacting with the children, or when talking about the children, as if it's a normal thing for parents to say this in front of their kids.

It's also said if a priest is taking too long to explain why he buried a candy bar.

It's also said when a guy is being snapped out of a hallucination that he is being murdered by a civil war zombie.

It's also said as part of a toast for an anniversary party.

It's also said... you get the idea.

The problem with art is that it doesn't just imitate/reflect life, it also magnifies and distorts it, like some sort of twisted funhouse mirror.

I happen to know (because I can hear the a-hole in the downstairs apartment) that there are in fact people who use the f-word multiple times in every sentence. But nobody really wants to be around those people, and nobody respects them. And they are usually outliers. In this show, practically every character above the age of 12 uses the F-word repeatedly, unnecessarily, and gratuitously.

Why am I spending so much time complaining about this? Because it is so over the top that it's obviously a deliberate choice by the writers, and for some reason the actors have all gone along with it. So, they want their audience to relate to people who talk like this - which means they talk like this.

Also, the show itself is vapid. It's just another stupid sci-fi/horror/fantasy show whose premise is so preposterous that you watch it just to see if they can do anything interesting or creative with the concept. And like Lost and all of its rip-offs, the answer is of course, "No"

It's also very gory, with lots of stabbing, slashing, mutilating deaths.

Compliance (2012)

It's not funny 'cause it's true

[7/10 · 18 April 2022]

Instead of walking out of the movie before reaching the end, as apparently many people did, I'm writing this review before I've seen the end. This is an excellent movie because of Ann Dowd's portrayal of a manager, Sandra, the likes of which we've probably all known. I've been in the workforce for nearly 4 decades and I know a handful of middle managers that I could easily imagine falling for this nasty prank.

My favorite part was when the manager's fiance is in the storeroom of the fast-food restaurant, with a naked-except-for-an-apron teenager in the background, and he's talking on the phone with the fakest-sounding "officer" you could imagine, and the manager interrupts him to ask "You want a Diet Coke, hon? A Diet Coke?" And then she asks her humiliated employee if she'd like a drink also. The realism of this scene is off the charts. It takes multiple layers of obliviousness and misplaced priorities to focus on a drink at that point in the proceedings, and that's exactly what it takes to fall for this prank in real life.

None of us think we would fall for this. But I bet all of us think we know some people who would. That's disturbing.

Apparently this film is very accurate to the true events, so it's not like I can rate it super high for originality or screenplay. And the subject matter doesn't lend itself to anything significant in the way of special effects, sound editing, etc. But, it's kind of a must-see as a cautionary tale, and Ann Dowd nailed her character, so I'll rate it a 7.

Death to 2021 (2021 TV Special)

More biased, and consequently less funny, than last year's episode

[2/10 · 31 December 2021]

Humor comes from skewering things that are taken too seriously. The false narratives being pushed by many media outlets are not taken seriously enough. So, a comedy that mocks conservative false narratives by doubling down on leftist false narratives is bound to miss the mark.

Most Netflix original shows have an obvious, uncomfortable dose of liberal ideology shoe-horned in, even on subjects where you wouldn't necessarily expect it (the docuseries about the history of video games comes to mind).

When Death to 2021 repeated a false narrative about which demographic is most reluctant to get the COVID vaccine, and made an unfunny joke about amputating Derek Chauvin's legs, I knew they were more interested in mean-spirited conservative bashing than actual satire, humor, or facts.

Edit: I don't care who is or isn't vaccinated, as long as people who want the vaccine can get it and people who don't want it can keep their jobs, live their lives, and get back in their own country after traveling abroad. I am also not saying that Derek Chauvin is, or should be, a conservative hero. My point is that the Chauvin trial was taken very seriously by most of the participants (the prosecution, prosecution witnesses, judge, and jury), and there is nothing really funny about this crime or its local and national impact. The few remarks about it in Death to 2021 were just a mean-spirited dig at somebody who is already facing justice. Also, the show gets worse and more biased as it goes on; I originally wrote this review based on my first impressions. This paragraph is a later addition for clarification.

Of course, the focus on the January 6th mob storming the Capitol was to be expected, since to liberals that day - embarrassing as it was for the entire country - was worse than 9/11.

Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021)

Home is where you make it

[9/10 · 19 December 2021]

As that mumbly guy in The Waterboy said: Home is where you make it! Edit: The mumbly guy who said this was actually in Joe Dirt.

This is how fan service is supposed to be done. Also, it doesn't really feel so much like fan service as it does a wrapping up of loose ends that maybe people didn't even realize (or had forgotten) were loose! Here they're wrapped up in a bow and given as a gift to fans of all the Spider-Man movies.

Dr. Strange's trippy mirror dimensions and portals and crazy incantations propel a multi-verse plot that pretty much ensures your favorite Spider-Man will have something important to say and do before it's all over.

This movie is definitely top 5 in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (I'd put Infinity War at the top, then Civil War, then maybe one or two of the Iron Mans, but Spider-Man: No Way Home is definitely top 5).

Tom Holland has done a great job as Spider-Man, but Andrew Garfield was always my favorite, because I felt he just nailed the Spidey snark the best and the stunts in his movies seemed the most realistic. But, if you'll read my review of The Amazing Spider-Man 2, you'll see I wasn't a big fan, and was non-plussed by the big emotional scene near the end.

In the same way that Infinity War and Endgame somehow retroactively made many of the other MCU movies more relevant and interesting and significant, there is a scene in S-M:NWH where Garfield-Man saves MJ at the last second, with the very same move that was just a split second too late to save Gwen Stacy in his own universe. This was far and away my favorite scene of the movie, and it hit me in the emotional gut, and it magically, retroactively made me appreciate TAS-M2 even more.

No Way Home is not perfect. I'm going to knock off three stars for the following grievous cinema sins:

• The May death scene made zero sense and seemed like a weird homage to the way that Tom Sizemore went out in Saving Private Ryan. The goblin craft had pretty much gone right through her, then she was in close proximity to a pumpkin bomb blast, so how was she able to just get up and give a final soliloquy? Because of this continuity error or just plain dumb editing decision, this scene lacked emotional oomph to me, but that's OK because I preferred the Garfield Zendaya save anyway.

• Was it just me, or were 3 of the 4 big action sequences set at night (1st Electro battle, Villains at the Apartment, and Statue of Liberty fight). That is a blatantly obvious and super lazy way to avoid showing detail in effects and stunt work, and I'm sure I'll be more and more upset about it as time goes on. Edit: I was thinking the only well-lit action sequence was Doc Ock on the bridge, but I forgot about the 5th big scene, which was also well lit: Dr. Strange vs. Spidey in the mirror dimension. For some reason, despite how much I liked Captain America: Civil War, I still tend to be rather dismissive (and forgetful) of Marvel's frequent "heroes fighting heroes" scenes, although Strange vs. Parker was one of the better scenes in No Way Home.

• Umm, I used to complain a lot about the fact that Raimi Green Goblin was just a mech suit. Seems like they tried to rectify that a bit here but they still hid Willem Dafoe's face a lot when he was full-on goblin and again - because it was night - you really didn't get to see much detail or color in the new GG look. Plus, they updated the mech suit to look cooler and then abandoned it. Kind of a dumb decision.

• OK, the only thing dumber than the May death sequence was the Maguire inconsequential non-death sequence. I'm gonna forgive that only because I was gonna be super-bummed if he ended up dying, but it's kind of a drama-killer to have 1/3 of your heroes receive a fatal stab wound and then shrug it off like it's nothing.

All that said, I'm adding two of the three removed stars back, because I like that they acknowledged in a humorous way that Garfield's Spider-Man lacked the epic villains that the others fought, and then found a way for him to make one of the most important saves in the whole series anyway.

Also, plot absurdities aside, the core of the story is that Peter would rather help the villains if he could than send them back to a fate of certain death, and that is very noble and consistent with the highest ideals of Spider-Man. So, the core of the story is solid and bold, even though every villain is familiar and old.

My complaints notwithstanding, everyone involved with this film did a fantastic job of validating, honoring, and wrapping up three completely different Spider-verses, and that had to be at least as tricky a job as undoing the Thanos snap. And in my book, No Way Home nails its daunting task much better than Endgame did.

The Devil All the Time (2020)

See review body for spoiler-y headline

[2/10 · 28 November 2021]

Spider-Man vs The Batman: Dawn of Injustice to Straw Man

I knew there would come a day when most of the movers and shakers in society would be of the age where their only exposure to actual Christianity came from watching Ned Flanders and Reverend Lovejoy on the Simpsons, or from reading or watching Dan Brown's latest Robert Langdon adventure. The release of "The Devil All The Time" may officially mark that tipping point.

This film reminds me of something that Billy Madison would give as an answer to a final-exam question on "Comparative World Religions," except Billy's not that mean-spirited.

Start by folding together the thick, setting-based atmosphere of shows like Justified, Ozark, and Breaking Bad.

Mix in an American Horror Story season's worth of gratuitous violence, sex, and gore.

Sift out anything that might accidentally remind you of the conscience of Sling Blade. If any of your protagonists end up even half as sympathetic as Karl Childers, you've over-sweetened; throw out the whole batch and start over.

To spice things up with a little extra shock value, mix in one tablespoon of theology from that most sacred of secular, pop-culture texts: Pet Sematary.

Finally, top it all off with a heapin' helping of "Lebowski Stranger"-style narration to make it all go down nice and smooth-like.

That's a sure-fire recipe for keeping Netflix edgy but, you know, not quite "Cuties" edgy.

The only epiphany you're likely to get watching this movie is the realization that Riley Keough's grandpappy had the right idea about how to turn off the TV.

In the spirit of that old-time religion the director and author of this mess seem to be so afraid of, I'll forgive them for thinking that putting out 2+ hours of shameless Christian-bashing is actually daring or brave or original. For the last 50 years or so it's been quite literally the world's safest (not to mention laziest and most cowardly) form of artistic expression.

We'll just let the spiders stay in the corner and keep the screwdriver in the toolbox, Mmmkay?

Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021)

Ghostbusters rehash-terlife

[3/10 · 20 November 2021]

A dismal, dreary rehash. Gatekeeper, Keymaster, Gozer, Zuul. Except this time in a wheat field and abandoned mine featuring about 3 total colors between them, instead of a vibrant, colorful New York City.

I haven't seen a re-boot-quel this uninspired since Terminator Genisys.

The metal-munching alternative to Slimer is kind of boring-looking, and many of the effects seem retro-practical and/or stop-motion. They're not significantly better than the 1984 original, perhaps as an homage, but more likely due to laziness.

A teenage kid goes from failing his driver's test 3 times to knowing how to power slide an antique Cadillac ambulance in the span of a single action sequence - the same sequence you saw in the trailers by the way, which is perhaps one of two or three set pieces in the entire film.

None of the characters are very funny, including Paul Rudd - this role is one of his few dudds. But there are very few opportunities for jokes when you're just going through the motions and nothing that happens is surprising or original.

There is a scene where a child character recites some awfully unfunny jokes to Gozer the Gozerian and it includes dramatic pauses for audience laughter - I've never heard a theater so quiet.

You could feel the disappointment, similar to that in Star Trek into Darkness when people realized (spoiler) it was just a rehash of Wrath of Khan.

Dan Aykroyd literally phoned in a big portion of the exposition in the movie, and at that point I'd already zoned out from this tedious trip down memory lane.

Here's how lazy this movie is - there's a scene that takes place in a Walmart that contains exactly zero customers other than Paul Rudd. Imagine what kind of laughs are possible from combining "People of Walmart" with demon dogs or mini marshmallow men; but no, I guess there was no budget for a second unit. This movie is about ancient Sumerian gods and the most unbelievable thing in it was how empty that Walmart was.

By the time the movie offers up some truly nostalgic fan service, it is way too little and way too late. I was embarrassed for them actually. The movie is dedicated to Harold Ramis. I realize they didn't have his ghost talk out of respect for the man himself, but I wonder what he would really think about this uninspired retread.

I saw this in a packed theater and at the end, about half the crowd applauded. The younger families and teens around me were instead just kind of looking around as if to say "What did I just watch?"

Yes, it's official, the 2016 all-female Ghostbusters was more entertaining than this.

P. S. HDTVs have "cinema mode" where brightness is way down and colors are more washed out. I remember when movies in theaters were vibrant and bright and colorful but Ghostbusters Afterlife really did seem like it was being projected in cinema mode on a low-quality TV.

For me, the best part of this movie was hearing kids and families in the audience chatter and all the sniffling and coughs in the theater as humanity returns to normal social interaction again (hope I don't get the 'vid).

Hey Hollywood, the audience is keeping its part of the bargain and going back to the theaters again - do you think you could come up with some better stuff for us to watch than Tenet, No Time to Die, and Ghostbusters Afterlife? C'mon man!!

No Time to Die (2021)

Meh... Time to Die!

[3/10 · 10 October 2021]

OK, wow, this really wrapped up loose ends nicely. Also, it's the most emotionally moved I've been by a James Bond film. The emotional part of On Her Majesty's Secret Service was good but too brief and too close to the end to evoke cathartic tears like No Time To Die did. I was crying all through the credits - partly from the on-screen drama but also partly because I realized that the era of escapist James Bond films I grew up with is over.

More Ana de Armas please. More Lea Seydoux please. These pleas are directed at the Universe, not necessarily at James Bond filmmakers.

Safin was a dud. So was that goofy Russian scientist. Did I hear correctly, did the scriptwriters really have him go racially genocidal at the very end after playing him for laughs for two hours? Also, were those pools of water in the poison garden nanobots, or poison plants, or what? Really confusing.

Way, way, way too much time between way too few action sequences. The opening chase was OK but completely spoiled by the trailers. The Cuba shootout was decent. The SUV chase / forest takedown scenes were some of the best action in James Bond history. Sorry, though, if you're gonna drag this stuff out you need to have way more stunt sequences than that.

I am so sick of the use of the Goldfinger-era Aston Martin DB5. It was a huge anachronism in Skyfall (not to mention Goldeneye) and even more out of place here, since it got destroyed in Skyfall. Edit: Upon re-watch of Spectre without falling asleep I noticed that the DB5 was being rebuilt then. I still don't like it. A real spy wouldn't drive, or attempt to gadgetize, a car whose core engineering was obsolete more than half a century ago - that goes for you too Brosnan in Goldeneye!. (End edit). I see they managed to shoehorn in Aston Martins from 3 different eras (even the Dalton-era model looks practically antique now), but they really didn't do much so it's kind of like "What's the point?" Homage for homage's sake is just lazy in a movie with this much legacy to carry.

OK, we can have a new 007, especially since James Bond is officially dead (unless he's a Voorhees by DNA). That's all I'm gonna say about that...

I loved the emotional impact of introducing James' daughter. She looks like their kid too. But it was kind of silly how she got away from her kidnappers.

Somehow I always pictured abandoned WWII submarine pens repurposed by the Soviets as having more personality. What a dreary (and boring) locale for the grand finale. James runs up steps, waits for henchmen to pop their heads out, and shoots; lather, rinse, repeat.

I guess this movie is better than Spectre, but not by much. I'd put it precisely at the top of the bottom half of James Bond movies. 95% of the best Bond flicks are 40 years old or older so, yeah, I'm OK with this being Craig's swan song. At least he went out with a bang.

Bad Boys for Life (2020)

Less humor, more violence, fewer chases = inferior, yet watchable, sequel

[6/10 · 17 January 2020]

I was really looking forward to this movie as Bad Boys II is one of my favorite movies. Bad Boys for Life is much darker than Bad Boys II, figuratively and literally, as at least two of the big action scenes take place at night, which in big action movies like this always seems like an excuse to cut corners on set design and stunt coordination. There are some surprising/shocking dramatic turns, so I give it credit for taking risks, but overall Bad Boys for Life is not nearly as enjoyable as its predecessor.

The jokes are few and far between, and none of the 3 big action sequences is as exciting as the car carrier chase, drug house shootout, or Cuban mansion raid/Hummer chase from Bad Boys II.

If you're a fan of Will Smith and/or Martin Lawrence, you might as well go see this; it's not horrible, but it's a one-viewing-and-done sort of thing. Also, the resolution of the big dramatic twist is necessarily unsatisfying and unrealistic.

On the plus side, there is a nice resolution to one of the more disturbing (albeit hilarious) scenes from Bad Boys II (hint: it involves the soft-spoken young man who arrived to pick up Marcus' daughter in BB II). I also enjoy seeing Vanessa Hudgens in just about anything, so it was nice to see her play a tough girl on the Miami Metro support squad.

Richard Jewell (2019)

A solid entry in Clint Eastwood's "Men with Known Names" trilogy

[7/10 · 15 December 2019]

"Richard Jewell" fits nicely in between "Sully" and "The Mule" in Clint Eastwood's series of three films based on true stories, at least based on emotional impact and quality of storytelling. Which is to say, I really, really liked "Sully", really liked "Richard Jewell", and didn't really like "The Mule".

The core events of "Richard Jewell" are arguably less dramatic than those of "Sully", if unquestionably more tragic, and thus seemingly harder to mold into a compelling film. But this 2-hour film never drags, because it is always interesting to watch an innocent man get railroaded by people who are supposed to be doing the right thing. That is, in a "Hey, this isn't supposed to happen in our society, but it could happen to anybody - and really did - so I'm fascinated to see how they almost got away with it and genuinely interested in how they were thwarted" sort of way.

With Sully, the antagonism of the NTSB (or was it the FAA?) agents seemed realistic and believable, but was apparently embellished for dramatic effect. While it made for great drama, a little post-viewing research shows that it was overblown, which kind of dampens (or sullies, if you'll pardon the pun) the lasting impact of the film. But still, it was an amazing story and the feel-good movie of the year, if not the decade.

With "Richard Jewell", the Atlanta Constitution-Journal (ACJ) reporter who broke the "Richard is a suspect" story (played by Olivia Wilde) and the FBI agent who leaked the story to her (played by Jon Hamm) very quickly come off as villainous incompetents looking for the quick, lazy way out of doing their job. Or, perhaps worse, the quick, cynical way of actually doing their job.

It seemed a bit over the top, and I know it's the subject of real-world controversy, so I guess I owe it to the ACJ and FBI to research the veracity of this one also. But for those of us who remember the media coverage of this incident, it's not too much of a stretch to believe it went down something like this.

Regardless of the controversy, what makes the movie so important is the insight it gives into a simple yet principled man who just wanted to make a difference, and who really did make a difference when it counted.

The portrayal of the actual bombing was realistic yet suspenseful; it didn't overplay Jewell's role or make him some kind of superhero. In fact, it almost made you wish everyone in authority, including RJ, had done just a bit more a bit faster. It even shows RJ having dreams and wishes of having done more; these you feel were mostly because he was a good man but maybe partly also because of the pressure of the suspicion he was under.

Having just binge-watched Season 3 of American Horror Story (this is not an endorsement, just a fact), it was very refreshing to see Kathy Bates in a positive, uplifting role for a change. She does a great job as Barbara "Bobi" Jewell; her character's emotional vulnerability provides the needed contrast to RJ's naive yet well-intentioned stoicism (which bordered on downright cooperation with the people trying to vilify him).

Sam Rockwell gives a great performance as Richard's friend and lawyer, Watson Bryant. Along with Richard and Bobi, Watson rounds out the trio of personalities it apparently takes to survive the media and government "onslaught". Oh yeah, I guess it's really a quartet if you include Nadya, Watson's assistant, nicely played by Nina Arianda in a complete 180-degree turn from her character on Showtime's hit series "Billions".

Paul Walter Hauser's portrayal of Richard Jewell is excellent and carries the movie and gives it gravitas (see, I resisted the urge to say "weight" or "heft"). His final dialogue with the FBI brings up a really important point (that I won't spoil here), one that I never thought of throughout the whole film and perhaps not even when this was playing out in real life.

There are several well-timed humorous moments in the film to help keep it afloat. There are also a few tear-jerking moments: some are expected and some - like watching the pain on Bobi's face when Tom Brokaw, a news anchor she respects, announces that her son is likely soon to be arrested - that sneak up on you.

While I normally would not give much credence to the political leanings of Hollywood stars, I admit to thinking (during the film and as the credits rolled), "Well, if actors Jon Hamm and Olivia Wilde and producers Leonardo DiCaprio and Jonah Hill all approved of this portrayal, then I suppose it wouldn't be fair to classify it as an alt-right hit piece against the media and government."

And yes, I am uneasy with the timing of this movie in the particular climate of mistrust of the media and FBI in the United States; this certainly won't help the situation. But movies are frequently a product of their times; I mean, isn't that why "Armageddon" and "Deep Impact" were released the same year? Or "A Bug's Life" and "Antz"?

Maybe 2019 was just the right climate in which an important story like this could be told, and Richard Jewell certainly deserves to have his story told.

Avengers: Endgame (2019)

Don't forget to read a variety of reviews. The 6-star reviews seem the most accurate.

[6/10 · 4 May 2019]

That is not a self-serving review title. I rated the movie a 6 after reading a variety of reviews here on IMDb. The 1-star reviews are more poorly written than I've ever seen before, though I think that's because the Avengers have such a global fan base that more non-native English speakers are weighing in with their (well understood) disappointment, which is cool.

I didn't have to read too many of the 9- or 10-star reviews beforehand because I was already committed to seeing this movie after Infinity War, and anyway I read some article on a news website about all the gushing, raving tweets from early Endgame viewers so I was actually fooled by the hype from a non-IMDb source for once. But, in retrospect, the 9's and 10's here appear to be mostly from the corporate shills and fan bois exactly as one would expect.

So, I went to the middle of the pack of reviews and found a lot of really well thought out reviews in the 6- and 5-star range. Since there are already so many good reviews, I'll just pile on, buck-buck style, with some random musings...

• Was anyone else wondering why Ant-Man didn't call his daughter "Peanut" when he saw her again? To him it was only a little over 5 hours plus a day or two, but he still understood the vast amount of time elapsed in the main timeline. Either way, you'd think he'd still be using his pet name for her.

• OK, I have new respect for that scene in Iron Man 2 where Tony invented a new element (I think it was called "triangulum"). You remember, when he used that giant monkey wrench to get his laser ring aligned? I always thought that was silly, but it took him an eternity compared to how quickly he solved the time travel conundrum in Endgame.

• Oh yeah, sorry for burying the lead... Infinity War was way better and I am quite certain that many film and MCU fans will just consider it to be the end of the series. I think I might be doing that right now as I type.

• Hahahahahaha. Sorry, I am just laughing thinking about how pointless Captain Marvel's movie was. They shoehorned it in at the end of the series, right before Endgame, and it was completely unnecessary and added nothing to the narrative.

Solo movie or not, Captain Marvel's brief ex machina appearances at the beginning and end of Endgame could not have made any less sense or been any more of a cop-out. On the other hand, I fell for the Captain Marvel hype machine also, so I guess Disney has the last laugh (and my ticket money).

• OK, I admit, I really liked Captain America's hammer-wielding moment - it's definitely my favorite part of the movie. That was his version of Wonder Woman's "No-Man's Land" scene. I guess it didn't hit me until reading all the reviews afterward that this cool moment came at the expense of Thor's reputation (i.e. that's why he had to be fat and mostly useless for the entire movie, just to set up that scene). I can see why Thor fans are enraged.

• Ummmmm.... really? Send the two most human and normal Avengers out to get the most outer-spacey and scary Infinity stone? Yeah, right.

• Since Hulk usually ruins most of the movies he's in, I'm actually glad he was a Banner hybrid for the entire movie. Really, Thanos should have dusted him and left Peter Parker, but I guess we needed somebody really lovable to be dusted in order to make us care about Endgame.

• Dang, the Hollywood pecking order is tough! Bradley Cooper rates higher than that Peter Quill guy, even in cartoon raccoon form. I know, Taylor, I can't do that - mix actors with characters - but I can't remember Star Lord's name. Oh yeah, Chris Pratt. I only remember from tabloid articles about his love life. To be fair, I guess Rocket really is the most entertaining of the GotG so it makes sense he gets the rabbit's share of Endgame screen time.

• Hahahahaha. Sorry, I'm just laughing again remembering how the Winter Soldier always brings his high-capacity assault rifle to all the epic battles between gods, hulks, titans, space aliens, laser plasma metal jet suits, meta-humans, etc. It seems pretty effective though. He should be the official Avenger of the NRA.

• Was it me, or was it way too easy for Thor and Rocket to get their Infinity stone? If you're going to send the Avengers off on 3 side quests, at least try to keep them balanced! Then again, Infinity War made me want to go back and watch Ragnarok and Dr. Strange; Ragnarok and Endgame now made me need to go back and watch The Dark World, and so on, and so on...

• Endgame proves that there is absolutely nothing - nothing - that Hawkeye can do to make him seem like a legit Avenger. I'm sorry, he just doesn't fit in with the rest of the heroes. I don't know what it is, he just doesn't.

• If you're going to mock other time-travel movies' "rules", you better come correct with your own. Endgame definitely does not do this. I haven't seen one movie so unfairly diss other movies since Harold & Kumar went to Guantanamo and dissed Eurotrip.

• I'm sorry. Iron Man has survived a lot of blasts before. I think he could have survived the Infinity Gauntlet snap.

• I get that it's a big Marvel movie thing for the heroes to run around without their helmets/masks on way too often so you feel a big personal connection with them rather than thinking you're watching a cartoon (spoiler alert - these movies all seem like cartoons anyway), but this went over the top in Endgame.

Captain Marvel out in space and ripping through Thanos' ship without her helmet? Iron Man and War Machine running around without headgear? Come on, it's just stupid and reckless - and it cost Tony Stark his life!

• Since Chris Evans upgraded from Johnny Storm to Captain America, I think it's completely fair that Anthony Mackie gets an upgrade from Falcon to New Cap. He has a nicely trimmed beard. But he damn sure better take some of that super-soldier serum to keep it real.

• I can't remember what other movie made me cry this much. I think there was one. Interstellar? Maybe. Infinity War? No, I don't think so, I think it had only two tear-jerking scenes, Endgame had three or four, I lost track.

• Endgame is a huge letdown compared to Infinity War. It's at least 30-45 minutes too long, has an uneven pace, way too little comic book action, and it contains lots of stuff to make certain characters' fans really mad.

Even so, I think the best reviews are still in the 5- to 6-star range because even the disappointed fans realize what an impossible task it was to try to wrap up the story after Infinity War. The producers and directors at least gave it a shot, even if they missed the mark. Maybe not even Hawkeye himself could have hit that target.

The Mule (2018)

Clint Eastwood rides off into the sunset in this slow burn that never really ignites

[5/10 · 16 December 2018]

Watch the trailers or commercials for The Mule. They seem to show lots of setups for interesting "how's he gonna get out of that one?" scenarios. The trouble is, Clint barely gets into any of these jams, let alone has any trouble getting out of them.

The movie is consequence-free for most of the characters. We're introduced to three varieties of cartel drug dealers: the friendly, automatic rifle-toting garage gang; the stern, by-the-book right-hand man who starts off cold as ice but eventually warms to Clint's folksy style, and the straight up gangsta thug stone cold killas (who also, it would seem, warm up to Clint by the end because they only rough him up when they were under orders to whack him).

Multiple key plot elements defy logic and belief:

• First, that they would not switch vehicles once they knew the DEA was looking for a black pickup.

• Second, that they would let Clint out of their sight when they were so determined to make sure he didn't deviate from the scheduled route.

• Third, that once they had found Clint again they would let him continue unescorted on his way.

It doesn't help much to read in the end credits that this was based on a true story.

Not much more to say here. I realize the moral was about not putting family second to anything, but there was probably a more important moral to be made about, oh I don't know, the consequences of running cocaine for a murderous cartel. But that never materialized.

Most episodes of Breaking Bad handle both of these issues better than The Mule does, and none do it more boringly (except for maybe, the "Fly" episode).

Halloween (I) (2018)

The Ready Player One of horror movies, for the #MeToo generation

[5/10 · 25 October 2018]

Filled with Easter eggs that pay homage to memorable moments from the original, this Halloween starts off promising and creepy, and then just gets campy and stupid.

All the men in the movie were stupid or creepers, or stupid creepers, making things rough for 3 lovely ladies, the youngest one in curls. Will Patton was apparently cast just to have a lovable star from decades past who has aged worse than Jamie Lee Curtis. Or maybe it was to say: "Michael! You have no idea what women of power can do!"

Don't believe the hype. Take the average rating and divide it by two.

This one is in the middle of the pack of Halloween movies. I don't know exactly where it fits, it doesn't matter much.

First Man (2018)

IMDb closed its boards, but Gosling's on the moon.

[7/10 · 20 October 2018]

Alternate review title: It's a good thing Neil Armstrong happened to land on the moon, otherwise a biopic about him would apparently be really, really boring.

Motivated by its theatrical trailer (and some of the positive reviews here on IMDb), I saw First Man the weekend it opened, and I enjoyed it overall. Until I went back and read some of the more negative reviews and realized I agreed with those too!

Where to start? Well, first things first. This movie is nowhere near as entertaining or uplifting (or even informative) as either The Right Stuff or Apollo 13.

On the other hand, First Man does a serviceable job of filling the gap between those two films, neither one of which addresses the zenith (so far) of the space program, which was of course the first moon landing. So, an inferior movie about a superior topic can still be emotionally powerful and thought-provoking.

The moon landing sequence is very well done, as is the opening sequence featuring Neil's foray into the stratosphere. In between, there are a lot of unnecessarily shaky home-movie-style family micro-dramas of slight interest (except for one very touching story arc that links the opening and closing of the film).

Apart from the segment on the Gemini program (I not only learned its purpose but also its correct pronunciation: GEM-ih-nee, not GEM-ih-nye!), First Man gives very short shrift to the space program and the other astronauts. It even goes so far as to make Buzz Aldrin seem like a jerk. At least Monty Python respected Buzz.

That's why you have to keep reminding yourself - apparently this is a movie primarily about Neil Armstrong and his familial relationships (or lack thereof); it is not a movie about the moon landing.

The trouble is, if Ryan Gosling's performance is accurate, then Neil is a rather introverted, stoic, and emotionally detached person.

As for the in-capsule sequences, we get it Mr. Chazelle - it was claustrophic, loud, and shaky, with poor visibility. But some of the blastoff scenes felt as if we were getting a first-person view not from the mission commander through his space helmet, but from a passenger looking through the viewfinder of a first-generation Sony HandyCam. Was it really that bad? If so, then kudos for the realism, I guess...

OK, what about the flag flap? You know, the manufactured outrage about the lack of a scene showing the planting of the United States flag on the moon.

Although the U.S. flag was barely shown at all on the moon (i.e., the complainers are technically correct), this flap still seems like much ado about nothing, for several reasons:

1. As noted, many aspects of the space program were rushed or completely ignored in this movie, so what's one more?

2. There were numerous other scenes in the film clearly intended to evoke pro-U.S., patriotic feelings - many of them featuring the U.S. flag. These worked on me, and if they were added in post-production due to the controversy, then I guess it was useful after all. There is also a social commentary scene (alluded to by my review title), apparently included as a reasonable counterpoint to all the space-hype.

3. It's not too surprising that a U.S. flag planting would be cut/omitted to increase the international appeal of this film. After all, the only thing more distinctly American than the right to disrespect the flag is the right to maximize one's profit.

4. Last, and most importantly, the movie was about Neil Armstrong setting foot on the moon and - with one major dramatic exception - not at all about what he did after he got there. That dramatic exception is a powerful scene (no spoiler) that kind of makes the whole movie, especially since the focus is on Neil's relationship with his family.

Focusing on anything else that Armstrong did on the moon - even planting the flag - would have completely robbed that scene of its emotional impact. I hope this scene depicts an actual event; if added only for dramatic effect, it would ruin my impression of the film and filmmaker.

All in all, First Man is a decent, if flawed, film with some unforgettable scenes that are a bit too few and far between. It doesn't really seem Oscar-worthy, except maybe for the score, which was especially powerful during the touchdown on the moon. It's definitely worth a view at the theater, but probably not worth an IMAX upcharge.

Ocean's Eight (2018)

The production of this shameless cash grab would make a better heist flick than the end result.

[4/10 · 10 June 2018]

O8's only redeeming quality is that it makes the all-female version of Ghostbusters seem like a more solid effort in retrospect (I admit that the latest Ghostbusters is one from that large set of movies that seems significantly more entertaining when watching it on "free" cable than when paying directly for it at the theater).

I went to O8 not even knowing much about the casting. I only remembered Sandra Bullock and Rihanna from the trailers - they're both likeable enough so I figured, "Why not check it out?" I was pleased to see Anne Hathaway and she gave the liveliest performance, but it wasn't enough to save this turkey. Anne is like the Nicolas Cage of actresses - I can watch just about anything she's in, but it's at best a 50/50 proposition that it will be an entertaining movie.

Obviously, comparisons to Ocean's 11 are inevitable, but O8 reminded me more of the Tim Burton remake of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory: Both C&tCF and O8 feel like scene-for-scene rehashes of things done infinitely better in other films, with all the soul, wit, and drama sucked completely out of each scene.

In the case of O8, it wasn't just a single film that had already shot its scenes better in every way, but just about every heist film you could ever think of, including O11, O12, O13, The Italian Job, Entrapment, the Thomas Crowne Affair, The Score, yada yada yada.

Cate Blanchett added nothing. Mindy Kaling's role was throwaway and in no way empowering for actresses of Indian descent in Hollywood cinema, if that was one of the reasons this movie was made (it certainly wasn't to entertain audiences with an interesting crime caper).

HBC's role was to wear some spy technology that was used much more suspensefully in Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol. Rihanna's role was to set up a blind spot on some security cameras; that was done much more suspensefully in The Score. Awkwafina's role was to slither underneath some bathroom stalls - how demeaning compared to the acrobatics from that other Asian actor in the O1x movies (who also managed to outdo her in this movie too!)

I spent a good deal of the movie wondering why Kristen Wiig was so unfunny in it until I realized it was Sarah Paulson from American Horror Story and The People vs. O.J. Simpson. Her talents were squandered here too.

Sandra Bullock's only purpose was as a tease for a non-existent cameo by George Clooney as Danny Ocean. Like Sean Connery, who also appeared only as a photo in Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, George Clooney was smart to sit this dud out.

The guy that Sandra Bullock set up to take the fall was some guy nobody really cared about, apparently not even Sandra Bullock based on her acting.

I love how the shocking twist is that they didn't just steal the big necklace, they stole all the other necklaces too. Big deal, who cares, the big necklace was already valuable enough they should have just split that.

I'm really glad that Jennifer Lawrence did some of her social justice "equal pay for actresses" stuff before this movie was released, because it won't fly as far after this bomb. I think word of mouth is going to tank this movie quickly, and producers/directors/writers will hopefully learn to make something a little less derivative and not just try to phone it in because they have an all-female cast.

Avengers: Infinity War (2018)

A great, epic comic book hero movie that does things few others have...

[9/10 · 6 May 2018]

Avengers: Infinity War left a lot of unexpected impressions on me as I watched it. It achieved some cinematic "firsts" for this long-time movie fan. Possible spoilers ahead.

I can't believe that after watching this movie, I can name all six Infinity Stones, and the order in which Thanos got them, and who he got them from (at least the ones he got in this movie). That is a crazy level of trivial detail but the movie left that much of an impression on me and the plot was so organically developed. It's like remembering every city that Indy traveled to in search of the Ark and in what order. Maybe I could do that after 35 years of viewing, but not after the first watch!

I didn't have a lot of interest going into this movie because I wasn't a huge fan of the Guardians of the Galaxy (at least not Vol 1; I started out liking Vol 2 much better but it got kind of uber violent and I never finished it). I didn't really want to see the GotG interact with my favorite Marvel heroes like Captain America or Spider-Man.

But the GotG's interactions with Thor, Spider-Man, Iron Man, and Dr. Strange were awesome. The GotG were great in this movie. Mad respect to Gamora, Drax, Mantis, Quinn, Groot, and the rabbit.

Speaking of Thor and Dr. Strange... Avengers: Infinity War made me want to go back and catch up on some of their backstories that I missed. I missed Ragnarok and The Dark World and now I need to see them. I didn't like Dr. Strange's origin movie but I didn't really pay attention to it - kind of slept through it and now I want to watch it again, given Dr. Strange's pivotal role in this film. For the 19th film in a series to somehow retroactively make earlier entries more relevant and interesting is an amazing feat!

Just when I was wondering how they were going to work Black Panther into the plot - Boom! They go to Wakanda. Yes, the big battle in Wakanda was a bit reminiscent of the battle in The Phantom Menace, but it was still exciting. Normally I don't like Thor and his godlike mega weapons, but he dang sure needed that "dwarf"-forged Stormbreaker axe this time. And still it wasn't enough.

This was the quietest I've ever heard a movie theater. I went late at night on its 2nd weekend out but still there was a mix of families, couples, children, older people, etc. and everyone was quiet the entire film (except for some laughs at the clever humor). The audience was completely engrossed in the movie.

The humor and wit worked well. As others have noted, it seemed much more organic and less forced than in other MCU movies, and helped balance the more serious scenes.

OK, 3D is kind of unnecessary. Not enough occurs in 3D to make it worth the extra price. Also, there is a lot of quick editing in some of the fight scenes, but that's kind of typical for these films now. It's been done worse before and doesn't detract from the film too much.

I didn't even recognize Steve Rogers with the beard and all-black suit. I was like "Oh, that's not Hawkeye... Who is this guy? Did I miss an origin movie?" I liked that it took me a few minutes to figure it out.

Nice homage to the "Ming the Merciless tribute scene" from 1980's Flash Gordon at the start of A:IW. Too bad Loki got the Prince Thun treatment.

Thank you, Hulk, for getting your ass whupped at the start and then refusing to show up for the rest of the movie. I'm sure it was a better movie for it since you're kind of overplayed.

I wonder how many people will watch this movie and sit there and think "Is Thanos right?" That's scary - especially 'cause I was one of them. Of course, nobody wants to be in the wiped-out half of the universe.

Speaking of that, a lot of quality heroes got dusted in the end of that movie. Way more than half. That's scary, I can't wait to see how they come back.

The after-credits scene is mandatory viewing, but now I gotta research to see whose logo was on Nick Fury's pager. Too bad it wasn't the Fantastic 4. They could use a serious reboot.

Final thought: GIANT DINKLAGE!! 'Nuff Said!!

Justice League (2017)

Abysmal - The credits feel like a list of people who owe you an apology

[2/10 · 2 December 2017]

OK, if you grew up watching superhero cartoons (Spider-Man, Superfriends, etc.), try this test. Name some Spider-Man villains. Then try to remember some of the villains that fought the Justice League in the Superfriends.

OK, I'll start. Spider-Man villains: Rhino, Mysterio, Electro, Human Fly twins, Flying Dutchman, Lizard, Green Goblin, Dr. Octopus, Sandman, etc... Superfriends villains: um..., er..., maybe Brainiac? I honestly can't remember the plot or villain of one episode of that show even though I remember the invisible jet, Hawkman, that Native American dude who turns into a giant, etc.

Why the quiz? Well, I guess to demonstrate that the Marvel/DC "entertainment value" imbalance is not a new phenomenon. And Steppenwolf sure ain't gonna change this - he is the single least interesting antagonist ever seen on screen. Even Green Lantern had that dude with the big purple head.

Think about it. Ben Affleck as Batman. Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman. Jason Momoa as Aquaman. Some nerdy guy, who has the "Peter Parker- level insecurity and self-deprecating humor" thing down better than Tobey Maguire, as the Flash. Some other guy as a robot.

All this potential and talent and practically all they do the entire movie is bicker with each other and fight computer-generated wasp- men - sorry, "para-demons" - and a computer-generated charisma vacuum named Steppenwolf (not to be confused with the presumably live-action charisma vacuum named Henry Cavill).

Many other low-star reviews of this movie have already listed its faults in accurate detail. It isn't substantial enough to have any deeper layers that they missed.

It's just horrible. Henry Cavill circles the drain with a completely emotionless portrayal of Superman. Ben Affleck continues his turn as a Batman who is the complete antithesis of anything he's been on TV, cartoons, or movies for the last half century or more.

Let's see... Aquaman doesn't really communicate with fish in this movie, he just manipulates water. Batman's suit is just awful. The only appearance of the Batmobile is at the very end when it is fighting some CGI tentacles on a CGI street in CGI Russia.

The Flash's costume is cool. I knew nothing about Cyborg going into the film and he was mildly interesting so I guess technically that makes him the least disappointing. Wonder Woman is the standout here, as in BvS and her own film, but her character seems wasted in this plot. There are some decent jokes, many of them self-referential, but every other aspect of the movie is cringe-worthy.

I give it two stars. One for Gal Gadot and one for Amber Heard. Subtract these two stars if you're not attracted to women. Or add them back if you like dudes - Henry Cavill and Jason Mamoa go shirtless a bit.

I haven't really added anything new to the discussion with my review, just want to vent. But I will tell you this. I went to the theater in a good mood and with very low expectations, based on all the negative reviews, and saw this only because there was nothing else playing that I was remotely interested in.

But with a movie this bad, no matter how low your expectations, it will still disappoint and you'll still walk out thinking "How do so many people, ostensibly in the entertainment industry, invest so much time and money and collaborate on something for so long and produce something so completely devoid of entertainment?".

Some have said this is better than Batman vs. Superman and/or Suicide Squad. I'm not so sure. Maybe. No, I don't think so. Even a completely miscast Lex Luthor and CGI brown turd, or a writhing 6,000 year old Cara Delevingne, are more interesting than Steppenwolf.

Blade Runner 2049 (2017)

A completely worthy sequel, but let's hope the director's cut redoes the score.

[8/10 · 9 October 2017]

This is one of very few spoiler-free reviews I've written for IMDb. This movie deserves it.

It's definitely one of the best sequels ever made, especially considering how many years have passed since the original. Aliens is still my favorite sequel of all time, but this one is a close second for entertainment value, and as a continuation/expansion of the story started by its predecessor, Blade Runner 2049 is arguably equal or superior.

If you're mad at Ridley Scott for what he did to the Alien universe with two rather abysmal prequels, go see Blade Runner 2049 and hopefully all will be forgiven.

Blade Runner 2049 is filled with nods to the original, but they are seamlessly integrated because this really does feel like the same world 30 years later.

At first, the movie seems to be presenting us with a new and different, more lonely, and more isolated future than Deckard's rainy, crowded streets of LA. But, in time, it reveals the Blade Runner world we expect, expanded in a way that does justice to 35 years of real- world cinematic advances, while introducing some new and very memorable settings.

The movie has a very deliberate pace - obviously too slow for some reviewers on IMDb - but even that feels like a stylistic homage to the original (or at least an homage to complaints about the original). I detected some scenes here and there that felt a bit too dragged out, but they were few and far between, and I imagine they fit the director's vision, so hopefully there won't need to be too many different versions of this film.

In a way, the story line is simpler than that of the original, but in another more practical way, it is much deeper. From the start, I was expecting a chase for newer or more (or more interesting) replicants, but all I can say is, the movie goes in a direction I wasn't expecting. If it feels at all predictable (and to me it really didn't - there were some plot twists that surprised), it is only because it fits naturally within the Blade Runner world so familiar to fans of the original film.

Harrison Ford plays a very important part in this film, but it is Ryan Gosling's movie for sure, and he does a fine job with the role.

I saw it in 3D and, while the movie wasn't ruined by gimmicky "obviously just done for the 3D effect" scenes, there were times when I felt like the scenes were a bit too washed-out and bleak, and I wasn't sure whether that was the intent or just the effect of the 3D glasses. I'm sure I'll see it again in the theater but haven't decided whether to go with 2D next time.

The only aspect of the movie that I really disliked was the score. At times Vangelis-like (which is to say, almost angelic-sounding), it was more often than not ominously oppressive, drowning out my ability to concentrate on the on-screen action instead of creating the powerful effect Hans Zimmer usually achieves. I feel like his contribution does not elevate Blade Runner 2049 the way it did Interstellar (where it was also way too loud, but at least created powerful emotions).

My dislike for the score notwithstanding, the few nods to the original score are done extremely well, with the most important one arriving not a moment too soon (and that's as close to a spoiler as I'll get).

The entire movie continues and expands the discussion about the complex interactions between humans and the technology they create, while introducing some surprisingly original ideas (at least for cinema) about the interactions among various different technologies.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot. Is Deckard a replicant? All I can say is that Blade Runner 2049 addresses this question. Well, maybe "acknowledges" would be a more appropriate word...

Jack Reacher: Never Go Back (2016)

You know what they say: Once you go back, you never um... go back

[5/10 · 27 October 2016]

...to see another Jack Reacher movie, that is. I really liked the first film and was anticipating this one. It was a huge letdown. I read the book Never Go Back and recall it being one of the better in the Reacher series. It was a while ago, but I think the movie was reasonably faithful to it.

Still, this film felt very clichéd. In fact, "clichéd" isn't even the right word, nor is "formulaic". It was too bland for even those adjectives, which is almost an accomplishment in itself.

Reacher had much less witty repartee in this film than in the first. There was a lot less mystery or suspense; it was pretty much just a "fugitive road trip" pic.

The action scenes were uninspired and the lead villain was way too uninteresting to be so relentlessly unstoppable. I knew the movie would be bad when Reacher and his gal pal just ran away from the vicious killer when his back was turned in the restaurant kitchen, allowing him to kill two more people.

The exciting car chase in the Dodge Charger police interceptor barely even happened. The car was used in two separate mini-chases, neither one of which had any of the intensity teased in the trailers.

And, you know how it's clichéd that the hero and villain can get in knock-down drag-outs with brutal bone-crushing blows but nobody ever gets hurt? Well in this film they did something somewhat original yet somehow stupider:

After Reacher and the bad guy fall off a rooftop onto a lower rooftop, they get into this weird fight where they are both keeled over from their injuries but still going at it. I guess there is "good" injured and "bad" injured. It reminded me of the "good" naked and "bad" naked from that Seinfeld episode.

The entire subplot with his maybe-daughter was embarrassing. I know it's in the book, but it just didn't translate well to the big screen. Then at the end, there is an awkwardly drawn out goodbye scene that is supposed to be tear-jerking but just had me checking the time on my phone.

The first Reacher film began with suspense and ended with Jack getting up from his seat to kick some ass again. This one begins after what would have been the most interesting fight in the movie and ends with Jack hitchhiking down some Nebraska highway with his toothy smile, like a cross between David Banner and Joel Goodsen. So it is bookended with the same disappointments that it is filled with.

Cobie Smulders is nice, but when she turns into a female Jack Reacher it gets silly. And even for Jack Reacher, his ability to destroy his enemies on a plane without attracting attention is just unbelievable. It was funny when Arnold did it in Commando, not so much in what is supposed to be a gritty, realistic action thriller.

The only pleasant surprise of the movie was Aldis Hodge. It was nice to see Hardison from Leverage in something else.

Terminator Genisys (2015)

Somewhere in an alternate time-line, the Terminator franchise isn't ruined

[3/10 · 12 July 2015]

But in our time-line, it has been sold out by a hollow, shameless mess of a movie. OK, maybe it's not completely shameless. It does make the first two look a lot better in comparison (not that their reputation or cultural impact needed any enhancement). It also makes T3 look a lot better and even had me thinking I'd judged Terminator Salvation too harshly (but only for a few minutes). And it's always nice to see Arnold reprise the role of his lifetime. But that's about it.

The homage was nice, I liked that the same garbage truck was on hand for young Arnold's appearance and the driver looked and sounded similar. I liked that the one punk said "Nothing clean, right?" He added the "right" to make the joke clearer - I appreciate that since it took me a few viewings of the original to get the joke.

The poor casting choices almost seem like they were done out of deference to the original movie, as if it was obvious nobody could surpass Linda Hamilton and Michael Biehn, so why bother? If that was their goal, they hit a home run. Jai Courtney's acting was horrible. Emilia Clarke's was less horrible. Most of the few attempts at humor fell completely flat, and their reactions to everything made no sense.

Like, the first time Kyle Reese said "We have to kill Skynet before it even comes online!", Sarah Connor was like "What?!?" I'm not sure why she was so surprised, that's been her plan in pretty much every time-line.

The time travel storyline is convoluted. I don't think even the scriptwriters were trying to make it work, they just wanted it to be confusing. I totally didn't care which time-line they were in or affecting or anything.

The big action set pieces were really disappointing. Wow, a bus flipped over. An armored car crashed through a clothing store. Some terminators got melted or demagnetized. I'm actually glad they got rid of the liquid terminator pretty early on - I didn't want to see a complete rehash of T2.

On the other hand, the nanobot terminator is even more ridiculous than the liquid alloy terminator. It disassembles and reassembles with no rhyme or reason and no consequences to it ever.

Without doubt the helicopter chase ruined the movie - it was insanely fake and cartoony and made every other attempt at "sci-fi realism" pointless. Even the helicopter chase in Furious 7 was better and it was fake and cartoony too.

I did like that John ConnorBot realized he couldn't kill Sarah Connor or Kyle Reese. That was an interesting conundrum. It was the one minute in the movie when I was engaged and interested; it lasted about a minute.

All in all, this totally forgettable film doesn't reboot the series or advance it in any way whatsoever.

Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)

Thunderdome Shmunderdome - This is landmark movie-making

[8/10 · 17 May 2015]

Wow! Mad Max: Fury Road lived up to the expectations set by its trailer. And I know I need to see it again. In fact, this movie was so intense that there were scenes I actually needed to see again while they were still ongoing.

But here's the weird part: As epic and spectacular as Fury Road is, I still think the first two are better films (and Fury Road certainly makes up for the letdown that was Beyond Thunderdome, even though it was a long time coming). Maybe it will become clearer why I think that by the end of the review. Maybe not.

I'm just gonna throw out some thoughts about the movie. After watching this I don't have the energy for an in-depth analysis.

See it in 3D in the largest, loudest format you can.

I like that there is a bit more backstory and humanizing dialog among what would otherwise appear to be minor villains. Even just basic chit-chat like "Hey, where are we going?" is refreshing compared to Wez's screaming.

There are a few surprisingly emotional scenes that add a level of complexity to Immortan Joe that is unusual for any Mad Max villain, but these were the exception, and overall he felt somewhat underdeveloped as a character.

I didn't expect it, but the weak link here is Tom Hardy. Early on, it seemed that he was trying very hard - and succeeding - to channel the desperation, mistrust, and ultimate survival skills of the Max Rockatansky we first met 36 years ago. But then it sort of falls apart and he settles for a weird hybrid British/Australian/American accent and an overall bland performance. This Max is no Bane. He's barely even the Scarecrow.

So, in the end, I blame Mel Gibson that this movie wasn't quite as good as it could have been. If not for the various misbehaviors that put him out of public favor, this could have been a great opportunity for him to reprise the role of Max. On the other hand, Fury Road is not so much about Max as it is about the story (which is super-basic, I can see why some people complain about lack of plot).

The action is practically non-stop. What seems like a bit of a lull in the middle is probably no more than 5 minutes long.

The score is big and bold, and fits the action in most cases, though it is a bit too orchestral and less frantic or desperate than the themes in Mad Max or Mad Max 2. *Edit* After multiple viewings, I retract the previous statement. The score, particularly during the motorcycle attack, is perfectly majestic and heroic and urgent and stirs exactly the right emotions.

In fact, that's another minor complaint. This movie is hyper-polished: Every scene is visually perfect. Every background sound is orchestrated. Not a piece of rust or a jagged spike is out of place. It's a dystopian utopia.

Oh yeah, I kind of wished they'd been consistent and used another Mack Truck for the war rig, but oh well, I guess the OshKosh or whatever military truck they used was heavier duty. And I have to say - the vehicles in this movie were insane - crazier than any Hot Wheels car I've ever seen.

Sure, there's a fair amount of "Men are bad" in this movie, but let's be real: most of the men in this movie are bad and men in real life are pretty bad a lot of the time too. I think real men ought to be able to handle this plot element without throwing a conniption. Besides, if George Miller was serious about the feminism angle he wouldn't have had one of the Vuvalini riding a Gold Wing in the post-apocalypse.

There are lots of really cool touches in the movie in the action sequences. Just to mention a few without spoiling them too much: The cowcatcher on the war rig is quite functional, and never siphon dragster fuel by mouth...

The ending works well. Sure, it's kind of a happy ending, but with only one really happy ending out of four movies, you can't complain that George Miller is trying to blow sunshine up your a**.

I'm sure I need to see this movie again, probably multiple times, just to absorb more of the stunt sequences. But I'm not necessarily sure I want to see it again as much as I did Mad Max or Mad Max 2. So in the end, Fury Road, with all its greatness, has made me appreciate even more the characterizations, tone, and gritty vision in the first 2 films.

Still, Mad Max: Fury Road is definitely a landmark in sequels/reboots/re-imaginings, and it puts George Miller in a rare league that not even George Lucas and Spielberg could enter with their weak reduxes of Star Wars and Indiana Jones.

Here's my precise ratings of the series:

Mad Max: 8.625/10; Mad Max 2 (The Road Warrior): 9/10; Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome: 6.8/10; Mad Max: Fury Road 8.5/10

Chappie (2015)

Hey CHAPPiE Boom Boom, hit me with the Ching-ching

[6/10 · 8 March 2015]

Alternate Title: District 5 is Alive!

OK, it's official. Neill Blomkamp is really good with the special effects. And I'm sure he's done wonders for the South African tourism trade. But maybe he should take a step back from the big, lofty ideas for a while, because he's been having a bit of trouble with them lately.

Now, don't get me wrong. I actually liked Chappie. Better than Elysium for sure but nowhere near the landmark movie that was District 9. In fact, while the parallels to Robocop and Short Circuit were obvious even from the trailers, I was surprised at how derivative of District 9 it felt (and not because of the Johannesburg setting - in fact JoBurg might be my favorite character in this latest film, that Vodacom tower is really ominous).

The director manages to give very short shrift to all of the big ideas in this movie - artificial intelligence, the essence of consciousness, even nature vs. nurture. Which is weird, considering how long the movie is.

Instead, each scene is sillier than the one before it. "Maker" Deon has the secret to artificial intelligence, if only he can drink enough Red Bull to compile "terabytes" of code. And, just like the lizard tail regeneration DNA splicing scene in "The Amazing Spider-Man", the difference between complete failure and total success is just a few short keystrokes - no debugging necessary. And that's just for starters - after that it gets really preposterous.

It's fun to see Hugh Jackman as a nasty, psychotic, homicidal, office backstabber (kind of the way it was fun to see Roger Moore run around with the Spice Girls in a double-decker bus a few decades ago) but it really doesn't help anyone who's trying to take the movie seriously. Apparently Mr. Blomkamp thinks it is edgy to have Hugh invite his enemy to church, genuflect when he hears that Chappie is sentient, and comment on how godless Chappie is while trying to blow the robot to smithereens.

Probably the most disappointing and nonsensical aspect (apart from the fact that Chappie was for some reason programmed to act frightened by every new experience) is how quickly Chappie went from a wide-eyed, cartoon-watching innocent to an expert in neural networks and human consciousness. If the writers of this movie had anything interesting to say about the true differences between programming, knowledge acquisition, and intelligence, it must have ended up on the cutting room floor.

Apart from the annoying repetition of a particularly obnoxious Die Antwoord song, I really liked the acting by both Yo-Landi Vi$$er and Ninja (confession: I knew I would like Yo-Landi's role no matter what, but I was surprised at how much I liked Ninja's acting as well). In fact, their performances are probably the only thing that kept me from being disappointed with the movie.

The transformation of Ninja's character throughout the movie isn't quite as dramatic as Wikus's in District 9, more like the difference between Normal Wikus and the Wikus who spits up used motor oil. But what do you expect from a gangsta thug rapper? ZEF! Yeah, for some reason I keep wanting to say ZEF! And Yo-Landi is just as sweet as she could be - if nothing else, Chappie gets an extra 2 stars just for making me forget about the video for Cookie Thumper (I prefer Fatty Boom Boom anyway).

I do like that Neill Blomkamp used subtitles in this movie, I just wish he'd use them for the people I can't understand (which in this movie, was mostly Chappie).

Ironically, the most realistic part of the movie was the vicious inter-office politics (OK, even that was over the top too, but only by a little), including a CEO who makes every decision as a knee-jerk reaction based on bad advice from somebody who's obviously lying to her. That was totally believable.

I guess it's actually kind of comforting to know that Christopher Nolan doesn't really have a compelling idea of what lies beyond the wormhole and Neill Blomkamp doesn't really have a compelling idea about the essence of human consciousness. At least their movies were kind of fun, especially because they practically beg not to be taken seriously.

On the other hand, I'm really looking forward to seeing Sharlto Copley play the xenomorph in the next Alien movie.

Interstellar (2014)

Doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but it's still pretty epic and powerful

[8/10 · 15 November 2014]

Alternate title: What?!? Sorry I can't hear what you said over the sound of Hans Zimmer's organ.

An interesting movie-going experience, this was. I say, go see it in IMAX (if you feel like coughing up the extra $9-10 per ticket). There will be several points during the film where you won't be able to understand a word of the dialog being spoken due to the blaring soundtrack. In some cases, whatever happened during that scene will be explained later, in others not. But the visual impact of many of the scenes is so powerful that I'm glad I experienced them in the largest format available.

You gotta give Christopher Nolan credit. The guy "goes big or goes home" - and he doesn't often go home, certainly not this time. I was moved to tears a few times during this movie, laughed several times, was awed a lot, and thought a lot.

I went into the movie having read many of the reviews on IMDb - mostly negative ones - and I actually enjoyed the movie more having had it "spoiled". This way I already knew I wouldn't be able to hear some of the dialog, and I was prepared for some of the sappier plot twists. It helped me appreciate the movie more because almost everything the nay-sayers didn't complain about was highly enjoyable (and some of the things they complained about didn't bother me at all).

For one thing, the boxy robots definitely stole the show. Calling them boxy isn't quite fair - they get quite a lot of traction -literally - from being composed of articulated rectangular slabs. And when their dialog wasn't being drowned out it was very, very clever.

Oh, and actually it wasn't really the robots that stole the show. It was McConaughey. Lincoln clearly took their cue from Reese's Pieces and E.T. (not M&M's), because having Matthew M. start hawking their luxo-boats shortly before the release of this movie was a brilliant marketing strategy. Matthew's folksy every-man is exactly what was needed in this role (Interstellar I mean, but I guess it goes for luxury SUV salesman as well), and he played it perfectly. It especially helps that he can express a range of emotion with his face since we can't hear him a lot of the time. Same with Anne Hathaway. And I always thought Michael Caine was way too famous and distinguished a face to be believable as a mere butler, but he did fine as an ethically conflicted astrophysicist.

The supporting cast - Jessica Chastain, Casey Affleck, and the actors who played Coop's children, played their roles well also.

Like Titanic, this was a very fast (almost) 3 hours and that's a sign of an entertaining movie. It's weird, because there weren't even really that many big action scenes or plot transitions. I guess they were all just nicely padded with explanatory scenes that didn't feel like filler to me.

Yes, there was no real "M. Night Shyamalan twist" here because the surprise ending was blatantly telegraphed from the beginning. And yes there is lots of science and pseudo-science and head-scratching stuff that doesn't seem plausible (and probably isn't) but somehow it all just works.

And yes there were things I didn't like about Interstellar, in addition to the earsplittingly ham-handed sound editing. For example, I wish they'd have tried harder to convince us that Earth was in peril (yeah, I know, who are "they?"). The alternations between "Dust Bowl, Kansas" and "Field of Dreams, Iowa", both with well maintained and fully fueled pickup trucks (and no civil strife) rang kind of hollow. But then again, maybe that strange duality is not so far from the truth as the world exists today, and lots of people would love a Plan B right here, right now.

The comparisons with 2001: A Space Odyssey are inevitable, and I think Interstellar holds up quite favorably in that match-up (so favorably it wins by TKO). Interstellar has every element of 2001 - the realistic space scenes, the psychedelic space scenes, the epic majestic score (it's no Also Sprach Zarathustra but not much is), artificial intelligence as a main character, and the intriguing, highly speculative commentary on the evolution of the human race. But Interstellar's "wow factor" to "snooze factor" ratio is much better than 2001's, and its emotional factor (on a scale of 1 to 10) is around 11 (I think only Saving Private Ryan has moved me more), whereas 2001's emotional factor is about -5.

In summary, Interstellar is entertaining enough that regardless of whether you end up thinking it's been over-hyped, it's probably still worth a look-see on the big screen.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014)

When you're bleak, you're bleak

[5/10 · 24 September 2014]

With apologies to the writers of one of George Costanza's more memorable tautologies, I can't think of a more apt description of "Captain America: The Winter Soldier".

The excessive gun violence in this movie - most of it without consequence - is disturbing. It makes "Commando" look like a public service announcement from the Brady Campaign. I'm all for 2nd Amendment rights. And the right to eat whatever you want too, but if a movie showed skinny supermodels binging on Pizza Hut, KFC, and Burger King for 2 hours and never gaining a pound, I'd find it similarly unbelievable and irresponsible.

The Winter Soldier himself is, without exaggeration, the least inspired villain since The Phantom Menace. And it's much less excusable in this case, because I think just about everybody expects more from the pages of Marvel lore than they do from the creative mind of George Lucas (at least since the mid-1980s). Hey Marvel, if you're going to drop only the slightest of hints at a guy's origins or motivation, you might want to try making him interesting first.

Apart from a brief opening scene on a ship, and a pointless trip to a training ground in New Jersey, the movie was set entirely in and around Washington, DC. News flash: That may be one of the most boring (and phoniest) settings on the planet, even before you add CGI. The last movie that successfully pulled off an all-DC setting came out over 25 years ago (Kevin Costner's "No Way Out").

Yeah, I know that the trip to the training ground - during which a supercomputer, imbued with the personality of the nebbish from the first Cap'n America movie, attempted a murder-suicide - was supposed to provide vital plot exposition. But good ole Steve Rogers had already deduced all there was to know about the threadbare plot the minute he saw the new heli-carriers (*audible groan* "Not heli-carriers again?")

I guess I'll have to check the FAQs or the message board to figure out what's going on with Nick Fury. I must be too dense to have grasped it. Is he dead, alive, a clone, or what? I'll also have to check with the comic book fans to find out whether Falcon was as forced and unnecessary in the monthlies as he was in this movie.

As for Captain America, the whole series is kind of embarrassing. I mean, Chris Evans is a handsome guy, apparently very muscular now, and likable. But he's already played the Human Torch so why does he get to come back as a different Marvel Universe character just because the Fantastic Four movies sucked? What's next, Tobey Maguire as Mysterio? Then again, Jessica Alba as Spider-Woman would be OK, so never mind.

If you want to watch a good movie about heavily armed aerial urban pacification vehicles whose developers are secretly nefarious, watch "Blue Thunder" instead. You'll save 30 minutes that you can use to go out to Quiznos. I hear they have zero-calorie sandwiches now.