Reviews

We liked this film, but it was too slow. The emotions are very real and the story is believable. I think many people can relate to a past love or friend and the challenges of timing and/or location on a true love relationship. The Korean and American story lines are fairly compelling. But that also means you jump between languages the whole film--which makes it harder to follow. You might need to be a film buff or international relationship person to make it through this film. To make it seem real--the director slows everything down. The critics love how human the story is and how real the emotions are. But the anti-Hollywood approach makes it a bit hard to watch. We are used to a bit more speed and entertainment. This almost feels like a documentary. I really appreciate Korean culture much better after this film. My main gripes are that it is slow. The main actress is great and the Korean friend is great. But the American (husband) does not seem real to me and his acting is awkward and uneven. Not sure this is "Best Picture" nominee caliber, but it's a good and realistic story about relationships, culture and geography. It took three different sittings to finish this (rental), but I made it through.

We liked this film a lot. It is a very interesting story that helps remind us about the creation of the smart phone and the battles for the best product, network speed, interface and the bitter battles that ensued. If you are involved in marketing, technology, sales or business--you may see a lot of truth here and a few big warnings about how humans get in the way of themselves and the right decisions. I liked the film and learned a lot from its narrative and warnings of business decision-making, personal egos, management styles, and all the things you can do wrong (or right.) The iPhone crushed BlackBerry--BUT they crushed themselves in how they responded to Apple. The movie helps you realize how amazing Apple is in our world. OK. Here are a few notes for folks who watched the film AND hopefully a few folks who made the film. The acting is good, but a bit TOO much like a Hallmark (or any TV movie). The corporate executive, Jim is so mean, negative and ego-centric that you almost lose any interest in him. I know people like him, but they really painted him too thin and angry to believe. He's a cartoonishly corporate. Always in a suit and trying to get ahead by being a mean person--but we never know why or who he really is. Then, there is Mike, the brains of RIM. He's interesting too and rather believable. I know people like him, but again, the writer and director failed to give us a "why" about Mike. His transition during the film is interesting and his character is the center of the lesson here. His friend, Doug is very funny. The last complaint is that the filming is WAY too much like the Office. Jumpy camera angles do not make it feel real, just cheap. Sorry director. 8/10 is pretty good for a semi-bio flick about technology. Worth a watch--but the writer and director missed the mark on making this a 9 or a 10, which it could have been.

Summary: This is an acting powerhouse for Bradley Cooper and Carey Mulligan - Both are superb and the films spends a LOT of time on their rocky and messy and complex relationship, way more than the music or bio of Bernstein. The film does a great job of studying the people and characters and NOT add media or political angles to a complex family situation. I learned a lot about Leonard Bernstein, so as a BIO pic--that is great. That said, I like him less seeing how he treated others. He mistreats others around him in ways that would be unacceptable today. He got away with a lot as an arts celebrity. I wish the film had given us MORE about his craft, and his music. It hints at the struggle between Broadway and "high art" classical, but drops that ball early. The film is over two hours, but still OK for a biopic. (3+ hour films must stop!) Leonard was a genius and an eccentric jerk. The film did an interesting job of positing his wife as being "OK" with his behavior, which seems way to rosy or washed over, but Mulligan is lovable and stoic. Bradley Cooper is becoming a Hollywood everyman (ala Hanks or Clooney). This film and a Star is Born put him into a new league of directors and actors. While I can only give this film an 8/10--Bradley is superb. What I still left wondering after two hours: - What drove his musical genius/talent? Why did he choose his wild life of drugs and homosexuality when he clearly adored so much about nuclear family life and had such a wonderful spouse. As full as the film is, I still wonder what made him special (musically) and how he made such terrible life choices that hurt those around him. I guess that is where they want us to be. Thankfully, Bradley Cooper does not PUSH a political agenda or position here, he shares the raw story and let's us decide. LB is the Anti-hero. Not sure there is an antagonist here, but it's probably LB to most viewers. That complexity makes it interesting. A worthy 2024 Oscar and Golden Globe film. Heavy and Complex. ((Dear Bradley, please do an AWESOME and entertaining version of Sinatra (or the Rat Pack) someday.))

I hoped this would be a great film and it was! So glad the family could see this twice in the theaters. THE THEATER CLAPPED at the end... how rare is that? CHALAMET DESERVES THE 2024 GOLDEN GLOBE BEST ACTOR NOMINATION--Which he received. Big colors and sets make this MUCH better in the theater than on a small screen. Timothly Chalamet does an excellent job of balancing a fun, but complex and quirky Willy Wonka. The film is fun, but hits of darkness. Energetic and catchy music, sets, dancing, and a fast-moving and VISUALLY stunning storyline. Director Paul King is amazingly careful to respect the original film AND create something wholly new for a generation. Wonka here is more inspired and less weird. The director avoids anything too political or divisive. But adults will get the clear analogies to chocolate as money and society as motivated to control or be controlled. All ages, from 6-76 years old loved this film. The original is a classic, but this one is more fun and well-crafted in many ways. The other characters fit well around a powerful Chalemet performance. Hope (and chocolate) springs eternal at WONKA.

I wanted to like this film. And I think we gave it a fair shot with our full attention and high hopes, based on the storyline and actors. The first half of the film is smart and clever. The characters, however, incomplete, are interesting enough for you to care about the story. However, a few review notes here are not spoilers, but don't read on if you plan to watch the film. About 1/3 of the way in, I begin to doubt the actual character interaction. The storyline is interesting, but there seems to be something really missing in how the characters interact with one another. There seems to be a plot twist coming , and you hang on hoping that the absurdity of character interaction is actually going to lead to a revelation that helps it all come together. At the midway point, there are four or five plot holes that again prevent you from being able to suspend disbelief as you might, with a typical drama, sci-fi/horror film. Despite the great actors on screen, there is only one actor who is given a remotely believable persona... Ethan Hawk. Every other character jumps the shark, and I could give you very specific ways that they don't make sense based on human behavior, psychology, believable interaction, Nor are their characters consistent with the occasionally stereotypical set up. All in all, I had such high hopes for this film and believe that had a normal, or rational person been able to talk to the writer and Director with honest feedback... We might've wound up with some thing that was an 8/10 or better. Unfortunately, The last section of the film, despite all the buildup, is horribly disappointing. Someone thought this ending was clever, but they apparently didn't ask anyone for feedback. Boo.

I watch this basically every year. The script and narration are OSCAR worthy. Brilliant and timeless story. I was young when this film came out and I did not really get it as a kid. NOW, as a parent, it's the best. TRUE UPON TRUE story. The parents and the kids are very real, albeit exaggerated. The underlying themes are so human and real and funny. Although this film was set decades before I was born, I can see my parents and I can even see myself as a parent. Wickedly smart kid and funny. The fact he thinks half adult and half kid is so clever. Each actor does great. I can relate to this story in a different way each year. WATCH IT WITH FAMILY. Enjoy the story and the humor. Flawless sarcasm. Seinfeld would not have existed without this witty style of sarcastic humor. 10/10. And as watchable on the 20th time as the first. One funny thing, note that in the morning of Christmas, the two parents are throwing back red wine. I just noticed that this year. I've seen many parents drink mimosas for breakfast, but read wine is kind of funny. I do not miss the snow and bundled up clothing of the midwest. Glad to live in Texas now. The student-teacher story and bully story still resonate. The electrical issues with the tree are funny. The lamp story is obviously what the film is best known for, but the neighbor dogs and broken furnace are my new favorite story lines. An ode to simpler and classic true American life. Simple and funny. Elegant and crude. Smart and silly. A Christmas Story is a classic that can't be matched. The only other Christmas movies that are a MUST watch each year are It's A Wonderful Life and Christmas Vacation. Perhaps Love Actually makes the cut. And the Bill Murray Scrodged has it's moments. The dad is a great actor of stage and screen. Look him up.

Merry Christmas to All!

Generally, we really liked this story and film. SOLID indie film overall. There is enough real-ness to make this seem possible. I really like that aspect. Some characters are stories are over the top, but still within the arena of "suspended disbelief." Australia storyline is great. Mining town angle is real. Hotel-ish setting is also interesting. Most characters seem plausible. Some are kind of absurd. There are some plot holes that I won't mention as they are spoilers. But, I liked this film on a Tuesday night. Julia Garner chose well as this showcases her talent. This director, Kitty Green is also quite strong. Ending cost a point. Not for the reasons others disliked it, but did not impact the people I wanted it to. I know enough to know MOST of this story is plausible. Bar behavior is pretty real. Girls story line is also quite real. Setting is awesomely unique. Flow of film is well done. RECOMMENDED FILM. It may get a few indie nominations.

There are few truly unique films out there. For this reason, it deserves an 8.5 out of 10. Real characters make for great stories. Glad to get a break from Marvel-type content.

Just because it is a Marvel film does not make it theater worthy. It feels like Disney TV, which the HEAD of Disney said this week. They took their eye of this film, and it shows. Outlandish multi-cultural planets with goofy cultural costumes made this feel like a 1960s Star Trek. Cheap, goofy, and culturally offensive. The new Marvel character is amusing at first, but nothing about her family reaction is cinema worthy. It's absurd. This character jumps the shark many times. The's a "mistake per minute" with this character and the goofy Disney channel character comedy. Brie Larson is the bright spot here. SHE plays it serious and is a strong and realistic character. Samuel L. Jackson is also cool. But the other Marvel kids are just bad Disney TV characters. Not worth $100 movie night for me at AMC with tickets/popcorn, etc. Bummer. Here's the kicker, our. This film is doing terrible at the box office. No one is talking about it. Make a better film. Even our 9 year-old lost interest. We ALMOST (very close to) left early. Brie Larson has a great future, she acts and looks great. But the rest of the cast should go back to TV. Read other reviews. It's not THAT bad, but my 5 stars out of 10 is fair.

I was disappointed at times the adults rolled their eyes. Terrible writing and direction decisions were made here. But our smart 9 year-old enjoyed the story and music. ANIMATION was flawed. Sometimes new, sometimes in 1950 technology. Very odd. The songs are not very catchy. Too many words, not catchy. What location is this film? Era? Frozen had a historical angle--this was a hodge-podge of cultural chaos. The villain was tedious from the start. Too one-sided. Bad singer. Lead character is likable and smart. But the wheels come off with the actual "star" itself. Like a bad TV cartoon. No logic to this thing. The smartest thing in the world is like a tiny puppy with no memory or intelligence. Just a useless character in every way if you are over 4 years old. Boo. Same for the 1950s singing animals. It jumps the shark. Lots of sloppy writing. Adults were like, what? Who? What does that mean? Why is that happening? A few minor references to old Disney stories were cool, the Disney 100 year anniversary. Cool. But what a TV quality film. The ultimate CINEMA company has produced a film thin enough that I did not feel compelled by the theatrical usage. Songs were hard to understand and had little memorable lyrics or melody. Boo. The wall of Toys at the stores will not sell on a sub-standard film like this. Weak story, weak songs. Bummer for Disney 100. Our 9 year-old enjoyed the music and story. Empowerment story is good, but the family story is confusing. Try harder Disney. Much Much Harder. I was very disappointed an annoyed by this film. I probably gave it a 4.5-5 stars out of 10. My 9 year-old gave it an 8-9. So, average is a 6. I hope someone from Disney reads this. I feel strongly they missed the boat here. So much potential, so many mistakes and bland songs.

Preview felt unique. Concept is interesting. But script has 130 holes. Brutally bad inconsistency of storyline. No character is important to you. Bad vs. Bad. A rehash of Blade Runner- which is a far better film. Dozens of Star Wars characters. Washington is dull and wasted here. Few things make sense. Glad we did not see in theater. I can point out 1 thing per minute that does NOT make sense. After 2 hours, robots are still robots. Political themes waste time. But, it makes you think a bit. I just wish someone working on this film could have said, "that makes no sense", "that's not how anyone would react." They spent a lot of money on a hole-filled script.

Very briefly... we love Wes Anderson films, they are quirky and funny and close enough to reality that you can visualize them being true. The start of this film is far too absurd and plastic and slow to match any of his prior films, while there may be pleasant moments, the absurdity of start that allows you to not believe any of the actual story is what makes this hard to watch. I've always liked his directing because I said to myself, these people are so outrageously absurd... But I imagine this could happen in certain families or groups. This is believable... Unfortunately, asteroid city unplugged the video game and we lose all of that with pure absurdity.

Kids love the Minions. But the writer and director(s) added some really fun 70s references and music to keep adults entertained. The soundtrack (like Trolls and Sing films) keeps thing moving with funny and clever uses of 70s music, clothing, and pop culture. The storyline is appropriately funny with some very obvious wild tangents to just be funny. The 87 minute pace keeps event younger kids 6-9 entertained with summer fun at the theater. The quality of the animation was evident (saw in IMAX) and the soundtrack is still playing on our Apple Music account. Fun and funny work. Go Disco 70s. So amazing how many films and pop culture have embraced the once-dogged disco 70s cool era. Great for kids and adults. Film is a 7 out of 10. But the music and pop culture humor bump it to an 8.5. Dance on!

The original TV show was awesome. Ironic and simple absurd charm. First live film kept that. First cartoon films held on... barely. This one is like a two-faced clown. The First half keeps some light ironic charm. The second half is dark, absurd, and totally over the top with death, violence, attempts to be PC about family differences, and then just dumb. Yes, Sausalito is the home of evil, rich people... not sure that was the intention. Perhaps the second half was trying to go over the top to entertain the 10-15 years olds. Guess what? Average age of kids here in the theater was about 6. Way too much family hate for 6. Dumb and dark is not the new approach. While trying to make Wednesday look good, you make the others in family all look terrible. A swing and a miss. A few funny moments, cousin IT and Uncle Fester are funny, but WAY overplayed. Editors and director got lazy about halfway... and it shows.

For the sake of our six-year-old daughter, I am glad there is a female version of Ghostbusters, it gets her excited about wearing the costume for Halloween and there are a few moments in the movie... Although very far apart, that she finds amusing.

However, to the movie Director and producers, you've taken some very funny people and made them into such goofy characters it is almost impossible to appreciate them. The original Ghostbusters had such a different tone. While they were supposed to be mocked for not being totally "scientific", there was a firm belief that Dan Aykroyd was a true scientist and he truly believes in what he was doing. That tone is lost in this film... Perhaps someone thought and Melissa McCarthy could do that and that was a mistake . The humor in the original film, which is still widely regarded as one of the greatest comedies ever, was drawn out of character interaction and disconnection with the real world or people not understanding the Ghostbusters. This film is all about goofy lines and insults between the three or four main character. The writing is very poor and the cinematography and direction remind me of the worst of daytime Disney TV. Total miss. Sad waste of talent, make sure with this much effort and talent next time you produce some thing that is not it as embarrassing.

Having talked to a group of parents recently, we all admitted we had never made it through this film from beginning to end, but instead just caught 10 minute glances if our kids were watching it. Conversely, since my 20s, I've probably watched the original Ghostbusters over 100 times all through.

This film has stood the test of time. It makes fun of current society (and life in the 80s) while also lifting up the good side of everyone. Borrowing from dozens of great films and stories of the past, this absurdist comedy has so much "realness" in its characters and relationships that you can laugh and smirk just like Eddie Murphy does the whole film. While some of the jokes are a bit 80s-dated, the overall over-the-top characters are awesome. There are 10 classic lines and 10 classic scenes that make this a classic, even in the 2020s. The writing and over-acting in this movie are better than the combined efforts of the past 15 years of SNL. There are so many crazy references in this film, you can't catch them all--brilliant absurd scenes and stereotypes that can bother everyone equally.

Not always worth our time, but a few laugh-out-loud moments make it a nice diversion. But in these times, kudos for being funny without being political nor overtly offensive. In that way, this is a classic 80s comedy. Modern, yet old-school silly.

Everyone probably knows or imagines a couple of small-town squares and how they would freak out (in a funny way) if they got exposed to real-life (or just Florida). The humorous pretext leads you to a place where nothing really makes sense and an Austin Powers-like format takes over. Yes, we have the female equivalent of Dr. Evil. The Dr. Evil sub-plot seems forced and costs the film a full star. Had they just did the "fish-out-of-water" a bit more cleverly, this could have been an 8.

With big name stars and producers, a lot of talent is wasted here. But these two characters (with the help of producer Will Ferrell) may return sooner than we think. They are funny enough to deserve another shot at it.

I have not seen a new comedy film in the past few years that cracks the top-10 all-time. So for now, a 5.5 rating feels like a 6/10 and might be worth a watch on a Tuesday night at home.

This film is unique and breakthrough in many ways. It is also a disturbing portrayal of all people in the film who are mean, vindictive, evil, and abusive. At one moment, the characters seem normal and the next minute they are evil. An entire group of friends turn out to be plain evil. This messy attempt at drama will make you sad and feel dark about humanity. The film give you 3 choices in life... Evil, psychotic vindictiveness, or total naivety. There are so many sloppy and illogical progressions that you have to assume much of this is farce. But, the director spends an immense amount of time and effort trying to convince you that each character is real and 100% authentic. This film will do well during awards season because it deals openly with serious topics of college life and turning your back on bad and criminal behavior. You might also wonder of enacting revenge is worth the risk of your life and family. Disturbing and dark this film might impact you, but it's also at risk of having the wrong impression on a large percentage of viewers by being sloppy filmmaking and a "music video" like approach to serious drama. 5/10 is generous if you compare this film to The Shawshank Redemption, a real 10/10.

As other reviews note, what is the message here. The whole story gets lost in the zany space story. Kids blowing up dangerous rockets, breaking rules, meeting space monsters... They spend the first part of the movie trying to perfectly imitate culture of mainland China, then they go to absurdism with the moon/space characters and story. Our 6-year old found it visually stunning, but she asked a lot of questions that just make this a BAD film. Why are they allowed to shoot rockets? Why did their space ship crash? Are they hurt? Why are they needing space suits and then not needing them? Is it real or a dream? Why do they keep speaking different languages back and forth? The relationship stories are also too mature for the cartoonish characters and for kids. This film is lost in space. Go watch a Pixar film instead. Those are the real deal. This is a bad knock-off. Like that cheap cereal on the bottom shelf at the stores. Avoid!

The first few times I watched this I found it somewhat painful because I compared it to the humor and tone of the animated film. This movie at (many) times feels like bad cable network quality acting and action scenes. Our five-year-old has recently compared the two films and far prefers the live action one with Will Smith. The actor who plays "Prince Ali/Aladdin" is charming at times and just darn painfully goofy at other times (can't sing). I like Will Smith, but he feels awkwardly both out-of-control and then painfully restrained at times.

Reviews of other characters are so-so at best. Action scenes look like a bad show at a Disney park.

But all this aside, our 5 year old loves the story and characters here... perhaps kids ages 3-12 will love this update. But they lost that real edge that helps adults watch kids movies.

We were excited to see this film based on a handful of positive reviews. However, we now feel like we wasted our time because while there are 10 (very) interesting cinematic concepts (written) - The director and actors destroy them with horrific execution and 20 totally unrealistic acting (situational response) absurdities that make this film no better than the worst of the 80s slasher films.

This film is timely and relevant given the popularity of rental homes today. However, the cast do things that make no sense and are unbelievable to the point of rolling your eyes. You might stick into this film because it has enough entertaining concepts that you want to believe it, but in the end you do not believe the people and you do not care about them and you do not think that any of this is possible.

That said, it may not help you sleep.

The biggest disappointment here is that someone came across an interesting concept and whoever actually executed on this concept failed everyone.

3.5/10.

We've watched this film 10 times because our 5-year old really enjoys it. There are a few too many slow and silly times that make it not nearly the quality of the great Finding Nemo, but it carries a lot of the charm with it somehow 13 years after the original. There are times where I feel this film falls on some weak and simple plot movements--but that is why it likely fared poorly during awards season. This is a good film, Nemo was a great film. Better than most kids films, but a bit of a messy direction.

We saw this in the theater and our 5-year old has watched it 10 times on Disney+. Visually stunning animals that makes you wonder how they did it. It does lack heart and could have been more fun. This film could have been a 9, but has to settle for a 7 as the tone keeps confusing the viewer. Worth a watching, but probably not as many times as your young kids will try to watch.

The first Trolls movie was a winner. Classic music re-invigorated with new energy and meaning and even some great new fun music from Justin T. (He deserved an Oscar for Can't Stop The Feeling.) While this sequel TRIES VERY HARD to be fun and bring some great music back to life--it creates some bizarre music genre battles that make no sense. The "angry" rock leaders? The "stupid" country bumpkins? An EDM genre injection there for a minute of the beat and dancing? The entire 500 years of Classical only gets a few seconds of fame.. the only nod to Jazz is Smooth Jazz (Kenny G), which is funny, but too narrow. The preview of the film would have you believe we learn something about music, but the genre stereotypes try WAY to hard with K-Pop, Hip-Hop and others to squeeze in a little bit of everything. Snippets of popular toons keep the young 3-9 year-old crowd dancing, but a truly great kids films must be able to entertain adults on 5, 10 or even 100 viewings by kids at home (that's what they do. Trolls 1 deserves an 8 or 9 for being "parent-friendly," fun and watchable. The 2nd half of Trolls World Tour creates a loud batch of annoying and loud music stereotypes that made even our 2nd watching with our 5-year old a bit hard to take. 3 years in the making, this hodge podge of music and colorful visuals is mostly kids stuff. Early highlights: Ozzy had potential, but they made him virtually speechless. The use of Rock You Like a Hurricane and Crazy Train started strong. Daft Punk's "One More Time" gets a remake for a new generation to dance and sing... but so many of the new and "original" tunes here fall flat. Tiny Diamond is also a funny addition. Trolls 2 was a GREAT concept with lots of potential to introduce kids to music of their parents generation (again), but it just fell too flat trying to do too much and overlooking what parents would really find funny (and entertaining.)

This live concert video took a LOT of work to create and used a top Hollywood director. In 1983 this was probably the MOST innovative live concert ever recorded and holds up today to similar standards. Music videos were still very new in this era and they build a live show that feels like each song is its own classic music video. The energy of the band and wild mix of music genres make this timeless. I am eager to see the Broadway version now after re-watching this all-time classic musical performance. Lead Singer David Byrne is perfectly bizarre and watchable. Recorder over 4 nights in LA, you some to realize how innovative this band was in a great era for all types of rock--the mid 80s. You may find their music odd or funky, but they are a classic rock mainstay and ahead of their time.

Yes. The reviews are correct. This has so much potential and may visually stunning with some cool cinematography. But these shallow and poorly invested characters draw you only to roll your eyes with each scene. Absurd, aloof, clueless and vacuous characters that look and sound smart cannot make up for the fact you can barely tell who is who and why they interact. We still can't tell who is who and why they are interacting. Does the director assume everyone has read the book and screenplay before watching? Absurd. The movie's director has build a visual version of the book and has assume that all 300 million Americans read it yesterday. That is offensive to the art of cinema. If your college class just read and reviewed the book, perhaps this will help you visualize. For the other 99.9% of viewers, it's as confusing as having walked into a room of people speaking a different language.... but they do look well doing it. I may have preferred this film without sound as the characters.

Try again shallow film team. This could have been good. I'd like a refund ($19.99) and 2 hours of my time back. I paid $20 for a gourmet dessert and got a fluffy Twinkie.