Reviews

Basically a very predictable and contrived movie.

The film relies largely on visuals to fill in for the thin plot and sketchy character development. Trouble is, unless your are an AVID video game player, many of the visuals will not be very interesting to you. It also cashes in on nostalgia from a few classic movies from the past....most notably "The Shining". Some may enjoy this....I didn't particularly.

Most of all, this film is not very original. It is another "video game players use their skills to save the world" flick. If you imagine a composite of "The Matrix" and "Tron"....but with an tone and level of engagement more like "Tron"....you will have a pretty good idea what to expect.

I don't really recommend it unless you are a hardcore gamer...and maybe not even then. A bland, shallow, largely boring movie.

Not a whole lot more needs to be said. This is a "what you see is what you get" movie....very much in the spirit of the original "Death Wish" movies with Charles Bronson....

The movie was well paced, well cast (with the exception of the Vincent D'Onofrio character, who came off more as the textbook "creepy uncle" than sympathetic), and had good action sequences without relying solely on over-the-top action to carry the film....which never really works. Dean Norris and Kimberly Elise were perfect in their supporting roles as overworked police detectives...in particular Norris was so good I fear he is destined to be perpetually typecast as a cop. I guess there could be worse fates....

As of the moment this film is carrying an IMDB rating normally indicative of really bad movies. It is not justified....this is a good and entertaining film. I don't know this for a fact, but I suspect politics have swayed many ratings....just as it seems politics have recently poisoned every aspect of life in the USA.

"Death Wish" is well done, and is everything it appears to be...no subterfuge or misleading previews. If the premise appeals to you at all, go see it. You won't be disappointed.

I wouldn't call "Annihilation" light entertainment, something you would want to see on a first date or anything...

But I greatly enjoyed it. It is nice to see a film with some original elements for a change, and one that kind of makes you think....whether you want to or not. This film sets a dark mood very early on, and does a good job throughout enhancing that mood and keeping the viewer on a disturbed "edge".

The characters were believable and sympathetic, and it was fascinating watching them encounter the bizarre happenings in the movie, simply because they were indeed believable and easy to empathize with.

I cannot say I was 100% satisfied with the ending....but it forced me to ponder what sort of ending would have been better for a film of this sort. I couldn't come up with one...

*****Spoiler***** The bear-ish "creature" that appears partway through the film, was without a doubt one of the creepiest, most disturbing presences I have seen in any film....EVER.

Bottom line, I recommend "Annihilation"....go see it....but do not expect standard Hollywood fare. This movie is different.

I want to start out by saying that the original "Blade Runner" is one of my all-time favorite movies. I went into "Blade Runner 2049" with genuine anticipation, excitement, and a 100% positive attitude. I really wanted to like it....

Simply put, this film was nothing but superficial, meaningless, monotonous eye candy. I was getting horribly bored 45 minutes into it, and yet it just went on and on and on for more than two additional hours.. It was as if the production crew worked so hard to capture the visuals, sound, and tone of the original...and to bring in Harrison Ford and Edward James Olmos...they forgot (or lacked the budget)to concoct a story.

This was one of the most painfully boring movies I have ever sat through....and certainly the biggest disappointment.

I will admit the visuals were well done....but the "booom...BOOOM"...soundtrack....engaging in the first "Blade Runner"....was just annoying here. In fact, the interesting visuals were the only reason I did not give this film a "1"...it definitely deserves it.

I was panicking midway through the movie...I was by then agonizingly bored...and I could not envision how....when...it would ever end. It really, truly, is that bad.

"Blade Runner 2049" currently has the inflated shill IMDb reviews that most big-budget releases start out with....but take my word. Once more people see this film, the truth will come out and I would wager it will be gone from the theaters in less than two weeks.

Please...do yourself a huge favor....skip it!

***I wanted to add after submitting this review***

I find it amusing the people giving this movie positive reviews, who are more or less insulting the opinions of those who did not like it. I don't mean the shills who gave the film a positive review because they are biased or have a financial interest....I'm talking about those who think liking this movie makes them "deeper" and smarter...they get the deep mystery and meaning of the movie and those who disliked it do not.

This is ridiculous and reeks of elitism...there is nothing "deep" in Blade Runner 2049. The movie is just too long and boring to support an almost non-existent story, it's that simple.

I can't add much to what the other reviewers have said...

This film is contrived, childish, poorly written, and boring. Worst of all, it is just not funny. At all.

Casting Amy Schumer was a huge mistake. I mildly enjoyed her in "Trainwreck", but now I realize she is a "one trick pony" who has been used up. I for one have found her strident political activism to be so misplaced and distasteful, I don't think I could laugh at her humor attempts anymore no matter how good the material was. And, "Snatched" was NOT good material.

I think I primarily only saw this movie because of Goldie Hawn...whom I haven't seen in many years. Let's just say she should have picked a different picture in which to re-emerge.

Avoid at all costs.

This movie was absolutely, blatantly, unapologetically racist.

I know it is still considered "OK" in chic society to stereotype and demean white people based on nothing but their race, but this movie takes it to the next level and beyond. I am in a mild state of shock after having seen it.

I will admit the movie was very creepy....and I thought the acting and casting was above average...but the film was so socially irresponsible I am not sure what else to say about it. If you are someone who believes that 100% of white people are racist en-slavers and exploiters of black people....you will love every minute.

Or if you believe the best way to correct perceived racism ....past or present....is with toxic, over the top racism....you too will love this film.

Or if you are one who puts up their finger to see which way the winds of fashion are blowing before you form an opinion on critical social issues, this movie is right up your alley as well....

I went to this movie with a friend who likes mindless action movies, so I wasn't expecting much more than that.

"John Wick 2" was even more silly than I expected, however.

First of all, John Wick is essentially invulnerable. Bullets do not harm him, nor do endless blows and stabs to every part of his body. He is sort of like you combined Bruce Lee with Superman....except with guns....and endless choreographed fight scenes that feel more like dancing than fighting. I guess it is OK that Wick is invulnerable, but it makes kind of a boring movie. You know that no matter what odds are stacked against him, he will still come out on top. And he does. Yawn.

And the odds are stacked. My buddy and I estimated that Wick killed between 50 and 100 people in the movie. It may have even been higher than that.

Also the "secret guild of assassins" premise is beyond ridiculous. Apparently, every person on the street in New York City is a clandestine, bad-ass assassin.... Who knew? Don't they run out of people to assassinate?

I am capable of "suspending disbelief"....but the more I dissect this film, I cannot escape the fact that it was just stupid and silly.

Yeah...I'm pondering it all now. "John Wick 2" sucked. No nice way to put it.

But hey, my buddy liked it. I guess people like him must account for some of the positive reviews.

People leaving the prior showing were WARNING us as we went in. I heard "very slow"...."boring"....and "unintelligible" from various viewers.

That has never happened to me before....ever....in 45 or so years of movie viewing.

And that pretty much sums it up. "Arrival" was boring and nonsensical.

The people giving it praise must be vastly more intelligent than I am...or something....Maybe I just did not understand it.

Maybe....but I sure did not like it and I don't think most prospective viewers will either.

Skip it.

I will keep this brief....

No significant story to speak of...the film just drones on and on with the "gotta catch the creatures that escaped from the suitcase" crap. That is basically it.

Poor/inadequate character development. There are just "characters" in the movie....we know little to nothing about them or their motivations....and care little to nothing about what happens to any of them.

The essence of the film is "look at the weird and charming CGI creatures we created". I cannot believe that after all the years of CGI...the producers of this movie still believed that effects alone can make a movie....but apparently they do. The CGI is not new or refreshing in any way that I could see...just CGI.

I am sure this movie will get some audience in the first few days, just by tapping into the "Harry Potter" world. But it won't last. Word will get out, and the (currently ridiculously inflated) IMDb ratings will drop like a stone.

Take my word on this. This is a boring and bland failure of a movie. I slept through about a third of it, and those moments of unconsciousness were the best part.

I have seen this film twice, and remain completely blown away by the entire spectacle.

Normally I am not at all a fan of movies with little story that try to engage the viewer with awesome visuals and action. Clearly Mad Max: Fury Road is precisely in that category.

However, I have to give credit where credit is due...they made it work.

I almost wish this was a completely standalone film that did not attempt to tie into the "Mad Max" franchise, because it has little in common with the releases from years past, and for me Mel Gibson will always be the only "Mad Max". All this latest film shares with the Gibson releases is the name and a few of the general visuals.

So on to the action....since that is all this movie really is.

I am certain at least some of the scenes in this film had to be CGI, simply because there would be no other way to do them. Despite this, it is seamless. I can normally spot CGI a mile away, and in Fury Road I honestly could not tell which effects were done with actual "hardware" and which were computer generated. This is important because it is key to the amazing visual experience of watching this.

The action scenes were breathtaking...I'm not sure how else to describe them. They were accompanied by audio that on occasion gave me goose bumps, particularly the air horns on the main "war rig" and the surrealistic "music" from the mutant rock and roller on the pursuing rig.

I realize this movie will not be for everyone, but nonetheless I have to say it raises the bar for what can be put on the screen in the action film genre. I am already trying to come up with an excuse to see it a third time.

Highly recommended.

I suffered more sitting through this film than any I can remember, and I have seen a lot of movies. I was in a group, and unsure how the rest felt about it, otherwise I would have left long before it was over.

I went in with a positive attitude, and was somewhat intrigued with the first 20 minutes or so. But the film just settles into a grinding repetitiveness and lack of depth that quickly sucks the life from the viewer.

All the characters are one-dimensional and impossible to sympathize or identify with, the "story" is drawn out and boring, and the music all has a certain mediocre sameness that blends together into nothing more than an annoying sort of white noise. Here I sit a few days later, and I cannot remember anything specific...lyrics or melody....from any song in the movie. And I would estimate that 2/3 of this film was singing...which is a lot....even for a "musical".

And all of the above just goes on and on and on. After about the 75 minute mark I felt myself mildly panicking because I could not see how the story was going to come to an end (and didn't care) but just wanted out! It really, truly, is that bad....and is very long to boot.

I hope by now word is out about this film and people are avoiding it in droves. I felt I had to write this review as sort of "closure" from the experience of having to sit through it.

I only gave it a two because some of the set design was mildly interesting.

Stay away! Your sanity might depend upon it.

I just saw this movie with a friend. I wasn't expecting too much, since I rarely like CGI-extravaganza type films. Even having said that, I left this movie disappointed and angry. It was really bad, and if I was alone I would have walked out long before it was over.

I do not understand the art of cinema sufficiently to explain exactly why the movie was so bad. If I was tasked to make a "spectacle" film about two large monsters fighting, I don't think I could do any better. But then again I am not in the business...

To summarize, the film was a disjointed mess. Characters are introduced, then fade in and out of the action without any development or real purpose. I could point out dozens of plot holes and logic flaws in the way the film progressed, but that would be giving the movie too much credit. It would imply that if some disbelief was suspended the movie would have been "OK", and it wouldn't. Even the CGI was hokey in many places. The Godzilla creature was shaped and proportioned exactly like a man in a Godzilla suit. This fact was actually sort of humorous. Back when these movies were first made, when Godzilla WAS a man in a suit, I can see that as a necessary concession to budget and production. But since I know the 2014 Godzilla was 100% CGI, why not abandon that compromise? To put it bluntly, I thought even for those few moments that Godzilla appeared, he looked silly.

The movie is completely without any suspense, and it is plainly obvious early on how it is going to end...not conclude...just end...stop.

Enough said I guess. Ignore the 7+ IMDb rating (how?) and skip this one. An honest rating would be 2 or 3. I don't believe it merits a "1"...just because I think it is a difficult story to make a decent film out of. Maybe they simply should have skipped re-making "Godzilla" altogether and instead come up with something original? Another "Spiderman" remake perhaps?

I mean, seriously. Who is the intended audience? I have seen both of these films, I admit it. But I spent most of the time during the films laughing...and I don't think they are intended to be comedies...

You have grim faced manly men, of only perfect physique, doing battle wearing "Speedos", capes, and lots of leather "straps". The battle scenes are really just very carefully choreographed and sophisticated dance moves. Am I so obtuse that it is only now dawning on me....are the "300" films really just soft core gay pornography? That would explain a lot....if indeed that is the answer.

Why does the sun never shine in Sparta? Why does the slightest knife wound splash a gallon of "blood" in every direction? Don't these people ever smile, have fun, or do anything besides strut around in their thongs and try to be more "manly" than the next guy? I understand that these films are not intended to represent any "reality"...I get that. My question is what ARE they supposed to represent? I gave this movie a "3"...because we had a bit of fun watching it. Laughing at the outfits...the strutting...the posturing. Macho, manly, masculine men living their lives in a manly way. And without getting too specific, some of the names in the movie were fun to mock in a childish way.

But like I said, I don't think it was intended to be a comedy. So I guess I didn't "get" 300 at all. I wish someone who does would explain it to me....

I guess I have to fall back on my "gay porn" theory.

I am not sure where to begin....

Maybe I was a bit lost because I never saw the first "Thor"...and I am not familiar with the character and what he is all about...

But regardless...this movie was rambling and disjointed. All the characters were so superficial and one dimensional that I did not care in the least what happened to any of them. Apparently the entire universe was at risk, and this film managed to make that prospect completely boring and leave the viewer 100% indifferent about the outcome. Impressive.

There were a few attempts at humor thrown into the movie. They were all childish...they failed...and in fact were so "unfunny" they made me cringe.

About Thor. How interesting is a character who is apparently entirely omnipotent....? Near as I can tell, he can neither be hurt nor killed....and can travel the universe at more than the speed of light. Yawn. I have enjoyed Natalie Portman in many films...but even she could not contribute anything useful to this turd.

Having said all this...as of this writing this movie has a 7.6 IMDb rating. I don't get it... I felt I had to post an honest review to counter that nonsense.

The success or failure of this movie was almost entirely dependent on the relationship that develops between the Stallone character and the Kang character. The complete botching of this element of the film, with childlike acting, poor dialog, and completely unbelievable premise, doomed this film to "bomb" status.

The premise of combining a criminal and a cop to solve a major crime is not new..."48 Hours" and "Beverly Hills Cop" come to mind immediately. But the motives behind the pairing have to be moderately believable, and the chemistry between the two protagonists has to be very carefully crafted. In this film, they accomplished neither.

Suffice to say the movie is childish, boring, disjointed, and utterly predictable. The acting in many parts, particularly from Kang, is so bad that it made me cringe.

I will say that Stallone, as a 67 year old man, certainly appears to be fanatical about his workouts and his diet. He is so ripped and cut in the move that he almost looks more freakish than "fit". But whatever, his "look" must require a great deal of effort at his age.

Enough said. Skip this movie. You won't like it.

I will say upfront that I enjoyed this film. As a definite fan of the LOTR series, it was nice to see many of the characters again in a different adventure. The continuity they achieved in the appearance of the characters was surprising...particularly considering twelve years had elapsed between the productions. That is a long time, and it was fortunate that none of the essential characters had gained weight or changed in other ways that would have destroyed the illusion of continuity, particularly considering that "The Hobbit" was supposed to have taken place 60 years before the first installment of the LOTR trilogy.

This is the basis of my concern about "The Hobbit" and the direction the trilogy appears to be taking. The Hobbit trilogy is based on one Tolkien book, that in its entirety is considerably shorter and a more simple story than the shortest of the three books of the LOTR trilogy. I fear this was nothing more than a blatant attempt to wring the most profit possible from The Hobbit franchise. No matter how poor The Hobbit trilogy may or may not turn out to be, it is virtually guaranteed to be a money maker simply by riding the coat tails of the popularity of LOTR.

While I enjoyed The Hobbit, it did confirm many of the suspicions I explained above. What made the LOTR trilogy such a great series was primarily complex and compelling story, and sympathetic character development. Yes, the spectacular visuals were compelling as well, but they complemented the story without dominating it. Contrary to many viewers, I felt "Fellowship of the Ring" was the best of the LOTR series. The other two films, while strong in their own right, gradually began to trade story and character for eye popping visuals.

The Hobbit takes this trend further still. Some story elements were added that never appeared in the book, which I'm sure was practically essential to pull a film trilogy out of such a short and simple novel. But The Hobbit was also right on the bubble of being a film that was spectacle and little more. Film makers the world over still have apparently failed to learn that spectacular CGI will not carry an audience's interest in a 2+ hours movie. The Hobbit was very close to falling into that trap....but not quite there.

So in summary, I enjoyed The Hobbit but potential viewers (particularly fans of LOTR) should be aware it is a film that is long on spectacle and short on substance when compared to the prior trilogy. And I for one am more than a bit concerned that the next two Hobbit films might slip further down that slope and become little more than bloated CGI extravaganzas....

Time will tell I guess.

Reading over the IMDb reviews of "2016", I find it remarkable how opinions about this film seem to be almost perfectly split by the political views of the reviewers. About half the reviews give the movie high marks, half give it low marks, and it winds up with a "5.1" IMDb rating. It is a perfect metaphor for the way the US is currently as completely and destructively divided, politically, as opinions of the film are.

My views on the film: "2016" does a good job of taking a great deal of information and conveying it as clearly as possible in a roughly 90 minute film. Much of what is presented in the movie is simply fact...one may not like that the facts are being presented, but they are facts nonetheless. D'Souza's conclusions about the facts are where the propaganda and most of the controversy come into the discussion.

I still consider 2016 to truly be more documentary than propaganda...there has never been a documentary made that was truly, 100% unbiased...they always have an agenda, subtle though it may be...and 2016 is certainly NOT unbiased either.

For my part, I find it astonishing that most of the factual information in 2016 has up to now been either suppressed or completely ignored by the mainstream media. We obsessed as a nation over whether Bill Clinton "inhaled"....and we are currently obsessing over past taxes paid by Mitt Romney.... Yet the undeniable associations President Obama had for decades with far left radicals and revolutionaries has scarcely been given any attention at all.

D'Souza's conclusions are NOT fact, they are his opinions. They are based on the facts as HE presents them in the film. He could certainly be wrong about some or all of them. But 2016 presents the facts about Barrack Obama in such a way so that the viewer can evaluate D'Souza's conclusions and make their own....D'Souza is very clear about his political views and personal political bias.

Because of this, I gave 2016 an "8" out of 10.

Having seen this movie, I found myself confused as to how it even got made. It would have been apparent from the script that this movie was simply a mess. Perhaps they thought the "humor" would carry things through, but the humor fails almost without exception.

I do think the movie was intended to primarily be a comedy, and that the weak story was introduced because it provided a venue for a lot of jokes. But take my word for it, the jokes fail. For example, they tried at length to dredge humor out of the topic of forcible sodomy. But it wasn't funny, and all that came out of it was three or four very awkward on-screen moments. It honestly looked like the cast even felt awkward trying to act this out.

There is a lot of "Dukes of Hazard" style action in the movie, and that is exactly what it is....no better than what you could have seen in a low budget TV show from the 1970s.

Tom Arnold is in the film as an inept U.S. Marshall...but there is nothing funny in his portrayal....he comes across only as pathetic. The Kristen Bell character is obnoxious, but not humorously so. She is simply pressing and demanding and likely to remind the viewer of the worst part of past failed relationships. Not the funny part, not the learning part, not the dramatic part, simply the maddening and unpleasant part. Who would want to pay to see that? This movie fails, and as I sit here writing about it I think perhaps I was overly generous giving it a "3".

Once the standard IMDb user over-rating of new movies subsides, I honestly think this one would be lucky to remain above 5.0. Do yourself a favor and skip it....

"Hugo" provides a gorgeous spectacle of a 1930s Paris that never existed. The sets and scenery (nearly all computer generated I imagine) are simply beautiful, and I imagine it was the previews of these scenes that prompted me to see the film. An 8.6 IMDb review probably didn't hurt either, although I definitely should know better by now to take that with a grain of salt.

The story however, was painfully weak and boring. I dozed off a couple of times during the movie, simply because nothing was happening. The gorgeous visuals alone are not sufficient to carry a more than two hour long movie.

The imagery and tone of the film suggest initially that something magical and dramatic is eventually going to happen...but it never does. The "story" just plods on and on (did I mention it was loooong?) to a completely disappointing climax. Actually, there really was no climax...the film just sort of "ends".

"Hugo" is really only worth seeing if you think you would enjoy sitting for two hours taking in a portrayal of 1930s Paris that looks like it came from a Thomas Kincaid painting. There are some interesting characters thrown in....I enjoyed Sacha Baron-Cohen's portrayal of the Station Inspector....but there is nowhere near enough substance in the story to support a full length movie. I found "Hugo" on balance to simply be too long, and very boring.

This was yet another film that demonstrates that visuals alone, no matter how compelling, cannot substitute for a decent story.

This is another film trying to force-feed Marxist propaganda down our throats.

I imagine the creators of this film believed that the "clever" concept of time being using as currency relieved them of the need to concoct a decent story, or to at least be subtle about the political message they were trying to convey. They failed, and this movie is about as subtle as a train wreck. A child could see that by substituting the film's concept of time with money, this film was just a vehicle for the producer's message about money, capitalism, and the "unequal distribution of wealth". "If all the time (cough, MONEY) was just divided equally, eeeeverything would be paradise"......oh, please.

Even if you don't care about, or agree with the film's political message, it is simply a bad movie. The story is childlike, the acting wooden and unconvincing, and the sets/wardrobe are basically a "Matrix" rip-off.

Terrible movie, with an offensive political message to boot (at least offensive to me). Skip it!

I enjoyed this film....

From the previews, it appeared to follow the standard action movie formula wherein the protagonist was impossibly tough, impossibly cool, and impossible to swallow. In one sense, "Drive" does follow this formula. In a broader sense however, "Drive" was one of the most original movies I have seen in a long time.

I think what made this film different were largely the characters. They had believable dialog, believable motives, and most importantly believable relationships with one another. Unlike most action movies, "Drive" did not try to carry itself on mayhem and special effects. Make no mistake, this is a violent film. But action and violence were simply part of the story, rather than being THE story. The film starts out almost as a "slice of life" that examines the lives and relationships between the central characters, with little story apparent in the first third of the movie. But gradually the story comes together, and everything for the characters falls apart, in a relatively petty bid for money and self interest. The way everything occurred almost reminded me of one of the "real life" crime shows one sees on TV. The plot in "Drive" is truly more believable than it is glamorous.

I thought Ryan Gosling's portrayal of driver at times took the moody silence thing a bit too far. There were times in the film where I wished I could shake him and scream "Speak!" But I gradually began to like the character he portrayed. I suppose he was a bit too confident, a bit too competent, and a bit too much of a "bad-ass" to really be believable. But this enhanced the movie rather than detracted from it. I guess that part is where the "suspension of disbelief" comes into it.

There has been a depressing lack of originality in the movie scene for some time now. I believe they are doing a re-make of "Spiderman" to go along with the remakes of "Batman" and "Superman".......

"Drive" is not only an enjoyable film, it deserves extra credit because it is original, it is something different from the standard movie fare.

I recommend moviegoers who are not put off by extreme violence go see this film. Fans of Quentin Tarentino in particular will enjoy "Drive".

I was mildly entertained by this movie. I saw it because a friend really wanted to go to the movies, and not much else was playing.

This was just mildly amusing shallow entertainment. Not particularly frightening, nor original, but "OK".

It is hard not the compare this "Fright Night" to the original, as the story is essentially identical. I do not have a deep enough understanding of the subtleties of film to understand why this is so, but the more recent "Fright Night" definitely lacked the charm of the original. One thing for sure, Chris Sarandon was certainly a far better vampire than Colin Farrell. I never really "felt" Farrell in that role...there was just something too pedestrian about him to be convincing.

I will say this...if you have not seen the 1985 original, skip the 2011 version entirely and do so. I consider the original a horror movie classic.

The 2011 "Fright Night" was just "OK", nothing more.

This is a funny movie, particularly in the first third.

The beginning of the movie is down to earth, and we get an amusing portrayal of the "bosses from hell" that the protagonists have to deal with (although I would be willing to give employment a try for the Jennifer Aniston character). This is also the best part of the movie, because the responses of the central characters are most believable as well.

The movie drags a bit in the middle as some impossibly unlikely situations appear, and the ending is completely over the top, but it still manages to offer sufficient laughs to be worthwhile. So who cares? The movie succeeds at what it tries to do, and it is worth seeing for that reason. Just don't expect high art from this film....