Reviews

Who is this film for? The answer is Kenneth.

It's just a by the numbers whodunnit with a wonderful location. The entire cast looks feels like a hodgepodge of talent and talent less. There are soap opera level performances from several of the main characters. The acting only magnifies the previous films casting.

The central plot is all over the place. Is it trying to tell us to believe or is it saying belief is hopeless. Honestly, you could land on either side.

The actual setting is beautifully shot. Venice is a big character in the film. However it feels more like an excuse for the cast to be on vacation than a reason for a true murder mystery.

Terrible plot, bad camera work (especially since the main character is a cameraman), bad lighting. I felt like I was looking through a glory hole for 90 minutes.

This is what happens when someone tells you that you just need to get out there and shoot a film. You don't need money, actors, script, fx, or any of the other trapping that make up a films closing credits. Just run around, throw gallons of syrup on your feet, throw in an occasional wiener/boob visual (you know for those edgy scenes to make it legit adult horror) and presto; some people will show up.

The best part of this film was probably some of the sounds. Too bad film is a visual medium.

At least the title is accurate.

It is one Troll. He gets awoken by a cave blast (same premise as most monster flicks) because man is bad.

Then we meet the female version of Alan Grant. Who is whisked away to meet up with the usual Galla of Government henchmen. They all want to attack when it's clear (in the first few scenes of the Troll stroll) that he isn't trying to do anything but go home.

The movie has no "WOW" moments. The CGI Troll is cool for 30 seconds. Then it's just open fire commands (from the director) for at least 5 interactions. Each one proving that the firepower only irritates the Troll.

I honestly think Netflix Trolled its viewers into watching this. It was listed as a top viewership flick.

Consensus: A tale based on folklore without the mystery or style to make it worth the watch. Characters that are carbon copies of every film in this genre. An ending that is so typical you can't help but slap your head at expecting anything else.

Not even worth a background viewing.

The answer is revealed in this slow burn, woman on a mission, western revenge series.

Acting is wonderful; with a lot of unique characters.

The journey is full of flashback reveals. All of which piece together a puzzle of tragic consequences.

The fiancé/ex felt like it was cut out abruptly (almost like they team out of Prime viewing time). There are other stories that seem quickly rushed. This can become somewhat jarring while viewing. It feels like it could have gone six more episodes to truly flesh out the western canvas.

Worth the watch for the wonderful western cinematography and the unlikely Allie's in an unforgiving landscape.

The first few moments of the film made it clear this was not going to be elevated past average. The acting was mediocre, the set up (if you can call it that) was bland, and nothing in the scenes is elevated past acceptable.

The finale was so silly and made for a (gotcha) moment. If you've burned through your Netflix cue this may suffice as a passable drama. I would say films like: A perfect getaway and A Simple Favor are far superior in every aspect.

This is what you get when you mix a period piece with a period. Nothing but hours of boredom with chaps. I wanted to take Anthrax myself after watching two hours of "look how gay men were treated in the past." I get it. They were rude. However two hours plus and all I could think is "I wish I could quit you!"

Can we all stop throwing words like, masterpiece/best film ever around?

This film is a reworked version of the book and prior film. The cinematography is excellent, the acting if good, and the direction is well done. That said this film is about as entertaining as watching an hourglass turn. It's plodding and slow (which isn't a bad thing if the dialogue and character arcs were entertaining). The main arc is played by an actor that would be better suited in a teen romance drama. He makes Mark Hamil's Skywalker seem exciting by comparison. It's as if Hot Topic got a cashier to play the lead.

The only character that has a personality is played by Momoa. That said it's as if he walked from the Aquaman set and changed wardrobe. Not much of a stretch.

Almost two and a half hours to cover what is an obvious attempt at a franchise starter. It's as if I read half a book.

Lynch at least tried to incorporate fun and wonder. This just makes me wonder why everyone wants everything to be a Masterpiece.

I get cheese. It's often my favorite topping. However this isn't even cheese. It's processed cheese. It's as if the Director said, "I want to make a guilty pleasure" and left out the pleasure.

Acting: non existent Plot: 5 nights at Freddys mixed with a dash of lower tier Cage. Direction: I don't think anyone was actually working on set.

I'm a huge fan of cult/edgy film. This isn't even good for a bunch of students trying to get YouTube views.

This is probably the last Besson film I will go out of my way to view. Valerion at least had some decent images. However what is his fixation with actresses who are told that they are way more beautiful than most women; only to have their personalities distract from anything that they were lucky enough to be born with. I kept hearing every character in this film refer to ANNA as this woman all men want. Really? What is so seducing? Beyond the fact that when she keeps her mouth shut she is not ugly; what is so alluring? Her and the main actress in Valerion are two women I would want to spend zero time with. Let alone two hours in a goofy over the top non realistic spy film.

It was a fun, over the top, action film. I enjoyed this romp and would love a sequel. It reminded me of Smoking Aces mixed with Snatch. However this film can be a fun Weekend watch ( there is no reason you can't love Parasite and this). Unless your just that far up your own.

It was kinda enjoyable. I loved the nostalgia and some of the cast interviews. I didn't really learn that much but it was still interesting.

The Weinstein topic felt tacked on. I get it; he's a creep. However it just felt like a VH1 special that had to have a "Drama" moment.

The closure of the doc was derailed by injecting the director into the subject matter. This part was more suited for a blue ray extra and not an actual part of QT's legacy.

And some Baptized Asians.

Praise to HBO for giving my Vice Principles longing a replacement. Funny, quirky, and interesting. It's like Fargo with a sense of humor.

If you have a sense of humor, and don't get offended. This is a show that should be a fun romp.

Only watched the first episode; but I'm already a fan.

I just want to start off by saying how refreshing it is to have a film that wasn't hindered by a PG ambition, to sell to more audiences, and went full on. This film could have so easily been another fall dump aiming to get the (COD and Battlefield) younger audiences in the seats. Instead it mixed a riveting war operation with a campy B drive-in no holds barred action movie.

I may be in the minority: I would rather see films like this (that take risks even though it's just bonkers) than another PG war film like Dunkirk (which felt like a great premise aimed at Oscar bait and mass audiences).

A fun ride and up there with films like 300 and Bone Tomahawk.

When the original title (Cock Blockers/Zac and Miri make a Porno) is the funniest part of the film, and is still cut from the project, it's pretty sad.

Critics hailed this as being funny. Aside from a few Cena moments it really was cringe. Maybe it's because I don't have daughters, but I still have a sense of humor. Every gag and joke was positioned to shock or be sexually explicit. That can work (Bridesmaids or Wedding Crashers) but this was basically bad actors saying crude comments; as if Schumer wrote the script.

After seeing Game Night (a smart comedy with some funny crude humor) this is just cringe and I wish I would have blocked it from my tv.

is that they want nostalgia and something new? That is a hard thing to do on a franchise as well know as Trek. Lin and Pegg have done it. In a summer full of films that reach for the deep space of its audiences memories (Girlbusters/Id4.2/Finding Nemo's friend) it's refreshing to see a film balances that; and has a new feel at the same time. Bringing an action director on board and teaming him with a fanboy writer is a one- two-punch that works.

Star Trek has always had two types of films: the action heavy type or the more cerebral type. I can live with not having both in the same film each time. So if you're looking for a summer film to bring back some of those past emotions with a new twist you could do far worse that taking a Trek this team and its new direction.

I want to start out by saying I am a 45 year old man. This is just my way of saying I don't get my music off You tube nor do I subscribe to twitch for my entertainment. So I should be one of the last people that this films comedy reaches.

However here is the rub: this film was funnier than most comedies of the past Decade. I laughed more during the silly humor of this than at the entire combination of the Anchorman sequel/Dumb Dumber 2/or anything that Rogan has made in the past 5 years.

This film was just fun. I assume that this is in part because I wasn't expecting much. But the plot worked way better than a similar plot that was poised to be a Summer 2015 Blockbuster (PIXELS). This team seemed to genuinely have fun, unlike Sandler and his grumpy little nemesis. As a result I had fun right along with them.

So I guess my hats off to a Team that has a community behind it; and a bright future in front of it.

I really wanted to say that John Krasinski was exceptional as the lead in this film, and his office co-star was a nice addition. That said this film was surprisingly good. Bay has the ability to combine action with moments of real heroism. The film really puts you in the thick of what was a situation that went awry very fast.

Sure there were some layered on cheese; The slow flags waving with tattered cloth, the montage of the men before battle communicating with loved ones, and the following of a (mortar shell in this case) that ends on impact. However take away the cool to say "BAY is an explosives and CGI director" and you are left with a riveting look at a story that still resonates to American audiences.

On a final note; not to get too political; I was impressed that a big budget Hollywood production did not try and persuade the audience in favor of a recent Presidential candidate. Although it did not come out and state one way od the other on why the Embassy was sieged, it made it clear that the people involved had differing opinions than the stories the American public were told.

Watching this film on IMAX opening weekend was an event I had to be a part of. The marketing, the actors, and the premise all had me anxious to see this film. I won't give away anything that would ruin the experience for others in this review.

The acting was top notch. Mathew is batting 1000 in his recent roles. Supporting cast also fills out the film with lots of noticeable Nolan regulars.

The effects in the film are also top notch. However if you are looking for worlds that awe and inspire you will probably be disappointed. This film is less about the voyage of the unknown and more about what the emotional impact is on those who travel it.

I also want to add that most think Nolan is a tour-de-force with his thought provoking films. This one is pretty straight-forward. I figured out most of the devices long before their developments. Also I thought it had quite a bit of filler in-between the meat of the film. I felt like I aged along with our travelers. I know it's an epic film; does that mean it has to have a certain runtime to meet that criteria?Not that I am smarter than anyone else; I just want to add that this script is not on par with Memento or Inception.

So to sum it up: Good film for a three hour tour. To me a shorter flight could have made it better. However the hype is nowhere near the experience. Gravity had better cinematography and scope (for a space quest) and this film has better emotional baggage for a trip to the unknown.

One last note: The glass on his helmet was weaker than an I phone screen. What's up with that?

I really wanted this film to be provocative, beautiful, and entertaining. 1 out of 3 isn't bad. It really was gorgeous to look at (in IMAX 3D). My son, who is 15, said it reminded him of something they would watch at space camp or one of those IMAX tourist traps. I have to agree. I have seen some wonderful IMAX films at places like Disney and other theme parks. It's a shame that that is really all there is to this film.

At a buck fifty running time there is no depth to this film. (funny because it is set in unlimited space) But it is pretty straight forward. Good looking tang people are working in space... Houston they have a problem... now it becomes a survival flick.

The actors were pretty well cast. However there wasn't a lot to do in an hour plus film without even a Wilson in it to talk too. I know a vast majority of movie patrons will feel it was pretty straight forward and thus underwhelming (other than visually). But there will be those that try to find symbolism, and meaning within this film. While I am not one to shy away from an , Look what the director did there!?!" moment; there has to be more than viewer speculation to make a great film.

I almost felt like he didn't want to fill an extra thirty minutes with non dialogue scenes, and relying on Sandra to keep the audience interested. There was a film with half the visual money shots called MOON that never worried about the audience losing interest.

To be fair this is a wonderful condensed version of what adrift in space would feel like. However once it turns into the POSEDION ADVENTURE meets APOLLO 13 you can understand why it won't be remembered for its storytelling.

Rockstar has tackled the hood, the west, table tennis, and now the golden age of Hollywood. And just like they did with Red Dead; they make the player feel as if he is immersed within the genres world. If you are even interested in noir, like The Maltese Falcon or the recent L.A. Confidential, you will not be let down by this title. All of the clichés are there: Damsels in distress, bad land barons, the Black Dalia killer, and or course private dicks that walk like gumshoes and are not afraid to pull a trigger.

The only bad critiques I can muster are: Since it is Rockstar it has to have nudity and lots of cursing. (anybody including parents and grandparents would have loved this title but may be put off by some of the content). Perhaps a filter could be implemented in future titles?

The camera angles are sometimes distracting. And what is with the secondary car view? (No purpose at all). Once you finish the final mission there is no "free roam" to finish unachieved tasks. This is just silly for those gamer score junkies.

This is an awesome escape for those who are willing to invest the time in a well crafted, nicely voice acted, and pitch perfectly rendered vintage L.A..

From the trailer it appeared, at the least, to be a fun scare ride. So I was suckered in. While the film resembled the other current trend in modern cinema (Not 3D) but the shaky-cam. This I suppose is to give it the "I'm watching as a story unfolds" feel. However unlike it's predecessors: Cloverfield, Blair Witch, and Paranormal this film doesn't benefit from the effect. I actually felt that it put the film in a juxtaposition to leave out necessary scenes. Scenes that could have explored the sinister workings of the background.

An unsteady lens isn't the only similarity you will find in The Last Exorcism. The premise is on a plain with your average demon possession flick. Then add the curiosity of the camera crew (Blair Witch), the pregnancy (Rosemary's Baby), and the finale (which I won't give away but appears to run parallel to a certain Nick Cage flick) and you have a been there done that horror film.

I could have accepted all of it's flaws if the other elements were worth mentioning. I digress and will lightly mention: The actors were nothing memorable (even the possessed seem to have been having trouble making us into believers). The scares were few and not often enough. Take a certain Kitty Camera scene and you will quickly be reminded of how the film *REC had better use of the same prop.

I would recommend this as a rental. Largely due to the way it might come across better with its mock documentary feel. Or re-watch the original exorcise in Exorcisms with a far more believable Blair.

I knew, after the first few scenes of Inception, that I was going to have to buy into this world. Unlike other better films (The Prestige, Total Recall, and Memento) I wasn't sold that this concept is plausible. Perhaps it's because of my feeble movie-going mind. Or perhaps it's due to the fact that the Idea "of dream entering" is not sold to us but rather thrust upon us to set up the series of Slow Mo scenes in dreamlike states.

I want to say the film was fun, and Nolan is a credible director; but to all those trying to contemplate what the film meant: I hate to be the one to tell you that Nolan is no Lynch. There isn't some weird enigma wrapped in a riddle. It's basically a fun premise executed with a lot of slow mo C.G.I. and great actors. Enjoy the film and the popcorn and try not to get too wrapped up into figuring it out. It does a fine job of spoon feeding the story to you.

THE CAKE IS A LIE!

They said "The Happening" was bad. I am one of the few that took the fore mentioned film as a goofy "B" movie romp. So I am probably more likely to do the same with his latest film "The Last Airbender". So I will start with the good points first:

1. It did have a nice color pallet. There were plenty of visual location shots that were very impressive. But after Narnia/The Lord of the Rings/and plenty other big budget films not enough to sell a film.

2. Interesting premise (One kid to rule them all) Kind of a Highlander for juveniles. Too bad it was not taken seriously.

That's it for the good points. Now let's look at the problems:

1. Never let your kids influence your work (or most of us would get day jobs at Chucky Cheese. You are to influence your child's work. So Mr. Shalimar I would suggest getting your kids a Summer Blockbuster to star in: Like a certain Smith Kid.

2. If you are going to hire Kid actors make sure they can act. If not do what the Disney channel does: make them fun to watch. This bald, big toothed kid was really no fun to watch at all. It was as if he was learning to act while filming. Also the tween leads (I think Anikan was one of them) had no personality.

3. Battle scenes with no jeopardy are not battles. They are set pieces. At several points in this film there were skirmishes. No once was there a feeling that pain or death was lurking. Kids are not stupid, with Call of Duty, the current War, and crime in general, if there is no peril there is no real reason to fight. In the final battle, when the Airbender did his thing, there wasn't one body on the ground.

4. M. leave the Air alone!!! It didn't scare people in The Happening and it isn't going to help you launch a successful franchise. Also no more Ladies in the Water (even if they have magical fish hair!). I don't think this kid gig is working. So for the love of that twist you like so much, do a big one and give us another "Sense" of your work!

I wanted to say I loved it but I can't. It was pretty to view, and I have to admit that it was worth the price of admission. However after seeing Burton do Sweeny Todd such justice, with his darker vision, I expected more.

To be pithy; here is why this film went down the rabbit-hole for me:

Aside from the "Queen" the cast including Depp, Hathaway, and some good character actors, were not used to great measure. There was no real connection between them and the audience. As in The Wizard of Oz and Narnia we wanted to join the quest. Here we were merely hitch hikers through a living Nightmare Before Alice.

And perhaps it's just me… If I am going to see a retelling of a classic story, regardless of its popularity, then please retell it. I mean how many people would read Alice in Wonderland if it were published again word for word by a different author? Why are storytellers on film so different? I man after all were talking Tim Burton, not Gus Van Sant or Rob Zombie. You are truly a different caliber director.

Without the beautiful effects it's a meandering Neverending Story. I think Burton is a visionary "Gothic" director. I just don't think he added enough of his staple to this. Perhaps if it were darker, LIKE TODD, it would have added something to a story that has been done to a Madhatter's TEA!