Reviews

Michael Cimino is one of the most frustrating directors for me because I am actually a fan of his, in a weird way. On almost all of his projects, I can see exactly what he wants to achieve and what he's going for, and I buy into what he's doing and often it overlaps with exactly what I like.

Save for The Deer Hunter, he is rarely successfully in delivering what he sets out to do.

Like Heaven's Gate, this movie is a film that is brilliant in many parts, but falls short of becoming "complete" in the sense of a good movie.

Again, like Heaven's gate, with Year of the Dragon we are treated with Cimino's best tendencies. Visual compositions and settings that make scenes believable. A tone over the movie that sets the right mood for the viewer. An intent to have pacing that doesn't rush, but carefully wades through the story.

But again, like Heaven's gate, the movie gets bogged down with problems of weird dialogue, bad acting at some points, and the failure to build proper human dynamics that make the love interest of the story something we invest in and care for. The conclusion of the movie is also a little lacklustre and silly compared to the tension it builds up. I almost feel that Mickey Rourke's character doesn't arc, but rather in a meta way, makes fun of himself at the end.

At the end of the day, I always go into Cimino's films excited, and leave slightly disappointed. Like watching a great sprinter leading the pack, and stumbling before the finish line.

As usual, with him, I would recommend this film for sure. When you watch it, I'm sure you'll know the exact parts I thought of that could be fixed and tightened that probably would make this a great movie.

Possibly one of the most infamous films is what Heaven's Gate is to most people.

And this is very unfortunate.

Not only was this film severely and unfairly destroyed by a mainstream opinion frenzy that biased almost all viewers upon release (in my opinion), it is also severely underrated by many afterwards.

People seem to judge this film on EVERYTHING except what it is. And what it is is PRETTY GOOD, but not great.

The music and cinematography provide an excellent feeling for a film that set out to take a realistic look at not only The West, but a variety of other themes including the rise of corporate control over independent business, fear of immigration, racism, and the contrast between what two classes view the American dream to be.

The only reason I don't award the film an 8 is that at one place in the film, only one, I feel a bit of it's length - the rest goes by without a hitch.

If you're in the mood for the feeling of epic filmmaking meets a bit of art house, then you won't be disappointed in checking this film out.

Bottom line:

As a movie *out of context from what really happened*, it is a well put together movie.

Here's the problem though:

The Glass Castle book is about a woman's traumatic life under the thumb of two psychologically damaged parents pass on psychological trauma and abuse to their children.

We see parents lie to their children for their own selfish needs, put false hope in their heads only to let them down, and, of course, they also expose their children to other kinds of terrible behaviour.

Unfortunately, the movie is a classic Hollywood portrayal of such a subject. We go through a few key points that occurred in the book, only to have that counterpointed with points in the screenplay as to why the parents are actually sympathetic people, and why (at the end of the day) they truly cared about the children deep down.

The movie actually leaves audiences with the feeling and idea that the main character feels "lucky" to have the *terrible and abusive experience* she did in childhood.

Absolutely no *true* responsibility is assigned to the parents that abused their children in this movie-just the idea that they are sympathetic screw ups that tried their best.

Child abuse is a serious subject, and of course, we can leave it to Hollywood to take a memoir about that dark subject and turn it into a classic bitter-sweet tale of a dysfunctional (but of course all-American!) family simply getting through their lives as best as they can while deep down caring about their children.

There are many reviews here that go over why Sicario is a good movie, and I agree with many of them for a variety of reasons, so I won't add to the pile of praise.

And for the record, I will say that I don't think this movie is the best thing sliced bread by any means, but it is a solid film.

What I will offer is a word to some of those that disliked the movie for reasons I actually find quite silly and misguided.

However, before that I will point out that there are people who claim the movie didn't click with them for a variety of "movie" reasons, and it simply wasn't their thing. This is totally fine, of course, because every single person is entitled to their personal feelings of *enjoyment* of a movie.

But what is objectively wrong is when critiques of this film are based on false pretenses and expectations.

There are two very wrong critiques of this movie:

1. The first set of critiques that are misguided are the ones that claim this movie has no real central plot or character development. They often frame their points by beating up Emily Blunt's character, and claiming how the plot built up but didn't real do much with itself at the end.

This is simply not true.

I will suggest that perhaps the frustration here for those who claim this is that they did not get to see a classic Hollywood morality tale when it comes to law enforcement.

There was no central character, agency, or group who in the middle of this drug cartel mess are morally righteous or easy to side with.

There wasn't even fully an anti-hero.

This film explores the moral ambiguity of the USA/Mexico/Latin America drug cartel/war issues, and tops it off by making a clear point that this mess of moral ambiguity and cycle of violence MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE affects people who are innocent and never asked to be a part of the mess that is the drug trade/war.

Just because the film mostly follows those involved with law enforcement in the U.S. doesn't mean that you should expect a clear-cut good vs. evil story, and that's exactly the way it is in real life.

2. Another set of critiques levied against this movie centers around Emily Blunt's character being surrounded by a mess of people doing a bunch of violent things etc., and how her character seems to be caught in the middle of everything with no real capability to change the events and outcomes around her.

These critiques go further to explain how the movie portrays law enforcement in the drug war as an arena of violence with a bunch of higher-ups running around calling the shots, while underlings carrying out the dirty work on both sides without really having an authority on the outcome of their situation.

I would invite anyone who feels they agree with that "critique" of the film after watching the movie to really re-read the two paragraphs I wrote above and decide if that's an accurate representation of the drug war or not.

If you're expecting a movie like this to reflect the "reality" of the drug war by serving up a John Wayne type character taking heroic and full control of a dangerous situation and solving the problems of the world, then I would sincerely suggest that you ask yourself if you have a realistic view on the drug war itself.

After all is said and done, Sicario, isn't a good vs. evil movie about the drug war, nor is it an action-thriller about law enforcement and the drug war.

This movie is about the wandering and hopeless feeling that ongoing violence creates, regardless of who is involved. It is accented by the point that getting involved in these situations (no matter the side you're on) requires you to sacrifice what you think is right or wrong to a degree, and reminds you of the terribly unfortunate human collateral damage caused by the ongoing cycle of the drug war—both physical and spiritual.

This movie impressed me in how the center of its focus was the impact on *people* attached to this large and influential industry in the United States.

Whether you're on the "side" of the coal miner who may or may not loose his job because of new government regulations or you sympathize more with environmental protection and pollution causes, this movie is still a must-watch for those who care about the direction of the coal industry in the United States.

It doesn't matter what your political stripes are. It is important that one watches this film by first pushing aside politics, environmentalism, union issues, etc. in favour of understanding that the large crap-show created by government, the coal industry, and its surrounding groups in the United States has a real impact on real people.

I watched this movie, and then read Roger Ebert's review of it. And I completely agree with one thing he said:

Ultimately, this film allows us to take a peek into the lives of certain people and watch events unfold and *happen* to them. We are watching something *happen*, not simply a movie or screenplay unfolding.

There are many other great things about this film as well, but the feeling stated above is what many (if not most) movies fail to achieve, and with that fail to achieve "greatness".

Beyond the great acting and directorial execution we are treated to, the audience also gets a chance with this film to explore class, values, and the interplay of characters that differ in many ways, but come together via certain events.

There isn't much more to say. The fact is that if you want a character drama, with this film you have it. If you want an exploration of what's "right", this film explores that. Income inequality? That as well. And of course, the ultimate discussion here is societal privilege.

It is even more amazing that the novel that the film is based on was written in 1910.

This was an excellent short film.

Personally, I am extremely happy that the film did not simply focus on the cars and the actual rallying aspect of the Group B era in the short screen time we were given. Why? Because it is not meant to be a documentary or a fan service film. The filmmakers here showed that they love rally, but more importantly, they love making good movies and creating great characters—the setting of the group B era was just the icing on the cake.

The film perfectly captures the sheer awesomeness AND fear that the 1980s era of rallying brought to motorsport, and more importantly, the drivers themselves.

In the short time we had, the filmmakers established a great main character study, as well as introducing minor sub-plot elements of the Group B era ("The car goes faster than my mind") to accurately portray the instability of that era.

Excellent.

Gareth Edwards and his crew accomplished something I never thought would be possible: they contributed a great Star Wars film to the Star Wars saga and canon.

This movie was great as far as Star Wars is concerned. It truly *felt* like a real Star Wars movie, and not a cheap fan service attempt like the Force Awakens was (although the Force Awakens was very fun, it felt like it didn't take Star Wars itself seriously enough).

So what worked with this one? Here's the list:

1)The story.

It felt like a totally believable space fantasy story, and furthermore a totally believable Star Wars story. It clearly was Gareth Edwards doing his own thing with Star Wars but also paying total respect to the path George Lucas originally paved with a New Hope.

At the end of the day this story is a GOOD Star Wars story and it feels like it can be placed alongside the original trilogy in story quality.

2)Not only the story, but the fact it was taken seriously.

Whether you like the Force Awakens or not, you got to admit, it felt a bit cartoony. It didn't feel like a *serious* addition to the Star Wars saga. It felt as if that the people involved certainly liked Star Wars, but in a very fan-servicy sort of way. Everything felt very "fun" in the Force Awakens, but not serious. Rogue One doesn't fall into this trap. It was an amusing and fun ride surely, but the story was clearly priority here.

Furthermore, the story elements and movie went *dark* when it needed to and didn't hold back. If the story needed death, that's what we saw. If it needed to show slaughter and killing, we saw it.

3)No element of Star Wars was abused.

There was no over abuse of lighstabers, the Force, or any old Star Wars characters. Wherever there was any fan service in this movie, it was done VERY tastefully. A respectful nod to the previous movies, but it never went "HEY LOOK HOW COOL THIS IS. THIS IS SOMETHING YOU GUYS LOVE, RIGHT?"

4)The characters and the actors that played them.

Star Wars is never going to be known as a movie with "great acting", but full credit should go to the actors in this edition of Star Wars. They did a great job of bringing life to these characters— enough for us to care about them and the action occurring on screen, but not so much that it distracted from the ensemble story.

5)The pacing. This movie was perfect Star Wars pacing. And by perfect Star Wars pacing, I refer to Empire Strikes Back. This was not an overly speedy movie that gave you no time to think, and yet it was not an overly slow and drawn out movie.

6)The tie-in with the original trilogy.

This story takes place before A New Hope. And as much as Rogue One completely does it's own thing and takes its own direction as a standalone film, it *beautifully* ties in with the original series. As I said above, I completely believe and accept this story as great Star Wars material as much as I do George Lucas' original stories.

Overall, this Star Wars film is a 5/5 Star Wars film. I only rate it 7/10 on IMDb because, well, Star Wars is Star Wars and not the Godfather :D. As far as Rogue One stands in movie history, it's a great action movie. But as a Star Wars film it now has a special place in my heart.

My personal new Star Wars top 3 ranking goes as follows: 1)Empire Strikes Back 2)A New Hope 3)Rogue One

When this movie starts out, it presents a few promises.

There is the promise of an interesting main plot. The promise of a few very interesting subplots. And of course, the overall promise that what you'll essentially see is a solid film with music mixed in at key points in the film for visual and plot effect.

Those promises are well-kept until about a quarter of the way into the film. We get to know the main character and he develops. We follow a few supporting characters, and get to know them. And of course, the great music of the Beatles is used at very precise and fun times to carry the movie forward brilliantly.

Then the whole thing collapses, as a movie, in my opinion.

After a quarter of the movie passes, you are then presented with song after song after song after song after song after song, with barely any story or dialogue in between. That wouldn't be too bad of course if the songs truly pushed the plot forward along with what was on screen, but it doesn't. The visuals become more for entertainment and to serve artistic purposes than to carry forward anything that was previously established.

At some point you realize that the plot and the overall story of this film takes a *complete* backseat to the Director's desire to make a series of visually stunning music videos for the Beatles songs. And the whole thing eventually feels tedious.

But WHY does it feel tedious? The visuals and what's on screen are well executed. The music, of course, is great, and the 1960s vibe is fun.

Well, it's tedious because you're essentially lied to. If the film started out completely honestly and established outright that this would be a front-to-back celebration of some great music with story as secondary, that would be fine. But that wasn't done.

What happened is that you were drawn into a story to the point where you do indeed give the Director your time and feel commitment to the story being told. Your bring your half to the table because of the promises mentioned above, and quite frankly the film doesn't hold up its end of the bargain.

Overall, this would have been much more enjoyable if the film was simply HONEST with it's own identity from the first scene. If it was, it would have been a hit out of the park.

Don't Breathe is a well put together film and excels in many areas where many horror/thriller films fail.

This film puts together and extremely tense mood with twists and turns. There are a variety of setups and payoffs throughout the plot that make it fun to watch, but the movie is never really *predictable*, which is ever so important!

Horror fans will be pleased that a mainstream thriller/horror has been delivered to theatres that doesn't just rely on jump-scares and violence, and certainly is not a "laugh along" film.

Having said all that, I believe the wrap up of this film is its weakest point. It's not that it is in any way a let down or poorly done—it's just a bit too bland and average whereas the rest of the film certainly isn't.

Overall, this is one of the best horror/thriller films I have seen in a long while.

Some may be wondering why I don't rate it 10/10 then—and that's because those ratings are saved for films like City of God :)

But as far as horror/thriller films go, and for that this film was trying to accomplish, it certainly did succeed and it is a top notch film.

Put simply, Casino is often completely underrated and discarded because people hold it right beside Goodfellas and compare it with Goodfellas. Most people love Goodfellas, and when they then move on to see Casino, get a bit disappointed that it didn't give them the same vibe or feeling as Goodfellas.

I should know, because that's how I felt the first time I saw Casino. I was fresh into a discovering Scorsese films and watched Goodfellas first, a day later, Casino. And after listening to all the hype about Goodfellas and being in that type of mood, I thought Casino fell short.

A few years later I watched Casino and loved it, absolutely loved it. It's a slower moving, riveting, slightly disturbing dive into the world of excess. Complete excess. As the characters dive deeper and deeper into their stories, we realize that the film is indeed NOT like Goodfellas in the sense that the characters are not clawing their way to the top with the audience sort of cheering them on and enjoying the cowboy show. No, in Casino the characters ARE at the top, and we have the uncomfortable experience of seeing how they deal with it. There are no REAL obstacles against these people, except for their own vices. What we are left with is a very disturbing and deep tale.

I encourage anyone watching this movie for the first time to CLEAR the expectations and hype setup by Goodfellas and Scorsese's reputation overall, and really give this film the time to deliver what it delivers in an amazing way.

I also encourage anyone watching this film again who is so decidedly against it (or definitely thinks that it is inferior to Goodfellas) to rethink their position and watch it again with a different mindset.

If you only expect a fun popcorn horror out of this movie, you won't be entirely disappointed with this film.

But even then, it's not that good. It isn't very well acted, the plot is predictable, and there isn't enough tension or circumstantial suspense established in the movie that would give the audience a real reason to care about any of the characters.

As I sat there, I observed many points in the film that could have been simply and easily tweaked for better execution.

Give it a shot if you want to kill an hour and a half of time with friends.

Is this movie terrible? Absolutely not

Is this movie great? Absolutely not.

I always heard from people that they either HATED or LOVED this movie. And for me it was neither.

The audience for this film is served with a classic action movie/comic book. "The world is in danger! There must be a solution! Although there are bumps between the characters along the way, eventually, we'll solve the problem"

The interesting twist is *supposed* to be that instead of classic superheroes, we have bad guys. To that I say "so what?". The movie didn't really establish why I should care about much of what was going on on screen—it was all just classic popcorn movie action and sequences that were occasionally broken up by half-attempts at character development.

Chef hits it out of the park.

On the surface, you can take it as a story about food—a chef seeking a new beginning and something to spice up his life as he is tired of routine.

And you can also dig deeper and truly find a lot more, and that's what I love about this film.

This is a film you won't want to miss out on enjoying. You can follow the characters as they laugh, go through some struggles, and seek happiness on their own terms.

Ultimately, you can invest yourself in the film, and that's what makes it great.

It's a simple narrative, but executed wonderfully.

On it's surface, some people may find that this is not the "comedy" they were expecting.

But, dig a bit deeper and you will find a very well executed societal commentary. What would it be like if Hitler existed in the 21st century? What would he think? What would the reaction of those around him be?

This movie explores this line of questioning and executes it well presenting the viewer with many times he or she can really stop and think about the point being made on screen.

It is well worth the near 2 hours of screen time.

I read the BFG when I was a kid. Loved it.

I watched the BFG when I was an adult. Didn't love it.

Difference?

I found that the whole movie lacked charm. It was 2 hours of "this happened, then that happened. Now look at this special effect sequence. Now we're going to have people talk to each other", with no real establishment if of why I should care about anything going on or the characters themselves. As I said, the movie lacked engagement and charm

Sure, it was a Spielberg movie so the movie was not *technically* bad. The man knows how to put together a movie. However, this was not an engaging one.

Some of the pacing was totally off in this film. Some jokes and sequences lasted WAY too long, where other important elements were pushed through too fast.

At the end of the day, one might say "well it's for kids". To that, I say that the kids who were in the theatre seemed less than thrilled as well.

Francis Ford Coppola remarked that The Conversation is the most personal project he's done, and that really comes across on screen. I suggest that any movie lover watches this movie attentively and with appreciation for the personal nature of this project.

There are many that have reviewed this movie and called it "overrated" "boring", "slow-moving" etc.

I don't think that that is very fair. It is clear from the nature of their reviews that they're not "giving the director their time". That is to say, if you sign up to watch a movie, you must realize that you are giving some of your life to the running time of the movie and the Director. What's important is what the Director does with that time, not what he does with your very personal expectations and wants out of the movie.

With all of that in mind, The Conversation is great. It is a character study, a morality tale, a comment on technology and society, and a thriller all wrapped into one movie. And YES, Coppola takes his time building it and it is a bit slow-moving. But that doesn't make it bad at all. It is Coppola's personal story to tell, and he goes about telling it the way he likes.

Go in understanding that, and you'll enjoy The Conversation.

The first Saw is a decent psychological thriller. It is technically well executed, specifically with the editing and pacing (crucial to horror and thriller). There is good setup, rising action, climax, and then twist conclusion.

So, with that in mind, I will say that Saw II is nowhere near the quality of its predecessor. It is good for a casual watch, but there is nothing more at play in this movie other than some "just okay" puzzles and an obvious attempt to top the first Saw in terms of gore and level of danger. But, it tries to hard. The realistic danger of Saw I is what makes the movie. The over the top nature of this one is what ruins it.

Watch the first Saw seriously. I mean it. Watch it and pay attention.

Then, watch the second saw with some popcorn and a few friends casually.