Reviews

Not bad, solid sequel for those yearning for one. For others, possibly contrived, empty, plot void of any real substance, and most certainly way too long. A more concise production could have helped produce a less choppy and drawn out experience (and more digestible to non-believers, if you will).

For the other part of the equation, a production studio with more focus on color and imax adaptation could have aided as well. The Wakandan experience is so vibrant and full of life, making one only wonder of the amazing possibilities that could exist if we observed life tbe same way as the Wakandan people.

Really depressing depiction of the most iconic celebrity in American history. OK we get it, she was materialized but let's put a more positive spin on it. Let's tone down the artsy fartsy too.

The great Charlie Chaplin was one of the most iconic figures in Hollywood and the rise and fall of the stereotype that was Hollywood is a theme that can certainly be explored in great depth and provides a lot of insight to those who are seeking to educate themselves as to what it was like in the early days of Hollywood. It is certainly a source of pride to see that we will carry on these legacies for generations to come.

For Star Wars fans, big expectations. Underlying failure here was definitely writing... little Leah? Okay, similar to Phantom Menace and little Anakin. Inquisitor Reva (3rd sister lol)? Nope. Really weak back story, weak character and Moses Ingram acting not impressive. Ruined it for me. Weird writing, could have been so much better, think of the possibilities. Disney screwing up time and again.

Taika needs to stop writing / directing Thor / Marvel movies. Too odd and self-absorbed in own style, losing the audience. Course $600M plus international gross, Disney doesn't care. Just kill off Thor like stark and cap, enough is enough. Movie is bizarre satire and hard to follow at times. Stop.

Big name hollywood fluff, zero substance. When a script is written with the idea of political satire in mind, need there be more comments regarding the astronomical elements that create numeric possibilities of a good script. Without the element of necessity, a purely lame idea is in essence with the non essential fluff.

Lady Gaga is what this movie is all about. Otherwise this interpretation drives home Bradley Cooper's overdone "depressed" low voice manure. Even Kristofferson wasn't that lame. Overacting 101 but obviously still great script.

The plot wasn't very good for sure, but then the casting is just plain bizarre. The head of the navy seals is a lesbian black woman? That's great and more power to them, but what? Once again Hollywood is more interested in their PC agenda than actual creativity and authenticity. Way too distracting. Back to the writing, really mundane story and everyone I've talked to seems to have the same takeaway.

Really bad story, plot, writing; no point going any further than that. First four minutes was the best part, no wonder they used as a teaser. The movie was doomed after that due to the script.

Yeah, this was nothing short of a joke. Another failed attempt to promote feminism in action flicks. Studio is fortunate they distributed and received internationally, saved their ridiculous budget for this puff piece.

Yes, disjointed editing and quick frames, but that was no cheap production. Epic action scenes, body count, weapons and vehicles. For a movie that I was able to pull up on Netflix sitting on my couch, an easy 10/10. Not looking to dissect this thing at the Oscar level here. Wish there would be more high-quality action movies like this one out there. Didn't waste a lot of time on a bunch of long-winded character development subplots either which, honestly, was nice, for this kind of flick.

Per usual, anyone who is over critical of this movie needs to pull the 12 foot stick out of their arse. This movie is Apocalypse Now, space style. Anyone ever watch Apocalypse Now and not say wow, this is kind of slow, at some points? Yes, it is the same exact concept... it is a psychological thriller about what it means to continue to go down the path beyond normal human comprehension. Well done movie and hopefully they receive some credit.

The mistake here was making a movie about Chief Justice Ginsburg in the first place. This movie never could've lived up to expectations, and the writers too predictably tried to fantasize it. I'd be insulted if I was Ginsburg.

This is the worst Bond film of all time, as is common knowledge. Even George Lazy has said this of his own film on numerous occasions. That doesn't mean it isn't a fun film to watch-beautiful women and some nice vistas. But from a Bond film standpoint, really not very good at all-decent plot but terrible execution. The last D Craig Bond is supposed to be based on this plot, which should be great.

Wow, some people are never pleased. This movie was enjoyable to the very end. How can anyone who is remotely interested in Star Wars not enjoy can entire movie dedicated to Han and Chewy??? And this wasn't a cheap production either. The best part is Disney kept their political agenda relatively at bay with this film, unlike the main saga films. So refreshing and rare these days. HAN IS THE MAN!! (and Chewy)

I have to agree with common sentiment in that this movie could have been much more, but a combination of over-diluted writing lacking focus, poor CGI, and contrived dialogue that failed to compensate for other shortcomings equals a comic book movie that comes up noticeably short relative to all the others made in recent history.

Writing-- I think the writers fail to effectively bring the individual super heroes and respective story lines together in this one-- not so much a product of poor writing as it is a byproduct of having too much material with which to work. In particular, the current Superman and Batman, and to a lesser extent Wonder Woman, have very extensive backgrounds and story lines that have been intricately chronicled in several films. Similar to the Avengers, the ability to write all these respective stories into one film and to effectively incorporate such an overwhelmingly large amount of material into one cohesive script is asking a lot. It appears that the writers of Justice League struggle with this daunting task as it feels like the material from different movies is thrown together, coming off disconnected and distracting.

CGI-- While Zack Snyder's style is uniquely tied to CGI and offers beautifully mesmerizing experiences, it appears that this movie just got too comfortable with digit effects. It goes without saying that Superman's CGI face was extremely confusing and distracting. The Snyder-esk action scenes are already heavily dependent on special effects, but even these scenes seemed too animated as they were quick-framed and tough to follow. The slow-motion Flash and Superman portions were the best because they provided more detail and time to digest.

Finally, the dialogue was just not quite there. A lot of short, one-liner type exchanges lacking substance and emotion.

Not sure if this movie suffered from budget issues or other production-related problems, but it definitely came across as a very AVERAGE comic book movie on my end.

A breathtaking sequel to perhaps THE greatest sci-fi film of all time. The original Bladerunner, aside from its revolutionary impact on science fiction films in general, explored the idea of artificial intelligence by diving into the emotional element-- and what better way to explore the human condition than through the lens of an artificial being manufactured to mimic every human feature, including self-awareness. For human perception naturally involves self-reflection, which in turn creates internal and external emotional responses. The greater the emotion, the more powerful the memory. To be human is to find our way down the path of life and to negotiate the joys and sorrows that are experienced along the way. One can use emotional responses associated with memories in order to help bring understanding to the ultimate question-- what purpose did the path serve, if any.

Bladerunner 2049 explores these same fascinating questions, including original elements from the original title to expand the scope and add several new dimensions along the way. The main villain from the original movie played by Rutger Hauer, who famously improvised the last "tears in rain" line, is a tragic character in some sense. Rutger, unlike Gosling, was a true villain out to kill humans (and many he did), as he struggled more with self-awareness due to lack of implants. But despite these differences, both characters are indeed tragic. The difference??? When Rutger found out the truth about his maker, he gouged out his eyeballs with his own hands. When Gosling found about his maker/true roots, he decided to save someone. Wait, that sounds familiar! The touching part about these movies is that in the end, life is found to be what is most precious, underscoring the reality that appreciation of life is indeed what makes us human-knowing how we came into existence (makers/parents) and the ability to comprehend our own mortality. In the end, both Replicant's finally come to this realization and commit the most human act one can make-the sacred act of saving another human being's life.

Bravo Ridley and those who worked this film. Very well-done sequel. And most importantly, THANK YOU HANS ZIMMER.

Widely regarded as one of the best Bond films under the Moore regime, The Spy Who Loved Me is your quintessential Bond film that encapsulates every aspect of classic James Bond and arguably setting a precedence for what is considered a complete Bond film. When critiquing a James Bond film, particularly those of the Connery & Moore era, one cannot fall into the trap of basing judgment upon the realistic nature of the plot. So many negative reviews are based upon this premise which, in all honesty, is kind of a senseless critique achieving nothing but the acknowledgment of being out of touch with old Bond films (and any old film for that matter). One must watch such films through the lens of the producers, and at times, acquiesce to cinematic styles unique to the era. If not, one runs the risk of taking a narrow-minded approach to rendering judgment, thus casting a shadow on other aspects of the film that make it a wonderfully classic Bond film-- Russians, gadgets, women, exotic destinations, humor, wit, villains, grandiose sets, and of course, theme song & score.

Sure, Bond enthusiasts appreciate Bond films for different reasons-- some like the gadgets, others like the women, etc.-- but that doesn't mean that there aren't certain elements all Bond fans can agree are almost required of any Bond film in order to achieve success... AND EVERY ONE OF THESE ELEMENTS IS PRESENT IN THE SPY WHO LOVE ME.

Lewis Gilbert, director, really makes his mark on Bond films with YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE & MOONRAKER, in addition to the film in critique, so it is hard to imagine how one can like one without the others. As to what THE SPY WHO LOVES ME does to make it such a classic-- enter Jaws, one of James Bond's greatest nemeses; Barbara Bach, widely considered one of the sexiest Bond gals (see Force 10 From Navarone for topless Bach); the locations are wonderful, particularly Egypt; the Bond car & chase seen is easily the best non-Aston Martin Bond car of all time; Stromberg, the main villain played by Curt Jurgens, is one of the darkest & nastiest (and psychotic) villains Bond ever faces; Roger Moore, begins his first of three signature Bond films with MOONRAKER & FOR YOUR EYES ONLY following this film. Director Guy Hamilton needed to take a break after his early 70's sub-par Bond films, two of which provided Roger Moore with more of an uphill climb than he needed in the wake of Connery, but THE SPY WHO LOVED ME launched Moore into Bond stardom.

What can all Bond fans agree makes a top-notch Bond film? It's the suave nature of James Bond, the witty remarks he makes after nearly getting killed-- this film is dripping with it. But this film also portrays a grittier Bond with a more serious undertone, thus marking what many consider to be (including Moore) Roger Moore's greatest Bond film. This film also departs from more traditional indoor Hollywood sets and brings the audience outside into the Swiss mountains, out into the deserts of northern African, and into the ocean spray of the Mediterranean. In many respects, this film breaks through to a new age of Bond film with advances in film technology (and budgets), thus breathing a refreshing new style into the decade-and-a-half old series while maintaining fundamental elements all Bond fans can agree are necessary for any great James Bond movie.

This movie brought to life the King Arthur legend in stunning cinematic fashion. The ability to immerse the audience in a tantalizing visual effects experience gives this particular King Arthur story a real kick in the butt. I am glad to see that this film has received better reviews than those snooty professional critics who never gave this film a chance. Why is there such contempt for old British folklore and the etymology of the English-speaking world?

I believe that there will always be a market for reviving old Caucasian themes and portraying them in modern parlance, but it will be a continuous battle against the increasing faction of the movie world who would rather see a movie that drives a progressive theme about race or social injustice instead of a traditional action-packed movie draped in old English legend. I go to movies to escape, not to stew about all the problems in the world-- they will be waiting for you outside the theater!!

This is by far the least obnoxious of all the transformer movies. Those who are critical of the story line just make me laugh my butt off-- how is the story supposed to be better??? LOL. It is a movie about alien machines coming to earth, per usual, but this time they tied it into the King Arthur legend. This brought a very earthy, human feel to the movie which was refreshing and gave this particular transformers movie a breath of new life. So for those who just criticize movies to make themselves feel better, GET A LIFE.

From an action standpoint this movie is just phenomenal-- they have really perfected the action sequences by slowing down "transformations" which really allows the viewer to soak in the "alien technology" and the spectacular CGI.

This movie is fine-- people need to alter their expectations before they go into the theater expecting an Oscar nominee experience-- this is TRANSFORMERS, lol, and it blew me away.

I am not a movie snob and am easily entertained, but this movie was absolutely a complete and utter joke. It felt like a 3rd grader wrote the script. It contained every single cliché imaginable, from corny Platoon/Apocalypse Now-type one-liners to ridiculous slow-motion "sacrifice" scenes-- all incredibly cheap, contrived and void of any depth what-so-ever.

Absolutely NO PLOT-- not a single tangible, well-built contextual plot exists in this movie. John C. Reilly was the whole point of the movie-- it should be called "King Reilly and His Adventures"-- but then again, there really weren't any adventures to talk about...

The worst part of the movie was that I could absolutely not tell when the movie was supposed to be serious or a comedic parody, and folks, that's never a good sign, as it usually means the film is not good. And Samuel L. Jackson?? I think I just might use his appearance in future films as cause to not see them because he is clearly cast for his popularity and for a quick marketing boost for films that clearly need that extra kick. I am going to binge-watch King Kong (2005) with Jack Black until I can forget that I ever saw this new attempted failure to reprise Kong. Have our standards really fallen so far?? I honestly do not think there was a single frame that lasted longer than 2 seconds, I am not joking. Oh, the agony.

What makes THE EAGLE HAS LANDED special to me is its slight deviation from traditional metrics and the unique feeling I receive when watching this film as a result. The first 35 or so years following the end of WWII saw many movies inspired by the events and or battles that took place in the European theater of war, and most of these flicks conform to traditional depictions of the Allies fighting the Nazis-- usually either a small Allied commando team on a fictitious mission to search and destroy Nazi targets, i.e. The Guns of Navarone, The Dirty Dozen, Where Eagles Dare, Force 10 From Navarone, etc. or cinematic interpretations inspired by actual events i.e. The Great Escape, Patton, Battle of the Bulge, To Hell and Back, A Bridge Too Far, etc.

Based on the fictional novel written by Jack Higgins, THE EAGLE HAS LANDED takes a unique spin on the former through its portrayal of a Nazi commando unit dispatched to eliminate an Allied target. Because of this, several unique elements rise to the surface-- First, the unique setting in the English countryside rather than traditional European theater of operations in France, Italy, Belgium, Holland, and Germany. This provides a rather peaceful undertone to the movie as opposed to more traditional worn-torn areas portrayed in other WWII European theater war films. This creates a nice contrast during fight scenes and provides the viewer with a false sense of security.

Second and most notably, this film actually makes me cheer for the traditional "bad guys" (to a certain extent), which is very unique in a Hollywood genre and period in which protagonist Allied characters are always supposed to be victorious, right?

Okay, so the unique setting and antagonists make this movie special to me and sets it aside from other war films as previously mentioned, but third, the CAST is phenomenal-- Robert Duvall portraying a "Stauffenberg-type" Nazi officer, Donald Pleasence playing an impeccable 'Himmler', Donald Sutherland's character providing the laughs and light undertones, and of course Michael Caine at his best. These actors endear me to the film and provide enough sophistication to diminish less impressive performances seen at various points during the movie. Let's not forget Treat Williams ('Captain Clark') and John Standing ('Father Verecker'), as they execute their character's roles in the film wonderfully as well.

This movie does have its slow points early on, but that is to be expected in a 2h 15min film in 1976. The movie also seems to lack a certain production quality if one decides to compare it to the following year's film, A Bridge Too Far, and two years later, Force 10 From Navarone, but this should not be a surprise nor a knock on the movie. All in all, this is a nice, feel-good WWII war movie with a unique, riveting plot and a solid cast.