Reviews

This is an excellent film. And its treatment of the Stalin Era of the Soviet Union is both darkly humorous and actually very unflinching in its depicting the monsters and their monstrosities for what they were.

I was worried that, in an attempt to extract humor from the situation that they might've glossed over just how monstrous the key characters actually were. To Iannucci and Schneider's credit however, there was absolutely no glossing over at all. Beria, for instance, is portrayed as every bit the monster in human form that he was - this, even as that portrayal is also made darkly and delightfully humorous at times.

The whole cast played their parts well and played them "straight" - which only heightened the humor and the horror of what life was like under Stalin in the Soviet Union. Even the nominal "hero" of the tale, Nakita Khrushchev, is realistically portrayed as being just as conniving and callous and power hungry as everyone else. Buscemi would seem an odd choice for that particular role but he pulls it off with style and excellence. So too does Simon Russell Beale in his portrayal of Beria.

This is a nicely done film with excellent production values, a great script, fine acting, excellent pacing, and a compelling tale that is well told.

I highly recommend it!

Short form: Excellent film. Go see it now!

Long form: Excellent film. Go see it now! And here's why...

The film is exceptionally well done. The storyline is engaging and makes sense. The plot is cohesive, well thought out, and satisfying. The acting is first rate, compelling, and believable. The actors all played well their parts and were quite fulfilling and genuine in each of their roles.

The cinematography was truly stunning. The visuals were wonderfully composed, believable and yet compelling in showing how similar and different the world of 2049 is to ours today.

Denis Villeneuve, the director, has taken Ridley Scott's 1982 vision as his inspiration and basis from which to craft his own world building when creating this film. The look and feel of "Blade Runner 2049" is thus similar but unique when compared to Scott's "Blade Runner." In Villeneuve's rendering the world has clearly changed but has continued on the theme of being a blighted place where humanity's existence is still in question.

And Villeneuve goes even deeper in exploring that theme of what, exactly, it means to be human.

Whereas Scott's rendering could only touch on that theme, Villeneuve's makes it the central point. Yet he does so while not losing the audience in an endless amount of exposition or turning the film into a talking head exercise. Here, the actors do an excellent job of emoting the impact of what is going on as the story unfolds - as real people would do were that happening in the real world. That makes the film much more satisfying and engaging.

In the 1982 film, the studio executives decided that Scott's interpretation to Phillip Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" was too obscure in its story telling and insisted that there be a voice-over narration to explain it to the audience. Both Scott and Harrison Ford, who played the main character of Deckard, thought the idea of a narration was a travesty to the film and an insult to the audience. Contractually obligated, Ford - as he has since related - made sure to do his worst when called in to read the voice-over narration. And as Ford tells it, the studio execs chose Ford's worst recording as the one they pasted into the film.

I've seen "Bladerunner" both with the narration - when it first came out in theaters in 1982 - and the subsequent "director's cut" version where the narration was removed, and I really can't say which was better. Had I first taken the film in without its narration I might be able to say but that's not how it panned out.

For "Bladerunner 2049" however, the visual storytelling was well enough crafted and visually compelling enough that no narration was necessary. Gosling's acting, in particular, was spot on in this. In several key scenes, what was going on with the character - his emotions and his thoughts - was visually plain enough that voiced explanations would've lessened it.

The film runs long. Two hours and forty three minutes long. While the pace was not frenetic nor was it languid. There were no parts of the film that I found to drag or to have left me in confusion as to what had just happened because it blew by so quickly. Along the way Villeneuve does an excellent job of fleshing out the world he has brought to the screen by using the film's run time quite effectively.

Though offered in 3D I don't think the experience of seeing it in that version would be worth the added cost of doing so. The visuals aren't stunning based on their depth or on popping out at the audience but at their composition and the story they tell of how different the world you're seeing has become.

While it isn't necessary to have seen the 1982 film, taking in "Blade Runner 2049" will be enhanced if you have already watched the first "Blade Runner" movie. The hand-offs and "touch-backs" to it are that frequent and greatly add depth to the storyline and emotional impact that many of the scenes have in the current film.

All in all, I highly recommend this film. It's a very well crafted piece that delivered on all its promises and more. Villeneuve succeeded in delivering a wonderful follow-on to Scott's original creation that is also uniquely his and appreciated for being so.

Go see it now!

Wow! This film is awesome!

The actors are all great.

The storyline is engaging and powerful.

The pacing is perfect and relentless.

The bad guys are well and truly and wholly bad - but not in a shallow or trite manner.

The good guys are troubled, wounded, but determined, resourceful and, ultimately, good guys.

This is excellent entertainment and well worth the price of admission.

Idris Elba brought the Gunslinger character to an outstanding realization on screen.

Matthew McConaughey portrays the Man In Black with such a smooth and consummately evil manner that he really brings home just how powerful and utterly evil he is - but without devolving into caricature or stereotype.

Tom Taylor's portrayal of Jake Chambers, the young boy from our world who has visions of the Dark Tower, was absolutely pivotal in making this film work. And he was marvelous. He was the perfectly played character that was neither too strong nor hapless nor a "Mary Sue" in which everything was perfect. Any one of which could've ruined the portrayal and thus the film. He thus carried an enormous weight on his portrayal and did an excellent job of it.

The film is dark and dangerous and thus well conveys how desperate the times are that the characters find themselves in.

Thus it was a great bit of entertainment to take in and a very well crafted tale.

Go see it now!

Just saw it last night and found it... boring.

Yes, boring.

Considering how eye popping the visuals were, for the film to turn out to be boring is something which took a while lot of work on Besson's part. But, damn if he didn't rise to the occasion.

I'd great hopes for the film as I truly enjoyed "5th Element" and thought that with the much larger budget, much more refined special effects, and the years of his wanting to realize the "Valerian and Laureline" tales on the big screen - he'd have done something superb. Instead?

Instead, it was a "meh" at best.

Part of this is due to how thoroughly "Valerian and Laureline" has been ripped off over the ensuing decades. What was new and ground breaking back when that comic book first came out is now commonplace. We're used to seeing a futuristic setting with all manner of alien aliens running 'round in it. We're used to seeing fantastic space battles. We're used to seeing truly alien landscapes. So, hoping to rely upon those visuals to push a film over the top simply doesn't cut it any more.

So, it then must come down to plot and having engaging characters. Here however, the film failed. None of the characters were engaging. None of them. The acting was flat. The two leads never displayed any chemistry and simply weren't impressive. Valerian in particular was a non- entity. I simply could not accept that he was some sort of uber agent of awesome abilities. He just seemed a male version of Laureline - but not as smart. So his romance with her was dull and contrived.

As to the film's plot? Hard to tell if it was from one of the original "Valerian and Laureline" tales or something Besson cooked up himself. In any event it was nothing original or engaging either.

Also, the film was too damn long. There were plenty of portions of it that should have wound up on the cutting room floor as that would've greatly helped with the tale's pacing and with the film's being a more enjoyable thing.

All in all? I've seen worse. I've paid more for seeing worse - I caught this in 2D and thus avoided the 3D version's gouging. I've also seen a whole lot better - and a lot better from Besson.

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them

This was a most excellent film! The production values were top notch. The acting was on point. The casting was superb. The script was tight. The action flowed quite well. The two and a quarter hour run time passed in a flash. The dialog was fully appropriate and well done. On all points, this film delivered and was well worth watching.

For fans of Harry Potter this film fits wonderfully into that existing realm - but stands nicely apart from it. Some, just enough, actually, of the familiar landmarks and touchstones are there - Hogwarts, Dumbledore, muggles, etc. - but only as frame setting reference points.

The story is otherwise apart from the world that Rowling showed with Harry Potter and we're well rewarded by journeying to it. Thus, you don't have to be a Potter fan or have read any of the books or seen any of the previous films as this tale well enough stands on its own.

The characters were well rendered and nicely believable. Their motivations were realistic and made sense within the confines of the tale. Aside from Farrell and Voight, the rest of the cast were essentially unknowns. That's a grave risk for any film with such high expectations riding on it. Yet, that cast was exceptionally well cast and delivered handsomely in their performances.

The sense of wonder and awe and beauty of magical possibilities was well handled and quite different from what we'd seen previously in the Potter films. A different tale, this, and thus a different flavor.

With this release and its well deserved coming success, there's sure to be more Rowling tales set in America and thus will have an entirely new and different audience than what the Potter-verse has already created.

I recommend this film highly. It's a great and enjoyable bit of magical entertainment.

Just saw "American Sniper."

I FULLY understand why so many on the Left are coming unglued about the film and hate it so much. Chris Kyle - and all the others like him - are men they simply can not understand. The gulf between their world views is too great a chasm for them to even grasp it. So, of course, they can only hate that. And hate it they do.

The film is not light. It is very much unlike any "typical war film." Nor does it have absolutely anything to say about the politics of the war or about any of the other bigger issues surrounding it. That in and of itself means that the Left can only despise the film. Everything for them has to have a MESSAGE - and one that they approve of.

The focus of this was on the men - and women - who weren't oblivious to the war and were, instead, brutally affected by it by being in it. In it in one way or another. That was painful, damn painful, to sit through. And it was exquisitely well done.

Bradley Cooper was stunning to watch in his portrayal of Kyle. No stereotypes, no cardboard cutout characters there. The war's effect on him and his family - also very well done by Sienna Miller - was part of that painfulness, and rightly so.

I've sat through other Eastwood dramas -"Million Dollar Baby" being the closest of such to this - and that one, in particular, hurt to watch, at times. But not like this one.

The theater wasn't packed but for a 7PM showing on a Tuesday night, out in the suburbs, it was very well attended. And as a measure of just how powerful the film was the audience was as quiet and somber leaving the theater as I've ever experienced.

We go to movies to be entertained. Even "tear jerker" movies are entertainment and most people will get up from their seats after watching those with plenty to say and express. There's chatter about what they just went through. And they quickly get back to thinking and talking about the rest of their lives once the lights come back up. Not this time. The audience was damn near silent.

This is a powerful film. And a painful one. It is well worth experiencing however. This is about the most moving film I've ever watched. This is not a "date flick" and nor is it anything to try and take in thinking its affect will be over once the credits stopped rolling. That said, it is definitely worth going to yourself. I recommend it highly.

I liked "Folsom Forever." I'm glad to see such a cultural event of such importance to the leather / fetish / SM / kink communities get such a treatment. I think the film well conveyed the importance of the event, its history, and the people involved with both putting the event on and those who enjoy attending it.

The history of the Folsom Street Festival was well done and well handled. It was good to know the background of it all and why it came to have such importance for that neighborhood - a place deemed "blighted" and thus only worthy of being completely torn down for urban renewal. 'Twas the gay leatherfolk who effectively prevented that and, eventually, turned it into the vibrant place it is today.

There were some technical aspects of the film which let it down a bit. Chief among these was that the sound quality was surprisingly poor for all the interviews - outdoor and indoor alike. Still though, I think the overall content and overall treatment of the subject matter well outweighs these minor technical shortcomings.

This was an excellent treatment of the Folsom Street Festival and is a worthwhile watch for anyone who's been there, anyone thinking of going, and even for folks who are just curious as to what it is all about.

This is an outstanding bit of movie entertainment! I just saw it and was mightily impressed by it.

The story is compelling, the scripting is top-notch, the dialog is a gem, the acting is superb, the casting is excellent, the production values are lush, and the attention to detail is superb.

Originally due out late last year, the folks at Columbia & Fox realized they had something more than a "Clooney / Damon caper movie" on their hands and pushed it to this year. It was a wise decision on their part.

Based on the real story of the Allied effort to retrieve and return the artworks looted by the Nazis, "Monuments Men" does an excellent job of turning that tale into an engaging, compelling, exciting, saddening, and uplifting tale that is well worth seeing.

I expected something a bit more "adult" than the original "Clooney / Damon caper movie" it was first depicted as - but was surprised and pleased at what the movie actually is. Yup, there's plenty of snappy dialog and humorous situations. Yes, Clooney and Damon are in fine form together. So too however, are Goodman, Murray, Balaban, Dujardin, Blanchett and all others involved. As an example, Blanchett's "Claire Simone" character is a very well rendered Parisian one when it comes to the proper use of French.

The tale could've easily become a farce with these actors / characters depicted as some sort of historian / art expert action heroes winning the war all on their own. Thankfully, the movie and tale is nothing like that. It does show them as being at the front lines and suffering the consequences for that. But it wisely depicts them as exactly who they are - art experts who happen to be in uniform and not combat troops ordered to be art experts. The movie does an excellent job of depicting the difficulties of that situation and its results.

And the production values of the film make it a joy to behold. Location shots abound. Any CGI used to enhance those settings is done seamlessly and thus enhances the story first and foremost. One thing which particularly impressed me was the movie's use of period equipment in exacting detail and specificity.

When there's a scene involving a British Army unit moving out - they're using Bedford QLDs to do so. When there's a scene of a Red Army unit driving 'round - they're doing so in their GAZ-67 "jeeps" and their Zil trucks. This, when it would also have been perfectly appropriate to have depicted them driving 'round in American built vehicles as we supplied plenty of them to them via Lend-Lease. Nope, that just wouldn't do here! And that sort of attention to detail abounds throughout the film.

Paying attention to what's going on on screen is also highly rewarding here. There are plenty of details presented in a realistically understated manner that are all the more compelling for it.

This is an excellent two hours worth of movie entertainment and well worth watching.

I've known about Bettie Page for many a year now. The soft-core porn images of her from the 1950's have since become iconographic and still have a strong draw even today. The "Bettie Page" look is also still hugely popular within the hetero fetish world and remains as distinctive today as it did then. So I watched this film with quite a bit of familiarity to begin with. The result did not disappoint.

Among other things, it was hugely entertaining to see the movie's recreation of actual figures like Irving Klaw, John Willie, and Bunny Yeager – all consider trailblazers today. Mary Harron did an excellent job creating the desired ambiance of sexual repression and hypocrisy in 1950's America along with a sexuality that, by today's standards, was innocent in the extreme. I particularly liked the use of monochrome versus color as a visual shorthand for the emotional and spiritual climate Bettie found herself in.

I think that Gretchen Mol did an excellent job of presenting the character of Bettie in all her innocent sexuality and all her utter naiveté. Bettie loved to look pretty, loved the attention, saw nothing wrong with nudity, and enjoyed dressing up in "silly outfits" for the camera. The underlying sexuality and deeply fetishistic desires all that evoked were completely lost on her. To this day she still doesn't understand "what all the fuss was about" when it comes to her pictures or the S&M content of them.

This isn't to say she's uneducated or too simple to understand it's just that she simply doesn't "get it" about fetishism and never will. No harm there. Bettie Page is simply being who she is. The film captured this quite nicely.

The social atmosphere of the 1950's depicted by Ms. Harron and written by her along with Guinevere Turner makes me truly glad I live in the day and age that I do. The hypocrisy and repression combined with the massive ignorance about our sexuality all combined to a frighteningly stifling world. The film well captures this and brings to cheering as Bettie endures it all with her unshakeable faith and her unchangeable naiveté.

This film was a bit slow at times but hit all the points Ms. Harron attempted and hit them well. I'd recommend this film even for those folks with little to no knowledge of who Bettie Page was and what effect she had on American culture. For those with such interests, then this film is a must see.

Oh great, an entire film of Al Gore carrying on about some imagined crisis that REQUIRES, no, that DEMANDS massive government action! Oh puh-leaze! Al Gore never found a problem that didn't require bigger government and more taxpayer money. This time it's about the so-called Global Warming Crisis! I hate to rain on his parade but, there is no crisis. Global warming is real alright - but it's a natural thing that has been going on in cycles for billions of years. It is the height of arrogance to link the current natural cycle to human activity. Ah, but Al Gore is nothing if not arrogant. And sanctimonious. And on a crusade. And the facts be damned! Never mind that the reason the Earth is warming up recently is because the Sun has been putting out more energy of late. Oh no, it must - of course - be due to mankind's e-vile efforts. Of course! And the solution must, of course, be more big government to save us from ourselves! What crap. What amazes me is that people are still listening to this blowhard and taking him seriously. I mean, hell, this guy couldn't even beat George Bush! And now he's off on some crusade in response to a crisis that doesn't exist, is not our fault, and is just part of a natural cycle? And people are paying money to watch this guy rant and rave? And Democrats say Republicans are stupid for voting for Bush? This movie, in a word, sucks. More overly pious, overly sanctimonious, overly sensationalistic propaganda that is high on alarmism and awfully, awfully short on facts. If this is what Al Gore truly believes than I'm actually thankful that he lost back in 2000 even though that meant we had to put up with the likes of Bush in his stead. Sure, go see this film if you already BELIEVE in the CAUSE as you're already way past the point where mere facts will have any effect on you. But if you don't want to be preached at for 100 minutes by some cosmic level blowhard then save yourself the $8.50 and avoid this film like the plague.

Damn! This flick rocks! Very entertaining! I've spent many an hour playing the video game so there was some interest in this one for me right from the start. That and some trepidation as the history of movies adapted from video games is rife with failure. Not so in this case. Oh, they made some changes to the premise. In this case it's not a gateway to Hell which causes the problems but is, instead, some bio-genetics experiment which goes awry. Still though, they kept everything else pretty much the same. The effort the creators of this film went to in order to keep the "look and feel" of the game has paid off handsomely. This is especially true of their "first person shooter's perspective" sequence which was an excellent recreation of what we've gone through in playing the original game.

Yet this film's attraction is hardly limited to those folks who are fans of the video game. The movie holds up on its own and you don't have to be a Doom aficionado to enjoy the picture. The action is intense and well paced. The actors are well cast and deliver sold, believable performances. The premise of the plot is good and holds together quite well. Other folks have dismissively compared this flick to the "Resident Evil" films of a couple of years back. This simply isn't the case. Doom is a far better flick, is far better acted, and far more enjoyable than those films. The Rock, Dwayne Johnson, delivers another one of his standout performances and was a real treat to watch go through his paces on screen. The rest of the cast well played their parts and the ensemble worked together quite well. One thing which I liked about this film was that it had none of the typical monster / alien threat movie stupidness on the part of its characters. The squad of Marines sent to the Mars base were depicted as being smart, experienced, well trained and well armed. Their actions on the screen lived up that. This made the movie all that more realistic to watch as their numbers kept getting whittled down despite all their hard fighting.

I enjoyed this film and am glad to see such an adaptation finally get done so right and be so successful. We can only hope future game to screen works work so well.

Nicely done. A lot funnier than I expected. The Ephrons (Delian and Nora) not only must love the original series but they are also smart enough to have realized a straight-up remake of it just wouldn't fly. Too many dangers in that, as other remakes have sadly demonstrated. Instead, they chose to make their film a "film within a film" by updating the setting to modern day Hollywood as it tries making a remake of the original series. This way the Ephrons get to touch all the standards about how Hollywood has nothing original to produce while injecting enough modern spin to keep the story "current." This worked well.

The sarcastic view of the current Hollywood world plays well with its rather vapid and cynical image the industry has developed for itself. By having the sub-theme of the show having actually chosen a real witch to portray Samantha, the movie gets to go through all the bits that made the original series such a long lasting hit. A very smart move on the Ephron's part and it play well.

Nicole Kidman did a fine job of portraying the "witch trying to make it in the real world by playing the character of a witch in a TV series." She pulled off the mix of being an all powerful witch who was also rather ignorant in the ways of the non-witch world. Her character was well rendered and amusing.

This turned out to be one of the very few roles which I've actually enjoyed Will Ferrell's work. I never liked his stuff on Saturday Night Live - with the exception of his George Bush impressions - and have managed to avoid all of his films to date. In this role however, he seemed well suited for playing a obnoxious and repulsive boor who's also a failed actor. Perhaps because he could find so much of himself in the role? Perhaps.

Michael Caine and Shirley MacLaine were perfectly cast and a joy to watch. Especially MacLaine as she got to camp it up every time she was on screen. The special effects, what there was of them, were nicely handled and didn't get in the way of the story. All in all this was a good bit of entertainment and made for a fun night out at the movies.

Excellent entertainment - far better than any of the other film versions which preceded it. The director, Christopher Nolan, got this one right. His vision was suitably dark but not over the top, as was Burton's.

Christian Bale was perfect. He was far more believable than Keaton, Kilmer or Clooney in the role. Keaton I never could take seriously as Batman and while Kilmer got the brooding part well enough he never got the threatening or anger filled part of this character. The less said about Clooney's time in the Bat Suit the better.

Bale had the anger, the fear, and the "physicality" which the others lacked. As has already been pointed out, he is also young enough to be more believable as a newly starting out Batman. I think it is also a nice ironic turn for this actor to now be playing Batman after having cut his teeth of playing the lead in "American Psycho." I'd guess he brought a lot of what he absorbed in that role to this one and it works quite well.

I also like how Nolan handled the Rachel Dawes character, played by Katie Holmes. She was not there simply as a decorative plot point nor as a passive "former childhood sweetheart" love interest for Bruce Wayne / Batman. This was especially brought home at the film's end when she acknowledged who Batman was and who Bruce Wayne was – thus avoiding the standard "oh the pain of a superhero's dual identity unrequited love" stereotypes. Nicely done, that.

The special effects in the film were there to support the storyline and not the other way around. That was very appreciated. I too like the "Tumbler" and wouldn't mind having one of those either. Insurance and gas mileage be damned! The explanation of how Batman got all his cool schwag was logical and went a long way to making the character more believable. Morgan Freeman was instrumental in this and his laid back gravitas is always a joy to watch on screen.

Liam Neeson also brings his trademark gravitas (first "Kingdom of Heaven " and now this) into play and made an excellent character for Bale/ Batman to play off of. Caine portrayed a far more effective and fleshed out "Alfred" in Wayne Manor than any before him and that too helped the whole ensemble. The supporting actors here were all top-draw talent as individuals and their individual skills came together well for the ensemble.

It's a shame that Burton didn't have it in himself to have done his Batman like this. I know he wanted to make Batman be a darker character but it seems that he took the TV series as his starting point and that meant it brought along too much camp and hokeyness to be taken with that way. Nolan seems to have learned all the right lessons from the "Dark Knight" view of the Batman character and world.

This one works quite well and the set up for sequels was very logically handled and done in such a way as to leave the audience yearning for the next installment. It's no surprise that this film is doing well at the box office for it's quality entertainment that makes excellent use of its source material, brings worthwhile additions to it, and is a very enjoyable way to spend the 141 minutes it runs.

Madoc

Folks, Wow! This one's a keeper! Written and directed by Paul Haggis - he, of "Million Dollar Baby" fame - this is film of the angst, desperation, hope, prejudice, and misery that comes with modern life. It is _very_ well written, _very_ well directed, _very_ well acted and it is also a harsh thing to watch. The situations depicted in the film make you squirm as they are so real and so familiar. No one in this film is an unblemished hero yet neither is anyone a beyond the pale villain. The plot twists and character turns keep you guessing and are right on the edge.

The actors chosen were spot on and some were very surprising to see as their current star status would have otherwise dictated larger roles. Yet at the same time none of them seemed placed in those roles out of any cameo or "walk-on" effect.

As a white guy who often gets up into LA and who recognizes a lot of the backgrounds shown in this film I can very much relate the type of angst which floats around up there. The various cultures; black, white, Latino, Asian, Arab, etc., do _not_ mix well but, due to the nature of modern urban life, always wind up mixing anyway. While Los Angeles does not come off too well in this film, it could easily be set in almost any modern American city and it is more of a testament about how we live than any damnation of the City of Angels.

This film was very watchable and it does cut right through you. I recommend it highly.

Madoc

This was nicely done. It's a great send-up of, and homage to, all those "Chop Socky" films that have come from Asia and elsewhere. This was well produced, funny, and well paced.

The computer generated special effects were well enough done and just added to the over-the-top comedic nature of the whole affair. This movie does _not_ take itself seriously and that's a welcome change after the overly pretentious films like "Hero" and "House of Flying Daggers." The actors in this flick all had a good time in their roles and were fun to watch.

All in all, this was a good bit of entertainment!

I thought the American release of this anime film was nicely done. The dubbing was well thought out and executed. The film itself was a nice visual treat although its setting was a tad on the dark side. But, as most of the action took place indoors and inside what could be described as boiler rooms on a mega scale, the dark worked.

The tale itself was pretty standard stuff and only a bit preachy. The alternate history/ universe setting was fun to see with all the "steam punk" elements thrown in. I caught this one in an art house theater here in San Diego and even at a matinée showing it still packed in quite a crowd. All in all I thought this a good bit of entertainment and well worth its ticket price.

Madoc Pope