Reviews

I actually watched the tv show on which this show is based. Other than having Lee Majors in it I remember almost nothing about it. Well, no. I do remember one more thing. Every week the show tried to find an excuse to get as many stunts before eyeballs as possible.

This movie very much knows this and takes up the challenge to great effect. That's not to say the film couldn't have done with a few less stunts and bring the movie in at a shorter running time. In fact, the movie's main weakness is that there is entirely too much of it. If ever a picture could benefit from the phrase, "leave them wanting more" its this one.

Having said that, this is a very solid pic and its a shame that it died at the box office. Perhaps history will be kinder to it?

Let me state right up front that this is a very enjoyable film and as a directorial debut it's fantastic but there is nothing new here. Our main character is basically Batman with no money and India is presented as Gotham City but with more homeless.

I am taking nothing away from the picture when I say this. It's well acted and I already said the direction is top shelf. I just found it somewhat familiar. As usual, I won't get into too much detail because some folks are very touchy about spoilers. Though, I'm not sure how one can spoil this movie. It's a revenge flick. You really would have to be entertainment illiterate to not know how that is gonna end.

Have you ever had to deal with the red tape involved in immigrating to another country? Was that other country the US? It clearly was for writer/director Julio Torres who details in fantastical fashion the bonkers policies we have in place for immigrants who, quote, follow the rules, unquote and try and make it in America.

But as a I say, this is a fantastical depiction so the narrative is not a straight forward story and really, why would you want that? Let's leave the hard hitting news piece with jokes stuff to John Oliver.

Problemista is the most creative and funny movie I've seen so far this year and I hope folks check it out. It's really good.

A fantastic miniseries stuffed into a 2 hour and 15 minute movie, Origin is the quintessential Spark A Discussion movie. Which is what is most wrong with it. The film's ideas simply don't have enough breathing room. For sure, things are well directed and laid out and the acting is very good but its hard to walk out of watching this and not feel undernourished. It's a plate of appetizers. It's not a meal.

This should not be taken as a pan. This a movie that should be seen, it's just unfortunate that the box this flick comes in is entirely too small. It would have made for a better streamer or perhaps an HBO documentary? One hopes in the future this can be revisited and given a proper platform.

John Woo is a great director of action and he proves that with Silent Night. Fists and bullets fly all over the place in this picture. On top of that the film cleverly operates almost like a silent movie. The only voices heard are on radios or TV, there is no dialogue. This conceit is pulled off effortlessly.

But with that all said, I still found this movie to be tedious. Maybe it's my old age speaking but the days when I can watch a film where one man can shoot dozen upon dozen of people while they some how manage to miss him are over. Every first shot this man makes hits his target but almost every bit of returned fire manages to go nowhere near him. Add to this our hero knowing where to put up surveillance for LA' s Most Wanted but for some reason the cops don't is too stupid by half.

Speaking of the bad guys, while I admit I'm no expert on street gangs I'm going to guess that when they doing their illegal business in their HQ it's not with the windows wide open where anybody can look in.

This is a stupid movie. But hey, sometimes, a stupid movie can be fun. But for me, Silent Night was not fun.

Overall, a very good movie but could be leaner. There are a few scenes here that seem unnecessary to the plot. Plus, the film went on for another 15 or so minutes after the character on trial has gotten their verdict read. Things really should have wrapped up quickly after that. Instead the picture keeps going to the point that I thought for sure we were about to get a twist ending. But there is no twist, the drama just ends with someone falling asleep while hugging the family dog. Which is okay, I guess. But it seems like we could have gotten there faster.

All that aside though, I can't imagine anyone watching this flick and not finding it compelling entertainment.

The hate directed toward this film is absurd. An honest viewer can't possibly believe this is the worst film ever made or even a terrible comic book movie. Or the worst Marvel movie ever made. Folks need to get grip.

To be clear, I didn't think this was a good film. The vi8llain is a bore and the plot, at least in regards to the reason our heroes need to come to the rescue, is just not that compelling. It also doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense.

However, you don't go to films like this for coherence you go for the fun and this picture just isn't fun enough. The three leads are all fine and some of the jokes are bangers but that just isn't enough to raise this above a simple okay.

I believe there is a very funny off the hook picture in here and I wish Marvel had been able to find it.

Do you miss how they used to make films in the 1970s? Plenty of filmmakers do, except they take that nostalgia and just do watered down versions of better movies. As an example see Taxi Driver and King of Comedy then watch Joker and you'll get what I mean.

Thankfully, Alexander Payne has managed to take his sentimentality and make an original film out of it. Or if The Holdovers is a pale imitation of a superior picture then the filmmaker has managed to trick me because I don't feel as if I've seen this movie before but done better.

Now to be clear, there aren't things you've never seen before in the movie. I mean, you know the characters are going to bond at some point. And people will grow to care about each other. That's a given. How we get there, however, is what makes the film seem fresh and entertaining and ever bit as good as any flick made back in the day.

I hope more people see it.

I have not seen the recent spate of movies starring ace detective Hercule Poirot nor was I a viewer of his adventures when they aired on ITV and were rebroadcast here in America on public television. I did happen upon the 2018 TV movie The ABC Murders, however. Technically, A Haunting in Venice takes place 14 years after the events in that movie but this film, of course is not a sequel to that one. Which is too bad since they both have somewhat similar plot devices of a retired Poirot being dragged back into detective work against his will. I wonder if this common in his stories?

Whatever. I mention all of this to say, I did not go into this as a fan. The only reason I saw the film at all is that I had nothing else to do and everything else playing in the theaters right now is of even less interest to me than this picture was. So, with no high expectations going in I have to say I had a wonderful time. This is excellent Murder In A Haunted House stuff. Helped along not just by top notch acting but also by the fact that I had no idea who the murderer (or murderers) were.

That's right, Even though I never read Poirot and seen few of the filmed adaptations, I still managed to know the ending to a lot his stories. Thankfully, not the case here. I've never heard of the short story this picture takes its inspiration from and I'm all the better for it. It truly added to my enjoyment. I can only hope the same is true for everyone else who decides to give this flick a try.

Favorite episode from the old TV show was when the this guy beats his wife and kid and to teach him the error of beating up people the Equalizer rips the guy to a bloody pulp. Lesson learned, it's bad to use your fists, except, you know, when it's okay.

Credit to this film, it doesn't even pretend to be as high minded. Violence is pretty much the only solution in this picture and the movie shows plenty of it. And like the old Edward Woodward show, you won't mind much because the bad guys are 100%, grade A cartoons. Plus, it's Denzel doing the ass kicking and he's always a joy to watch, even when he displays what can only be described as the ability to become invisible.

No, its not a super hero movie but the ability to become invisible must be one of the Equalizer's talents because the guy sure gets in and out of places without anyone seeing him. Or seeing him too late.

Look, it's a stupid movie. You want the better angels of our nature go find Denzel's performance in The Tragedy of Macbeth. That's art. This is fun, garbage for the teenagers and those adults who know better but don't care.

Let's say it right off the top, Vin Diesel can't act. Maybe he used to be a good actor. Maybe was always terrible. However you slice it, whatever he's doing up there on the big screen it is not acting. Granted, he's pretending to be someone else and he's speaking someone else's lines but that man is not putting on a performance. I don't know what you call it. Is it posing? Is it simulated thespianism? The future of AI? I don't have a clue. His good fortune is, nobody cares! He's awful yet more successful than I'll ever be.

I suppose it's a testament to the power of Hollywood that having your lead character in your motion picture be a dud in no way means your movie isn't entertaining. And not entertaining in the Ed Wood Mystery Science Theater sense but in the fun summer movie sense. This is what Scorsese means when he called Marvel flicks theme parks. That is a perfect description of Fast X. It ain't cinema. It's an amusement park.

That's not a put down, I like amusement parks. I liked this picture. The action set pieces are mostly excellent and many of the jokes land. A few characters are killed off for emotional heft but honestly, I couldn't have cared less about that. Not sure the movie does either. I mean, sure, the no name actors may not be coming back but you know damn well the big name ones will be returning.

Look, I can't say any more than one else has, this is Jason Momoa's movie. He is acting and good lord is it fun to watch. The movie is too long with too many cameos but whenever he pops up all is forgiven.

He carries this motion picture and makes it worth watching.

As a guy in his fifties I have seen a lot and I mean a lot of films about dudes coming of age. And while a few women coming of age films have crossed my path none have been as good as Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret. Most movies studios are run by men and even when a woman manages to get the top spot she does nothing to shake up the kinds of fare put out there. So congrats to Lionsgate for bankrolling the adaptation of this book.

What makes the picture stand out is it's dealing with preteen girls and their sexual confusion, not just about boys but about their own bodies. I can think of few films to actually deal with getting your period. The pics that even address it usually bring it up as a source of gross out humor. I'm also hard pressed to think of the last film I saw where a young woman had to deal with getting a bra for the first time. This is stuff every young woman must go through but it's seldom seen in cinema. Or at the very least, in most flicks I've seen. And I see a lot of them.

The whole issue of her religion and what she should believe in is also handled excellently. This is a dynamite script but it would be nowhere without the performers. Everyone puts in a fantastic performance, most especially the lead, Abby Ryder Fortson.

The direction is also crisp and to the point. If I have any issues at all it's that I think the character of the father is under used but I guess this is really Margaret and her mom's story. Which, you know, fair enough.

I hope everyone with a preteen daughter see's this. In a sane country it would be shown in schools but the book it's self is banned in some districts so that's not going to happen. Which really is to our nations shame.

Up until this film I had never heard of the book How to Blow Up a Pipeline nor of it's author, Andreas Malm but this Swedish writer and associate professor has been preaching the 'joys' of environmentalists taking direct action to property for awhile. Is this fictional depiction of his writing a good summary of Malm's thoughts? It would appear so.

Of course, that doesn't make the movie good. What does make it worth a watch is how the planning and execution of this act of violence (or self defense) is portrayed. The director, Daniel Goldhaber, has given us a very decent thriller. Yes, the characters are not terribly deep but if you enjoy watching smart people figure out a heist, well in this case an explosion, then this is the film for you. Also, to have a film made in America that is basically pro-terror attack 22 years after 9/11 makes for fascinating viewing. Who would have ever guessed this day would ever come?

Should this film get any push back I have no doubt you'll hear some denounce the picture by saying brute force is not the answer. The problem with that argument is that cinema has been celebrating violence against people (See any action movie, cop film or western) for years so why not one about violence against oil pipelines?

Populated with a series of 40 year old looking teenagers and low grade special effects, this film is not the worst way to spend your down time when nothing else is going on. Hell, you won't even feel you missed anything if you spend sometime looking at your phone as the movie moves along.

Although, you won't want to miss when the blob first hits earth and gets scooped up by a branch. Giggle as you you realize what that substance looks like at first. Perhaps an adult drink or something stronger will help with your amusement?

For younger viewers unfamiliar with Steve McQueen's acting talent, he actually gets better, I promise.

Its no revelation to say that Spielberg is a master director. So its no surprise that The Fabelmans is a fine film. One should definitely see it. However, the kid at the center, the stand in for Steven Spielberg, just isn't that interesting.

This is no dig at the actors who portray him. They do what they can. And, hell,maybe growing up Spielberg really was just a kid interested in film and not much else. However, as far as a character goes. He is a bit of a bore. Even when faced with antisemitic harassment his response is dull. If not, mystifying! At one point he makes a film glorifying a person who once punched him out. A response to the situation even the picture doesn't understand.

Still, that doesn't in anyway sink the film. Though Michelle Williams's crazy mama routine comes damn close. But, again, if that's the way it was. That's the way it was. Personally, I don't know how Papa Spielberg put up with that woman for more than a week let alone married someone so exhausting.

I don't maybe being exposed to that level of crazy is what prepares one for a life in the entertainment industry. But that's another story.

I marked this as a spoiler free review. In fact, you can't spoil something with no plot. But I will spoil it by accurately describing it. This is an overlong, underlit boring film experiment being passed off as as a horror movie.

Now, in all honesty, horrible kind of sounds like horror so maybe that was goal? If so, mission accomplished.

My understanding is that the filmmaker did online content around viewers nightmares and that's what this picture is about. But who wants to see other people's dreams? Even the unpleasant ones? Its not interesting. Its not entertaining. Its just an endless series of images with little reason and certainly no rhyme.

Back in 20018 John Cho and Debra Messing started in a film told via cellphones, online chats and such. The gimmick sounded spectacularly stupid. Yet, somehow, this turned out to be a very good film. But can they really pull it off again?

Turns out, they totally can! It's now Storm Reid's turn to go crazy trying to find out what happened to a relative with an assist from a lot of apps. Overall, does the plot make sense? No, not really. One person would have become a suspect PDQ in this scenario but who cares? This ain't a documentary. It's a fun crime drama with a young woman going Nancy Drew for the 21st Century. How can you not want to see it?

The film critic, Alonso Duralde, is correct. This is an extended version of a Black Mirror episode or something you would see in an anthology series on TV back when broadcast television did loads of them. And yet, even with that criticism, he was far too kind to this picture.

It's funny that the film presents food that is far too underwhelming and tiny since that is exactly who the characters are. Wildly underwhelming and tiny. You learn very little about most of the dinner guests and even the chef remains a mystery. Which is all well and good for a 30 minute TV show that doesn't mean for us to invest more than a few minutes into characters that we won't be seeing again next week but for a movie it's awful.

Some people are calling this satire. Well. If that's true, it most certainly should have closed on Saturday night.

Are you familiar with a film called Chuck and Buck? It's a 2000 movie about a guy who can't give up his childhood friend. It's a comedy but also creepy as hell. Especially when the main character starts stalking his friend and harassing the people he works with. But the thing is, for all the horror elements on display this was no horror movie.

The same is true for All My Friends Hate Me. It's has all the elements of a horror film without actual horror. It's an amazing experience. You are certain something terrible is going to happen any minute and over again it doesn't. Except, when it finally does.

What a fantastic film.

This film never answers why the doves are crying or why rain would be purple but if you can overlook those things this a good movie. Which is amazing considering it was made in the 80s when films took a nose dive on quality. At least as compared to the decade before.

This picture isn't especially funny but George did make me laugh at something concerning a chalk outline. You'll have to listen to the pod to get the reference.

As an actor Prince demonstrates he is a musician but he's not so bad that you won't enjoy this movie. Even if you don't like the movie, the soundtrack is awesome. So there is that.

The most shocking thig about this film is that it still has an R rating. It's strictly PG-13, tops.

This was the 3rd film watched by the boys at Does This Still Work podcast. It went over with them like a condom on a eunuch

The characters don't feel the least bit real and, look, not to body shame but lord, Eliot Gould was hairy AF. How did Barbra Streisand stand it? His body is what Manscaped is all about.

Back to the film, those who think this is still a relevant flick must be in the grips of nostalgia. There is almost nothing here to relate to in the 21st Century. Good lord, they have these people sleeping around but nobody is worried about catching anything or knocking the woman up. What planet is that true?