Reviews

Bombshell and The Loudest Voice are interesting but they are both one sided. Bombshell is the more quick flash shots and no news except liberal propaganda. But The Loudest Voice is the better in depth look at how Fox News beat out CNN and MSNBC by just sticking with we are right and you are wrong for the analyzing and posturing of what the news is really saying. When I first saw Bombshell it all seemed meaningless except when John Lithgow says " they're calling me 'Juba the Hut." After the first watch, I watched again and got it. I liked the acting and the difference between the three main woman, especially Megyn Kelly's actress. She did a great job playing her part. I don't know if the fictional character from SNL, who played the lesbian was needed. But maybe there was a real person at Fox that said she was there to keep a close tab on her enemies or maybe they wanted someone from SNL because of its stale anti Trump jabs for the last 5 years. In The Loudest Voice there is a good showing of how Rupert Murdoch was trying to get Ailes under his thump because Murdoch was more in line with not taking risk and just showing the sensational side of the news and not the political. I've never had or watched cable news. But I did watch Chris Wallace on Sundays and he became much worse and more long winded after Trump started debating for president. I'm not liberal but I've always voted Democrat, sometimes just to block the Republican. But I voted Republican in 2020 because I feel Trump was right on the media, immigration, the goofy liberals, and the evil leader of North Korea.

This was an excellent time portal of the New Testament letters and personality clashes of the early church. I couldn't get around the anger of Paul but when he was shown writing down the meaning of agape (love of God) from Hebrews I totally changed my judgement, and seen the profound reason why God chose him. I liked Barnnapas the most because of his humor and passive nature. I never thought much about Marks youth, compared to the others so it was nice they included it. You get to see the struggle of the early church and how Peter could totally want to lay down his life for Jesus and then be in fear when he is accused of being with the Lord. The times then were very oppressive and greedy. Just like today but less populated. A good acting job by Anthony Hopkins and a good part for him to play. Paul's confidence and determination to keep going was well shown.

Kubrick does it again. I've been interested in Stanley Kubrick's movies but after 2001 A Space Odyssey I figured he'll never come close to anything like that again and he didn't until this movie. It's said that it was his last but at least he had the last word about true cinema and not money making garbage for human consumption. Eyes Wide Shut first gave me the idea of what the Bohemian Club was about but it's more secretive then that and less open to the public. It's for very rich and powerful people who don't have a clue what evil they are a part of and how much it destroys. They are the button pushers and puppet masters of the age of politician and dictator greed that we live in. Anything evil is possible with eyes wide shut. The suspense is comparable to 2001 but not from a computer and actually HAL seems more human than some of the faceless characters in this movie. Maybe I'm seeing too much in it but it does make me wonder why Stanley did it. It's one of, or maybe even his best picture.

This movie is so bad that it should get an Oscar for the worst. I watched it for the Coens' writing but now I know they have to direct a movie too if it is an actual Coen brothers movie. I know Clooney is not that bad a director so why would he put it out? He probably thought that with the Coen name it would automatically make money. Seeing Matt Damon in True Grit is an obvious example of how any actor can look bad in a badly written and directed movie. To use the race card in a movie like this is in bad taste especially with the liberal media bashing of our current President. I wonder if the Coens have reached their limit in making good movies?

This movie came out in 1968. I saw Dr. Strangelove on TV at that time and was blown away to find out there was such a director who wasn't afraid to make a politically satiric movie about the cold war. I originally saw 2001 in an old palace type of movie theater in Boston, got stoned in the lobby, with a friend before going in and only anticipated the light show at the end. It was so good that it left you thinking what the heck is he saying at the end. I read the book and just liked the beginning about the ape who was more contemplative than the others. At the time there was a book out called On Aggression and was interesting and popular because of the Vietnam War. Today this movie is too long for the younger show me now generations. I still think this is the best movie that was ever made about actually encountering alien, super intelligent life. I'm still wondering if Kubrick is saying it was an alien life form or spiritual awakening that is portrayed in the end. I'm glad he was into using the classical music sound track because it does take you away from the dumb human dialogues that come out in some SF movies today.

I tried to watch this movie before but it was so bad that I stopped. When I was reading the comments for Arrival one of them said that Interstellar is better. They didn't like Arrival but I thought Arrival was the best SF movie since 2001. I decided to give Interstellar another look and found out I was right the first time. The acting was OK but I feel there should be more to science fiction movies than interstellar drag racing or sh-- like Independence Day and ET. Although ET did have a sentimental side which was OK. But the reality of just where the human race is in this mystery of universal creation makes using escapism in SF movies a low blow. That is if you do read and not just get your deeper thoughts from movies and TV. Interstellar had too much in consuming action and not enough in suspense. The way he was caught in a time dimension when coming back was shown in an interesting way but it stayed there too long. Unless your a farmer in the flatland Midwest the sentimental side is wasted. Considering the time it took and the value it gave I would give it a 7.2 at the most.

This movie is hilarious. I like how the tension is amplified with just a few notes on the piano, like in Eyes Wide Shut. I got the movie because of the title and the picture on the cover. I think it was filmed in Houston. It didn't disappoint even though I never heard of the director or the actors. I'm not an indie fan because movie critics have steered me wrong. The main character is played by the director who, as the main character, says that he would like to get a loan so that he can open up a hot dog stand and sell healthy food instead of hot dogs. The food looks delicious. He has a masters degree in creative writing so someone suggests that he could call his stand The Happy Poet to block out the huge picture of a hot dog. Some of the scenes are with real people and not actors which lends to the realism of the script. There is a liking in how the poet has an open trust in people but is used by them for their own self gain. The ending kind of ticked me off because there is no humor in corporations or conglomerates. A second viewing is helpful because of the irony, especially when he reads one of his poems.

Reviewers say this could have been "so much better" but they don't say how. Probably with an entrance of the Doors at the end playing "Soul Kitchen". It's like the movie The Seventh Seal. It's a great movie because of the subject and the way it is presented. I read as much as I could about Chapman including Let Me Drag You Down but this movie ,in a way, is more informative about why he was killed. It won't give you all the answers but it will show you what goes on inside the mind of a killer who wants to be a celebrity. I enjoyed the part where the photographer and the doorman Jose have a conversation with Chapman just before he stays for the final shooting. Jared Leto does a tremendous job of acting. When Mark Chapman reads the Playboy interview with Lennon you can feel that this is the point where he decides to go all the way. I read that interview at the time it came out and thought what an asshole, but so what? I knew the Beatles couldn't be what they were because they would have stayed together if that was all it took. I liked Lennon and thought he was the cool one when he was with the Beatles but that kind of success when your young is not easy to shake off when your older. I wish he was still around though because he was so outspoken it would have been interesting to see what he would have been saying today. Of course he didn't want be a radical anymore so he wouldn't have turned into the Dude.

This is what the Exorcist(without the name Reagan) was saying in the time of the black plague. The main character comes back to Sweden after fighting in the middle east to restore the birthplace of Christ. He finds his homeland devastated by an incomprehensible dark adversary. The adversary, death decides he won't kill him until he beats him at chess. This movie has an existential quality to it and puts you at odds with knowing most of the people he meets will die, but whom? The movie shows the fears and ignorance of humanity confronted with the unknown and trying to blame it on anything and anyone including themselves. The movie serves your curiosity with it shot in black and white. The pictures taken of the sky look very ominous. It is amazing that Bergman made this movie on a whim, just for television.

This is now the best movie made. The Coens have always come out with great movies but not in such a time of revelations. This is just before the Beatles came in and the the British invasion of music happened. I remember because a little while after in a new magazine called National Lampoon there was a take off on it called "The Adventures of Zimmerman" and Bob Dylan saves America from the British invasion of Stones and Kinks and other British rock and roll, in the form of a comic book. Dylan is heard right at the end of the movie when Llewyn Davis gets punched out. The movie is taken from the life of Dave Von Ronk,in the book "The Mayor of MacDougal Street". I read the book and he's not as hard edged as his depiction in the movie. I'm glad he he was friends with Dylan. The actual pop music at the time sucked then, just like it does today. But it was about to change. And so Dave Von Ronk got to experience the folk revival and be friends with one of the creative geniuses of that time. That's not too shabby. These are and have been scary times because of phony and obviously bad politicians. Maybe a real democrat will finally get in the White house and some great music will come back. But probably we'll just get fooled again.