Reviews

Great concept! I was intrigued the second I saw the trailer for Night Sky but also pretty pessimistic being an Amazon release. And, while it does have some slow moments and unnecessary story telling, it was a refreshingly good series coming in the wake of a lot of really bad ones.

The acting is superb as expected with JK Simmons And Sissy Spacek at the helm. Great casting all around for the most part.

About my only two complaints is the sometime slow burn feel to a few episodes and I felt like despite telling a lot of character stories, they missed on explaining the nature of who the "bad guys" are in the series. I wish they would have focused more on the nature of the series versus characters you'll forget about.

All that said, Night Sky is definitely worth the watch and overall a very enjoyable series.

After watching Hawkeye, Loki, Falcon and Moon Knight, I finally took the time to dive into WandaVision. I read the reviews (real ones) prior so I knew what to expect from the first few episodes and after watching ep 1-4, I can definitely understand why people disliked it. Those episodes aren't pointless but they could have probably prepared the audience in one episode versus 4.

Overall, I thought the idea was pretty original considering some of the "meh" that's been coming out of Marvel lately. That said, it falls flat due to needless reoccurring dialogue that seems to exist to fill space, not entertain the audience. Part of Marvel's glory has been creating somewhat unrealistic stories that are entertaining, imaginative and fun. WandaVision falls short in all those categories. Everything is too over the top from dialogue to the storyline and it fails to be believable in any way.

Elizabeth Olsen, Paul Bettany and Katherine Zahn all do a good job in the acting department (as expected). The series does get better in the later episodes as action and an actual story are introduced. But, the nature of being told via an old television show never pulls together and feels odd by the ending. It just starts to feel silly. When you combine silly with action and superheroes, you end up with a show that is hard to continue to watch.

If they proceed with a season 2, it might get more interesting as they'll likely abandon the old television show overlay which they should have done after episode 2. Due to the acting, characters and history, this show has potential.

I gave this series three stars only because I generally like Jeremy Renner and Vera Farmiga. But, even they aren't very good in this series, what little of it Renner is actually in it, Crazy not to make him the front runner for at least one season and then introduce a new character.

I struggled with boredom through each episode and found myself asking "what happened to Marvel?". I used to get excited when a new Marvel movie or series came out because it was almost always good production quality with a fun but easy storyline. Hawkeye is NOT this at all.

Hawkeye feels like a Nickelodeon production meant for 8 year olds and written by them, too. It almost feels like Marvel is literally trying to kill its brand. They must be struggling on the creativity front because there's nothing in Hawkeye that's worth spending the time on and that's hard for me to say.

My recommendation is skip Hawkeye and go directly to Moon Knight. While it has its problems as well, the storyline is much better and far more entertaining.

I'm a big Nolan era Batman fan as the storyline and directing for each of those films was on point and done very well even if the casting was a bit "meh" sometimes. The 2022 'The Batman' tries very hard to be a Nolan film and too many others, all at once. The result is an overacted, underachieved movie. It simply tries too hard to be too much and the outcome is the film not doing anything very well.

For starters, I was not all that enthralled with Pattinson being cast as Batman but I will admit, he does a very good job despite the rest of the film lacking. The rest of the cast seems well auditioned but the characters are way overwritten and all seem to overact as a result.

The story is slow and character development takes forever. The whole thing seems long and unnecessarily overcomplicated for no reason. It's a Batman film, not an attempt at an Oscar. And it comes up short in all directions. Very much a slow burn film that you're likely to have to watch a few times to get to the end as you're mind will eventually wander during this film.

Overall, not terrible but not that good, either. Very disappointing as I was excited for a revamped Batman done well. Sadly, this one is not it.

While I did enjoy parts of this movie... I also couldn't help but feel Neeson is stuck in movie genre trap he can't get out of.

Blacklight, while not being a Taken movie, still has that very familiar feeling of "man VS ____ plot" which requires the man to punch and shoot his way out. While being enjoyable enough to watch to completion, it won't surprise anyone and will feel very familiar.

Neeson plays a special ops FBI agent that gets involved in an FBI conspiracy (shocker!) and has to sort his way out of it. In an easy but obvious story, he wants to hang up his hat with the FBI and make things right by spending time with his grandkid while making things right with his daughter. But, a reporter brings to light the evils of State sponsored murder and conspiracy within the FBI and Neeson does what he does best! When his family disappears, his vengeance and wrath comes to fruition. This is where things really start to feel familiar. Actually, this entire movie feels redundant and familiar.

All that said, it is a good production and in true fashion, Neeson does a good 'bang, boom, pow' acting job. But, the script is a retread of many movies Neeson has already done. If you want to see a better movie with Neeson doing similar things, check out 'Run All Night', which is a far better movie IMO.

So, I was kind of excited for Black Widow as it seemed like it might be revisit to the old MCU. And, I like Scarlett Johansen as an actress. While Black Widow is by no means my favorite character, I was looking forward to a well produced MCU movie (vs the TV series nonsense).

It's a good thing Black Widow isn't my favorite character because this movie wasn't really about her. This movie seemed to be all about her sister who is played by. Florence Pugh and WOW does she do an awesome job at the role. Scarlett Johansen does a good job but whoever was writing the movie seemed to forget about the title being named after her. It seems as-if they are pushing to introduce Pugh as a new superhero and forgot about Black Widow in the making.

So, if you tuned in for a Black Widow movie, you'll be disappointed because this really isn't it. You don't really discover anything about Black Widow then you really knew before. For that reason this one kind of confused me and resulted in a lower rating. Had the title been 'Yelena' it would probably rank up another star. David Harbor's character was pointless and a waste of dialogue. But, he got to play the Communist he's always wanted to be!

Aside from the above, it was a decently produced movie. Directing was good. Acting was good. Story writing was MEH. First half of the movie is great! Second half feels like it was written by someone else and drags on then goes into easy explanations. All in all, a good movie that could have been great with a better conclusion and someone deciding who the movie was really about and sticking to it.

You know, in 2021, I'd bet it's hard to make a movie that hasn't been made before... or at least, hard not to borrow elements from other films.

Whether they know it or not (most likely they do), there are definitely elements which borrow A LOT of direction from other movies. Is Gunpowder Milkshake a feminist John Wick? Kinda but not really as the story is more entangled but it absolute tries in this area. At other times, I felt some Kingsman steals in there with some of the action sequences and lead ups.

Is the story something new? Absolutely not. We've all likely seen parts, if not wholes of this movie. But, is the movie a good watch? I think so and it's entertaining like a lot of movies of this genre.

There are areas where this movie doesn't do enough and other areas where it does too much. That said, all the actresses do a good job and Karen Gillan does a great job, as usual. This movie also feels like it's decently edited and directed. The look/feel of the movie are well done as it likely has some bucks put into it.

All in all, it's worth a watch. There are some good eye popping scenes with glorious acts of violence from Gillan. And you'll remain entertained by the action (mostly). But, you could also skip this movie and have seen it already. There's nothing new in the way of a story here and it even feels very borrowed and lazily put together. It does feel very much like someone said "let's do a female John Wick!". Then when the story was put together they feared it too similar and changed up bits and pieces. Is it Karen Wick? Not quite but might have been a better movie.

Well, this movie was likely more of a 3 or 4 in terms of an overall score however it's such a feel good message that it ups the score a bit in my book. And, that message isn't that it's necessarily about God but that it's a good message in a time where society needs to hear these good messages more than ever.

The young girl who is at the heart of the story does a great job with the script she's dealt. Up beat, sweet kid that reminds me a lot of Hayden Panettiere as a child actress. Mira Sorvino, Peter Coyote and Kevin Sorbo also do a great job, all things considered. I believe the scenery is all Oklahoma which was nice.

I'm a fairly agnostic person regarding religion but I have to say that we absolutely need more mainstream movies that have good moral messages about life and this one doesn't disappoint. It's obviously a lower budget movie that lacks a bit in the story line, directing, editing and overall budget BUT you leave the movie taking more from it than you give. And, that's fairly rare in 2021. Is it a 6? Probably not but the message is a 10!

While The Unholy is DEFINITELY not a 10 or a 9... it ALSO isn't a 1 or a 2 (even a 3). First half of the movie feels like a different flick than the second half. First half sets things up and it's creepy and exactly what you'd expect. Second half, feels like a rush to the finish line. Almost like two different directors made this movie.

I think people that are genuine and gave the movie a low score... likely had an issue with the script and pacing. However, it's definitely a fairly original take on the classic horror genre (demonic/possession). I'll admit, I'm a bit of a sucker for horror movies based around religion as generally they seem to be more interesting to me.

That all said, I think the cast was good. Jeffrey Dean Morgan, William Sadler, Cary Elwes and Cricket Brown were all great. Cricket Brown was especially impressive because I believe this movie is one of her first larger productions and she gives the impression of being a pro in this department. At times, it felt like the cast was not as connected to the movie as they could be. Of course, the movie didn't feel connected to itself after 52 minutes and goes wildly into warp speed conclusions.

Directing and Editing were just OK and could have been better IMO.. The script however could use some work. Even though the story felt like one we've seen a million times, I liked the premise and overall theme but the movie veers off and hits walls, then takes off at full speed before veering off into more walls. It provides the conclusions verses letting the audience figure them out. First half of the movie does a good setup job for the characters and direction. Second half of the movie ignores the setup, ignores the characters and goes straight to the source of the problems. It's like they spent a year recording the first half and a month on the second.

Overall, not a bad movie. Entertaining for at least half the movie. Good premise. Good acting. Great new acting with Cricket Brown. But, hits a wall halfway through and never recovers. Solid 6 IMO due to acting and overall theme.

This one was confusing to say the least. They must have paid Morgan Freeman an ungodly amount of money for him to have even bothered with this movie. In fact, he may give the money back after watching it just to make sure his name is left off the credits.

Why they cast Ruby Rose as a main role is beyond me. She even brings Morgan Freeman down several pegs on the acting level. Not good to terrible would be the score I'd give both performances. I don't have a problem with Ruby Rose but she is NO WHERE near the level of acting needed to be much beyond supporting cast. And even then. She's just a CW TV level actress. Even her British accent was poorly executed.

In the beginning, Freeman and Rose are best buds but (literally) in a split second they are now enemies or frenemies. I don't even think this movie will make it on the cheesy cable channels. I've NEVER given a 1 star to a movie as there's usually redeeming qualities of some kind found in it from acting to cinematography to directing to SOMETHING. But, I struggled to come up with anything with this one.

Terrible movie (is it even a movie?) that makes most video game walkthrough's seem WAY better. This one is shockingly bad.

Greetings film goers! Are you looking for a movie that tells a story which has no basis in reality and only exists as a piggyback to Liam Nieson's career? Hope so!

I'm a huge Liam Nieson fan. Unfortunately, he seemingly will forever be in "Taken" remakes of various varieties. Even worse, BAD Taken remakes with terrible plots. Well, if you've found this review, you've also found 'The Marksman' (or, Taken 10).

Another unfortunate outcome of this movie is the predictable acting. Liam Nieson plays the role which they hired him and in true fashion, he does it very well. But, we've seen this role about a million times now. I like Katheryn Winnick as an actress and would like to see her in more films. However, like Nieson, her acting chops can't fill the gap of a boring, pointless character who has no real purpose. Waste of talent IMO. And, I think that's the underlying story here = BORING characters and predictable Hollywood plots.

This story feels recycled and we've seen this one over and over again. Even worse, it has no basis in reality. The story is nonsensical and feels like Hollywoods take on what they THINK happens at the border. Well, if you can imagine how uninformed they are regarding average ordinary life... you can imagine their take on the border situation.

In summary, if this film had any other starring actor other than Liam Nieson, it would have been on Lifetime or some obscure cable channel. Waste of good acting talent. Waste of good West Texas scenery. Waste of your time. If you like Nieson, go see Cold Pursuit. It's a MUCH better movie where Liam Nieson essentially plays the EXACT SAME character but is much better written/directed.

It's real hard to pan a $100+ million dollar movie starring a bunch of really talented actors but here we go. I'm going to approach this review as-if someone hasn't read the books as the difference between the movie and the book series is monumental.

If you don't know anything about the premise of the movie and haven't read the books, it's going to seem like a rather silly story to you. If you've read the books it may still like a silly screen play. Unfortunately, they never really attempt to explain some things in the movie which are crucial to connecting to it and without those it seems like a bad Netflix sci-fi with good actors and lots of budget for CGI.

Scenery and Cinematography are excellent. Screen play and writing, not so much. The acting for the most part is good but they should have recast Daisy Ridley's role as she is too dry for a more dramatic role. I like Ridley as an actress but she seems to fall short in dramatic roles that need emotion. Tom Holland does an excellent job even if he's still learning, as well. Mads is obviously the most experienced one on the set.

The story is just weak and never really explores its options despite the book giving them plenty of direction. They should have spent another hour on the story in the movie but at second thought... it may have gotten worse. Not good, not terrible and DEFINITELY not like the books.

Where to start. Let me say, I was very excited for this film. I was in my teens for this original Coming to America and it quickly became one of my favorite over the years. Sadly, I was extremely disappointed. First with the good because there is little of it in this film, IMO.

The good: It's great to see Eddie Murphy, Arsenio Hall and Wesley Snipes starring movies together. They all need to do more. Shari Headley is timelessly beautiful and hasn't really aged much. The fun scenes involve Murphy playing his usual old barbershop roles and it's really the best part of this film and seems to be the most well thought out parts of it.

The bad: Terribly predictable script that felt like it was in development for five minutes total. Simply put, it's boring. It uses some of the exact same themes as the last film with extremely predictable twists that could be seen coming from a mile away. Who could have seen the dichotomy of a woman princess wanting to take power but tradition stopping it?! Everyone. Everyone could see this script coming. The acting outside the main actors was OK but bland. The jumps back and forth between Africa and America are nonsensical. Actually, the entire film was a hodgepodge of a nonsensical script that was stitched together with very little originality.

To sum up Coming 2 America, it really felt like someone said "let's make a sequel by throwing a bunch of money at the actors and the film while we quickly throw together a script". This film also desperately missed John Landis in the directing chair. It kind of sucks that all these years have gone by and in 2021 someone just wanted some quick ratings and money in the pocket so they wasted a great opportunity to remake a classic comedy by making it a throw away film.

The cinematography was stunning in this film and should win some awards. Directing was OK and the films premise was a nice idea. However the execution could have definitely been better (IMO).

Overall, I liked the film but there are some definite and obvious flaws with RWP's character that don't really vibe with reality. It's fairly obvious to those who have lived in more remote areas let alone those who actually live off grid in a remote area. This is likely not an issue for those who have no idea what it takes to survive by your own hands with no outside assistance. You don't take things for granted and every single thing is useable and necessary... even if it's junk.

The other slight issue I take with the film is its pace. The pacing wasn't bad per se but extremely slow with little actual character interaction. That said, RWP does a good job with the script she's given in connecting with the audience. However much of this (again) is intentional dramatization which is overdone. There's no need to keep her character in silence and if you didn't know better, you'd think she was a mute. Most people in isolation will talk and interact with their environment. Take Tom Hanks in Cast Away, which is a great example of this situation and was extremely well executed for the audience and the reality of the character.

Land isn't for everyone... especially those who have trouble sitting in a two hour movie. Robin Wright Penn is only semi believable as an "off the grid" character and that's more of her bleeding through than her acting. However, the stunning visuals with a decent script and good acting from RWP make this a good film for those who like slow burners and can dismiss a little bit of reality in favor of the story,

Ah yes. Another film based on the outcome of 9/11 but does Hollywood get it right?! That's always the question and the answer is usually "no". But, is this one a "yes"?! Not likely.

I always struggle a bit to determine whether a film should be reviewed based on its ability to be accurate or its ability to entertain?! What would the writers and directors want? Accuracy or enjoyment? What would the viewers want?!

This film is a mixed bag of good acting and directing with writing that is quite obviously bent towards the dramatic. The pacing is pretty good and Tahar Rahim knocks his role out of the park. It's always nice to see Jodie Foster in modern roles even if her previous modern efforts were a bit "meh". She does a good job here.

My biggest problem with these types of movies is they are meant to stir up emotion to sell you on something that isn't necessarily there. On the contrary, this film (and topic) would likely be considered boring without the penchant for drama and overselling the situation. Undoubtedly it's wrong for any person or Government to detain someone indefinitely and after 9/11, the US Government took FULL advantage of its citizen's emotions to enact draconian policies. Not all that unseemlier to the situation many find themselves in today with lockdowns.

There were several moments in the film where I had to dismiss what I knew to be extreme drama for the purpose of selling itself to views but I feel the movie overall is a real good watch. The sad truth of 2021 is that most people don't do any research and seem to base their opinions off fictional dramas that are "based on real events" when the reality of the situation is much more straight forward or in this case, much more complicated. So complicated the story shouldn't be told?! No and this film does a good job at breaching the topic compared to other attempts.

In the end... if you just want to watch a movie that ever so slightly informs you of the situation while keeping you entertained... this film does that very well. But, as with most all things Hollywood, if you seek more accurate information about what occurred, go read real stories. The reality isn't better than the fiction or more entertaining... but it is worth knowing outside of the "based on a real story" narrative.

I want to start out by saying that I had some serious reservations about watching this film but I came out pleasantly surprised by it.

First, the good. The acting and directing were excellent I think Francis McDermott was meant for these roles. She does allow for her inner "Three Billboards" to come out and it's hard not to see this her in a continuation role as the same character. That said, it fits the movie very well. Cinematography was also excellent and set the tone for the movie itself.

Now the bad. It's an unrealistic film all around. I can understand how a group of multimillionaires find it hard to understand or relate to a situation of poverty, homelessness and hopelessness (despite seeing it around them daily). The acting is not the real problem here but the writing and producing are more likely the culprit.

The life Francis' character leads was seemingly unhindered, free'ing and uncaring which is not even in the slightest a realistic version of how life truly works in those situations. Maybe if you're wealthy and taking a vacation in poverty while roaming the country. But, that's not even remotely how things work and this film becomes a cliche of how the upper echelon thinks the lower echelon live.

In short, it's worth a watch as long as you realize it's a complete work of fiction and you're not likely to identify with the characters as their lives are also a complete work of fiction.

Where to start. The acting was of course, phenomenal. I think Bill Skaarsgard was heavily under utilized butt it's very hard to argue that every actor did not do an excellent job. Directing was also excellent along with editing and location/scenery.

The story line is where I think the least effort was given. By the end of the movie, it felt as-if there should have been a second part and I had to ask myself... "what was the point of it all?". I don't really have a complaint about the story line aside from believing it was driving somewhere only to end without ever reaching the destination.

It seemed like an incredible waste of talent to deliver a movie that really has no point whatsoever except maybe that "all people are evil?".

Worth the watch as the talent in this movie excels to the level of "There will be Blood" even if you're asking in the end.... "is that it?".

I didn't have much hope for the movie based on the actors as they're not well known... however I'm very glad I took the time to watch it. Oliver Jackson-Cohen played a very good role for this well written, somewhat emotionally tugging (in a good way) script.

There isn't anything specifically that will jump out to you or blow you away, however by the end, you'll feel very rewarded by what comes to light as the overall reason the movie was written and produced has one of the best undertones I've seen from anything in movies recently. There isn't a huge God based message in the movie, despite being about faith and something bigger.

Overall, I think Paul Newman would absolutely give The Healer a thumbs up. Most will be happy they spent the time to watch and feel emotionally rewarded for their time. Despite this movie not costing much to make, it's certainly one of the better flicks I've seen this year.