Zak-20

Trailer had my expectations very low. Surprised by decent character development and drama worth caring about. Fog-of-war scene early on was nice touch. Like Rogue One does not shy from banal brutality of feudalized galaxy.

What was sweet and fresh in the first volume is now saccharine, and self-indulgent. A few subvocal chuckle-worth scenes and sly references that only the older among us will get. Special effects were so over the top and the heroes so clearly indestructible that they failed to impress, thrill any more than a first person shooter video game. It did not have to be this way but I am sure that like me the audiences were disappointed, if mildly entertained.

Beyond the facts and the larger political context of these events, what really sticks is the professionalism of these ex-military contractors. If indeed this is an accurate portrayal then this security team radiates the kind of deep experience and know-how that distinguishes the top of any profession.

Several questions arise:

a) Is it the case that all special ops or ex-special ops sport beards?

b) Mortars seem low-tech and easily transportable and the most effective component that the locals used. Why did the attackers not use these from the start?

c) Pretty interesting to see the use by the CIA of a drone for surveillance. If they could get a surveillance drone, why not one armament? Do those require top-level approval?

I see from earlier user reviews that others thought True Story was of the quality of a made for TV movie. Perhaps this is because at the end of the movie, you learn that this is indeed a true story and you are provided with the current state of play of the main characters, Longo and Finkel. The lurid content of the crimes also contributes to that made-for-TV template. Yet, I did not think until 80% into the movie that it might be a true story and even then I hoped it would have an ending that proved Finkel's (the character played by Franco) innocence. Why? Because of Franco's performance.

The pleasant, offbeat character played by Franco made Longo seem odd but charming in a haunted kind of way. It was quite late in the movie that it became clear that he (Longo) was a sociopath and a narcissist to boot. The suspense was created solely by Franco's portrayal which I am sure made the vast majority of viewers root for him until it was revealed what a monster he was. And yet, this realization did not require Franco to change character at all and therefore provided believable (and therefore confusing) consistency.

The movie also plays nicely upon the interdependence of Longo and Finkel. This allows the movie to deliver a morality play in a larger context without becoming preachy.

I still preferred Franco in The Interview but perhaps this will allow him to get a few more roles in dramas.

Others have commented (correctly) that this material has been well addressed by others (e.g. in The Player). True, but this does not take away from a very entertaining movie. De Niro and Willis deliver amusing understated and overstated roles (as "themselves") respectively. And certainly, the usual Hollywood villains are lampooned and skewered but in a way that makes the characters a little more believable. Also great sound track (true, but also reference to a one of several funny lines in the movie).

This is also a very nice recovery for Levinson who recently was responsible for some pretty lousy movies and probably has felt some of the resigned cynicism evidenced by the protagonist. Like many, he does well what he knows well.

Bambi had a serious ecological message. The current version of Charlotte's Web has serious themes and even the death of a major character. However these aforementioned moves do entertain even young children under four years.

This movie will frighten and/or confuse these same children. I screened the movie and was I glad I did! Just having to avoid explaining the scene in the zoo of a despairing, hallucinating penguin to my children makes it worthwhile having endured this excruciating unsubtle rant of movie.

What irks the most is the Title (yes, there were feet, but not happy) and the trailers and many of the so-called critics who really gave no clue of this unfortunate missing of the mark. C'mon!

Only after the movie, did I google extensively for other reviews. On most sites, the paid reviewers wrote glowingly of this film and it's only through the user comments (such as those in IMDb) that anyone could figure out the unpleasant.

Caveat emptor.

If you enjoyed playing with toy soldiers as a kid (the kind that were green and came by the hundreds in a plastic or cardboard case) , you might enjoy this plot. It brings some of the battles you played out with them to full three dimensional fluid action with a full complement of smart munitions (unlike the WWII equipment some of us played with). Special effects are now cheap enough so that the quality is up to the standards of many moves. That and the up to par performance of Bill Hurt makes it thoroughly enjoyable. Also, although I did not see the other instances of this miniseries, it seems to have a quaint retro morality play theme, much as did most of the original Twilight Zone(s) and their spin offs. I suppose that is no surprise coming from a channel that is usually Law and Order around the clock (not that there is anything wrong with that).

Given the constraints imposed by the original H.G. Wells novel, Spielberg and Cruise acquitted themselves very well. Entertaining and gripping without getting deep. I have not had this sense of satisfying made-for-Summer blockbuster experience for quite a while. Nonetheless, some images will stay with you. Some reviewers have commented with the resonance with national fears about "outsiders" and changes to our status quo but this is still based on a pioneering 19th century yarn that defined the invasion genre.

Those of us from Boston will particularly appreciate some of the landmarks that appear.

Don't bring the kids though unless you want to deal with the subsequent nightmares.

First third of the movie was filled with pseudo-religious babble (in contrast to Matrix I which was sparing with words and conveyed the religious allusions far more effectively). There is an extend music rave scene that looked like a bad MTV outtake.

Up close to a large screen, during the multi-Mr.-Smith fight scenes Neo is clearly a computer synthesized character substituting for Mr. Reeves. Looked fake.

Music in Matrix I was edgy. In Reloaded it is conventional and uninspiring. Did not drive me to buy the CD as the first did.

The Neo character is invincible and so we are never really in any suspense.

In the last third of the movie, it gets more interesting again.

Whereas AP II was surprisingly even more ingenious and funnier than the first, AP III was good for only a few chuckles in the opening scene. None of the edgy hipness of the first two made it to this one. Oh well.

Layered dreams or alternate realities threaded together? If you want definitive answers you won't like this movie but if you appreciate the weighing of possibilities and the mists of perception, it does not get much better.

Somewhat sophomoric and unsubtle critique of hypocrisy.

Nonetheless, arresting images regarding the power of language.

The graphic scenes were unnecessary and did not add to the poignancy.

Ben Stiller just does not come across well as an earnest

good guy. At least the way he portrays himself in this movie.

De Niro is good except when he drops out of character towards the end.

Some solid chuckles though.

I thought this was going to be one of those shallow but sweet fluff pieces. Instead, it was incoherent and badly acted. What a waste!

It makes me wonder what really happened to bring this unredeemable ramble to the screen.

This is a very minor film. However, it has one scene at the very end of the movie which will provoke a frisson of instant recognition to those devotees of 1940-50's pulp science fiction.

The special effects speak of an adequate budget. And some of those effects suggest that someone somewhere understood what a movie about a mission to Mars could be. Nevertheless, the plot, dialogue and poor science deminstrated that few others involved in this movie had the requisite understanding or skill

It is a brilliant and poetic movie. At the same time, it is slow slow and self-indulgent that I kept wanting to prescribe Prozac for the director. Walking slowly back and forth in a beautiful emptied pool took the cake.

This dramatization of the cave-in of CBS News to the CBS corporate interests is very well done. Although it is a dramatization, the film leaves you with the feeling that they were in fact understated in describing the complicity of CBS News in suppressing a truly important news story. In the end it brings an interesting angle on the whole infotainment transition of the network news.

Will Smith and Kevin Kline are two of our more talented comic actors. And yet, there was nothing funny about the movie or their performances. What a waste of talent!

I was subjected to this monstrosity on a recent plane ride. I would rather have watched reruns of the original Wild Wild West television series. At least there was a genuine sense of fun there.

The caste was excellent. But the talent was completely wasted. The plot was predictable from within the first 15 minutes. I would have expected something more quirky rather than a hackneyed plot with failed aspirations of quirkiness.

Go see Sayle's "Lone Star" (1996) for a truly interesting film set in Texas.

The preview reviews I read made me think this movie would have the production values of Hollywood and surreal sensibilities.

It came close, but in the end there were some cloying moments that did not have to be there and the predictability (guess who is going to die) is too high. See American Beauty or even the Sixth Sense for counterexamples.

I enjoyed the effective use of Ektachrome stock but even there, the visuals were not as good as I had hoped.

Perhaps I just had too high hopes. Nonetheless, it would make it to my top 10 for this year. Go see it.

Very well done. Works in a space of movie-making that we rarely enter.

Kevin Space does give his best performance ever.

Annette Bening is wonderfully crazed.

Disturbing, depressing and inspiring. Quite a feat.

I am not going to argue that the first trilogy to be released (of which the Empire Strikes Back was the best) was fully adult fare. However, there were relationship sensibilities and plot and dialogue that that were engaging to even someone over twenty. Most importantly, the characters had weight and there was a sense that the events portrayed came from a rich historical background.

Unfortunately, here the sensibilities of all aspects of the film would be at par with a poor Saturday morning cartoon. Very disappointing. The Matrix was in all respects a far more superior SF movie.