because-of-him

Just another excessive CGI film. Never does Kong or Godzilla have obvious injuries or wounds. No where do you see urine or poop from Kong or Godzilla. When do they eat or sleep?

How does Kong learn complex sign language? How do the prehistoric creatures survive? What does the enormous Kong eat for sustenance? Why don't we see Hong Kong people killed? It is not possible to evacuate millions in a few minutes.

Yes, Kong and Godzilla CGIs are created much better than the old movies where it was obvious the monsters were costumes, but a good movie must be logical, which this movie is absolutely not. Maybe if the scenes were on another galaxy, like Thor, it would be more tolerable. Thank goodness it was free streaming.

Dracula grabs a woman by the neck, getting ready to bite her. Two men enter the bedroom and one holds up a large silver cross. Dracula stops, while holding on to the woman's neck with one hand and tells the man to put away the cross. The man foolishly drops the cross hard and it apparently bounces a ways behind him. Then, Dracula rips his shirt open, tears his chest with his other hand, drawing blood and slowly pulls her head towards him to suck his blood, ALL THE WHILE the two men stare.

Either man could have initially shoved it in Dracula's face, forcing him to cease, even AFTER dropping the cross. Such illogic spoils the entire movie.

I am tired of movies that contain in-your-face sex acts. Growing up, people had sex privately, often in the dark, with no cameras or other recording devices in the bedroom, or wherever.

Sometimes we would hear of sex acts, but never ever did anyone give us a live demonstration. If I wanted to see sex acts on video, I can go to porn sites or download such videos, for free. I am not willing to pay for porn. OK, in the movie, tell us that Napoleon or whoever had sex, but don't slap it in our faces. Plus, do you really have to use the anachronistic F word? Granted, it was used centuries ago, without knowing if it had the same meaning today, but obviously, today, it is highly offensive. Again, I don't want to pay for profanity. Just entertain us. Don't insult us.

It is a good movie to watch with young children. I had to turn on closed captioning because the foreign accent was too strong and made some words seem garbled.

The 'Claymation' is incredible, so I think it is actually CGI, rather than great Claymation of Wallace and Gromit.

The story is about a race by world nations to be the first on the moon to claim ownership, now that a former restriction has been lifted. An odd small town in Norway hears of an elderly man who tested a small rocket and decides to build a large one to the moon.

There is no profanity or offensive material I could find. The mayor is a bit too 'loving', but it comes across comical rather than offensive.

Out of 10 stars, I would give it an 8 for excellent visuals but so-so comedic effect.

No profanity. No sex. No porn (the lady's tongue is funny).

Also, a very pro-American and macho movie. That is why it is hated. I give it 4 stars, instead of 5 because there are a few illogical issues, such as the hero being shot 1,000 times without being hit once.

I like how they make the aliens larger than the humans.

Very good special effects.

Also, the scenes and equipment and other special effects are very convincing, including the scenes where the gorges are.

The sense of height and depth are very good, even on a home smart TV.

I own the movie. Plus, it was free via the Xumo app on my 2018 Samsung smart TV.

The episode is about a new couple that live in a totally disorganized house. I know people like that.

Yes, the house was nicely reorganized, but doesn't show what it looks like a month later.

Guaranteed, it will be an utter mess.

Has Spoilers: The movie script is certainly excellent. The child, at the beginning, seeking to escape is well done. What we learn of those left behind in the camp is one of the best scenes. Although there is no sex, there is a scene where the boy is bathing in a pond and an overhead camera shot for several seconds shows that he is naked (of course), which was gratuitous, i.e., unnecessary. It would have been less obvious if the camera stayed on the ground, so that his lower body is blocked. Was this exposure in order to remove a G rating? Also, the child does not show any signs of severe hunger. Yes, I understand that his personality is a main point, but even such people have physical symptoms. Finally, towards the end, when the child meets someone, I would have expected strong emotions, if not from the child, certainly from the other person. Is the point that the child is cold and so was everyone who knew him? It had potential to be a very good, gripping, strongly emotional film, but fails. Thus, a 7/10 is my rating.

One easy way to find a good movie is to look for reviews that contain no intelligent criticism and merely trash a movie because of an emotional hatred of Christianity. This movie exposes the hypocrisy of anti-Christians who control education with a closed mind. The hypocrites will destroy anyone who utters a word or phrase on their hate list, like God or pro-life.

Most of the story is interesting. But, when the teacher tells the students that they must all disrobe in front of each other, all logic is tossed out the window. The reason the teacher gives is that he has to know if anyone has a tattoo, birthmark, surgery or other marks that will disqualify anyone from his study. Logic would say, "If you must know, then let each of us do it privately." As one of his students, I would have decided the teacher is a sexual pervert (especially since the woman he chose are sexy).

What made Home Improvement and other comedies great was live audience laughter and interactions. This show, Mann & Wife, is weak because the laugh track is too often used. Some humor results in greater or lesser laughs, but this show seems to use the same intensity with every humor line, lame ones included. Nonetheless, it is nice to watch a comedy without cringing due to objectionable speech or scenes.

The episode is way too politically correct. The acting is very good, especially by the lawyers. Leonard Nimoy does so well that we forget that he played an alien for years in Star Trek episodes. The problem starts with the far advanced robot, who has fixed eyes and no mouth. If you look at robots in 2010 and beyond, they have eyes that, in the least, blink. But, the most egregious portion of the episode is the absurd conclusion by the judge that the Constitution is organic to the point of applying the 1st and 2nd Amendments to a clump of metal and wires. Such 'judgment' is the height of hubris that brings the rating down.

A good movie should be believable, even if it is a fantasy. This movie requires the viewer to set aside common sense. Its biggest fault is the indoctrination that man is only evil and destructive, whereas nature is pure, perfectly balanced and has no stench, no illnesses, no diseases, no bacterias. And, against beliefs, the animals can communicate with one another, are super intelligent, and mostly kind to one another. The very first spoken line by the politically deceptive narrator is this, "I saw the coming of man; and the jungle struggling to survive." Thus, if you eliminate man, you allow natural perfection. And, the only acceptable 'human' is one that follows the laws of the animal kingdom. Why, I wonder, does the human wear covering at all times, but animals do not? Not believable. In one word, the movie is, "Yuck."

The movie's C.G.I. is incredibly near perfect; a 10/10. When holding an animal, you could not tell it was not real. Even the movie, Roger Rabbit, had a sense of fakeness, but this Peter Rabbit, 2018 movie, has done such an incredible work, that nowhere in the movie do you get a sense that the animals are not real. The 2/10 comes from the message. The woman says that all animals have a natural claim to all gardens and homes, because they were here first. Yet, she does not allow the animals to poop, urinate and damage her home. Also, a 2/10 is due to the musical arrangement. Instead of a steady theme throughout the movie, you hear about 10 different genres, from classical to rap, causing irritation to the ears and finger fatigue as you often hit the mute button.

Finally, yes, it is worth seeing just for the CGI, but if you spend money on it, you lose.

The movie reminds me of slow drivers on the interstate that go slower than the 40 mph minimum. There is only 5 min of dialog, and 76 minutes of super slow scenes. In fact, you can watch grass grow faster than this movie.

The story is absolutely stupid because it is not credible. Just like a joke has to contain some truth in order to be funny, a movie has to do the same (cartoons are the exception). If you make a movie where a real giant squirrel jumps from Mars and eats the earth and it takes 81 mi minutes to finish, you will get some 10/10 ratings, but not by me. In summary, the movie is similar to modern art, where a painting with only a round dot is considered superb and exquisite.

No matter what one thinks about the subject, the acting is incredibly well done (even Oscar material, if the Oscars had not been so Lefty controlled). Too many hate it before seeing it because it is about Christianity, but if they had any working brain cells, they would set aside their obvious bias and use the remaining few tiny cells to see that this movie is a surprisingly very well performed fairy tale, without all the glitter (and has a scene with Faye Dunaway). Had I used the same bias attitude when I saw the movie, Prometheus, a 2012 very excellent movie about how life started on Earth, I would have walked out after the first 5 minutes. It is sad that someone is welcomed when going from the Right to the Left, but utterly despised when the reverse happens. Sad, indeed, sad.

First, too much of the film is low-light. I found myself squinting at times. Next, I checked IMDB's parental guide and saw 50+ profanities, so I muted the film often (on Netflix). A good movie should be believable, for example, Inception. This movie stretches belief. How is it that no one has ever gotten a glimpse of these large creatures? How do these naked creatures manage severe temps? Doesn't the stench of urine, feces, rotting flesh, and the excessive bacteria pose a problem? The Descent goes too low. If you can tolerate lots of offensive words, lots of dark scenes, and illogic, see this movie. Ugh.

I only give it a 4 because of the nice scenes. The movie reminds me of Blair Witch Project, which I could not watch for more than 3 minutes. Every time there is a flight or fight scene, the camera moves up and down, right and left, wobbles, spins, and more, that the viewer feels like there is an actual earthquake, tornado, and cyclone happening at the same time. The other major problem with the movie is in seeing the bruises on the actors that would normally have a person cringe in pain. Instead, the bruised actors show no signs of injury. The last problem is that this feels like the 50th 007 film. Enough, already. Has Hollywood never heard of sequel fatigue?

It starts with a message that this is a "true account". Let's just say that I know full well that an FBI agent, after months of training, would not stand directly in front a door so as to be shot at. Also, had I written the script, I would hint that a woman was raped, rather than clearly displaying a rape scene for a troubling length of time (I closed my eyes at the start). After 40 years, I still recall clearly the rape scene in the 1975 movie, The Hiding Place. If you want porn burned into your mind, this movie will do it. Then, there is the overuse of F words (most during a scene where a dozen officers point guns at each other). Finally, whether true or not, it promotes a very bad lesson of revenge and bad behavior: a hunter believes he is judge, jury, and executioner, without repercussions. I'm sorry I watched it.

I have watched this on Comet TV on my local program station, so I don't know if there are any objectionable contents, other than mysticism (some may find that a problem). The movie is only 83 minutes long, so if you don't like it, you haven't lost too much of your life. Now, the movie is about a teen who has a horrible self-image. Right there, many can relate. She thinks those being kind are lying and so faces conflicts with everyone she meets. Again, many can relate. And, she wants to be alone all the time. Ditto, many teens want that type of selfishness. In the story, she realizes she has a mystical power to control people and punish them for not being nice to her. Again, some teens have yearned for such ability (I wished for that at that age). The ending is the best part, as everything in her life crashes. Yes, it is a low budget movie, but has a valuable script.

The superb Seinfeld shows went from mostly comedy to mostly sex (for decades, most sitcoms did not push sex like candy); The funny late night shows went from mostly comedy to mostly politics (for decades, they were super popular without pushing one-sided politics and endless profanity); After my 40 years of watching SNL, I had to stop because it became a largely political machine, rather than a mostly comedy show. I was looking so forward to The Orville, especially with the highly gifted Seth MacFarlane, and because of the subject line, a spoof on Star Trek (the original did not blatantly shove social issues in our faces). The first show was good, not great. The second swung to social issues. I have not watched the 3rd or onward. Finally, not everyone likes spinach; not everyone likes The Orville.

The plot is fairly simple: a bird-watcher investigates sounds coming from a ranch where a greedy rancher possesses some prehistoric birds he recently found on a desolate island. After some time, bird-watcher's daughter begins to worry because he has not returned home, but she and friends are able to trace his whereabouts via GPS. The best parts of the movie are the special effects, because when the birds interact with humans, they appear very fleshly and real. The actors are easy on the eyes and act well, except for the annoying feature of many horror movies: when victims should run away...they don't...Ugh! Since the story line contains a possibility of truth (whales, for example, are survivors of prehistoric times; so, there could be a possibility that some unknown prehistoric creatures are at uncharted areas), the movie has credibility and thus is interesting. The TV version silences the obvious profanities (via moving lips) in the movie. That makes it easy on the ears. I gave it an 8/10.

First, the judges do a very good job of listening, advising, and decision making. Secondly, there already are more than enough 'court' type shows, including Divorce Court. The major problem with Couples Court With The Cutlers is aesthetic, i.e., how pleasing it is to watch. The adage, Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, reigns true here. The judge, Mrs. Cutler, has a face for radio, not TV. As an example, in setting up a courtroom, you do not place a bedroom set in front of the bench, or a bowl for a dog, or a coffee table. Mrs. Cutler is visually odd looking, not in a critical way, but in the sense of lacking the label, 'Made for TV'. Again, she is make for radio (she has a good, authoritative voice). If you look at successful court shows, the best ones are pleasing to the eyes.

It could have been a great 60 minutes or less movie. The actors are very good. The memories throughout the movie are broad enough to touch nearly every viewer. Personally, I was touched by the memory of the dog at the vet. The problem is that, like a soap opera, there is way too much dialog. Some scenes feel like you are watching an ad for respiratory medication. The side affects are boredom and a desire to go to the rest room. The other problem is the political push. One character paints the hunting of small, wild creatures as very bad. Then, the same character is painted as doing good when he pollutes a river or bay area. Also, the viewer is indoctrinated more than once with the theme of the movie that, "We are nothing more than the memories we keep." Personally, I am tons more than my memories. So, who is right? Apart from the soapy feel, the hypocrisy, and the moral ineptitude, this movie is really very good in presenting a Sherlock Holmes type of inquiry, and some surprises. It certainly is not a waste of time.

The opening of the movie is so illogical that it may actually explain why wrong thinking is so prevalent. Ice-T makes a good point: Do poor communities (of any race) build guns, or grow poppy plants (the basics of hard drugs)? Of course not. Ice-T then makes a bad point: He blames the white man. What? I grew up in the slums of NYC until I left at age 17 and never looked back. Our neighborhood was a mix of blacks and Puerto Ricans. Many times, as a teen, I had to step over drug addicts and bums who camped overnight on the inner steps to the 3 story building. Sometimes, I saw needles dangling down an arm. HERE is the false logic: NO one FORCED us to take drugs or murder others. And, the only way drugs become popular is if there are buying customers. No blacks or whites are FORCED to buy or to use drugs. No one is forced to pull a trigger without a legal reason. So, because the initial logic is false, the rest of the movie fails. You cannot build a home upon lies, or a good movie upon bad logic.

2 hours, but should be 30 minutes. Slow to build. Even the music is slow, dull and boring. Some scenes are sleep inducing. At times, you have to turn on the closed caption to read what they say. The actors, too often, speak in low tones. When in the helicopter, initially, you struggle to understand their speech. There is a scene where a Rush Limbaugh-like man acts like a foolish idiot, thus mocking him and his followers. If I ever want to be constipated again, I might consider watching the movie again, but I'm sure I'll vomit. So, no thanks. No second viewing.