mike3386

Am I the only one who thinks the camera work on "Roadkill" and "Roadkill Garage" is outstanding? Yeah, I like cars, a guy from the 50s-60s, who wouldn't, but I also enjoy the subtly good shots slipped into the views of rocker arms and line locks. The quick shots of Dulcich's dogs, cement my inner belief that Steve is just a darned nice guy on top of a treasure trove of car and engine knowledge and experiences.

This episode, is smack in the middle of snow-covered Colorado mountains and streams that look like they were put there just for this episode. The camera guys are sneaky, i.e., while they show Freiburger wrestling a vintage piece of junk starter to the ground, over his shoulder we see scenery fit for a 1,000-piece jigsaw puzzle.

This is a specific shout out to those unsung camera heroes who have kept so many of us glued to our MotorTrend channel!

Spellbinding, stunning, hold-your-breath suspense. Words fail me.

I could not look away, but still there are moments of hilarious humor and sweetness, e.g., the flier telling his co-flier the joke about German Fokkers, but in an anecdotal fashion. :-)

The children are the film's centerpiece - as they should be - and they are adorable. Much of the story and the film appear as if it were a painting, disclosing itself as we watch, sometimes in fascination, other times in pure horror. It matters not anymore whether computer graphics are involved or not, because the result is all the moviegoer is expecting. And here, from the flying aircraft, to eggs jiggling in a basket, the entire process is exquisite.

As Americans, we - and the movie industry - tend to forget that World War II also impacted the Scandinavian countries (Denmark, Finland & Sweden).

Another Netflix movie based upon a similar premise, e.g., Nazis in Finland: "Narvik: Hitler's First Defeat (2022)".

Highly recommend.

"Old Henry (2021)" is available for streaming now; and it is thoroughly enjoyable. It's a joy just listening to Tim Blake Nelson talk the talk, and the producers have managed to keep an interesting plot twist secret . . . Don't spoil your first viewing by reading too much about it (the online trailers do not reveal it).

At 1 hr 39 min, I wasn't ready for it to be over, I wanted more. It's a simple, violent, time worn Western story, spun by a small cast with a slow and deliberate pace, even for the genre. Don't expect vast vistas or can can dancing gals. Plan on firearms and men who know how to use them.

If you like Westerns, you'll love this movie, from Lefty's voice and mannerisms to his unabashed good humor in the face of disaster. Do you like to root for the underdog? This movie will git er done for you.

Oh sure, it's got all the other good stuff we love about Westerns, the long slow scenic vistas, the thunderstorms, the close look at some gorgeous guns.

So much to enjoy. Whadda I say!

Watched "News of the World (2020)" with the family last night and we all enjoyed it; however, as an old guy, I've only seen two or three "bad" westerns . . . Ever, and technically they really weren't Westerns anyway! Despite being the voice of (Sheriff) Woody for decades in "Toy Story", this was Tom Hanks' first Western!

It was great fun to watch Hanks' co-star, a 12-year old German actress, Helena Zengel as she virtually took over the screen . . . And Hanks, always a pro, let her.

Some other fine character actors surfaced in the movie, e.g., Ray McKinnon was "back" in a brief appearance; it just seems he makes too few movies . . . Remember him as boyfriend Vernon T. Waldrip (love the spelling) in "Oh Brother Where Art Thou (2000)"? Don't confuse him with Timothy T. Scott (now deceased) who played Pea Eye Parker in the acclaimed "Lonesome Dove (1989)" miniseries. I digress, but sadly Scott died young (age 57) from lung cancer and even though Ray McKinnon (age 63) has always been thin, he looked gaunt in last night's Western.

At almost two hours the movie was a little slow, even for a Western, but with the screen full of year 1870 vistas, Hanks in a grizzled role, or that darling little girl, what's not to like? Watch it! Rating - 8 out of 10.

Wonder why this movie only has seven User Reviews? Here, I'll tell you . . .

If this movie represents what 30-something has become - especially for women - I'm glad I'm both old and male. A too-perfect architect meets another too-perfect person (described in the movie info as "strange", for no discernible reason whatsoever) and dabbles in too-perfect sex for reasons that are never made clear, only to arrive back home to his clinging and equally beautiful, albeit too-competitive, blond wife who begs him never to leave her. He immediately expresses his undying love for her then sets up more trysts with the brunette beauty in Toronto, then later sees his blond wife kissing another . . . wait for it . . . WOMAN! Worse, he doesn't ask her about it until much later when she has some type of too-perfect anxiety breakdown.

Then he goes to a too-perfect - female - doctor FRIEND because he thinks he might have contracted "something" in Toronto . . . and we ain't talking a common cold. When he gets nervous being examined she assures him that she sees at least a dozen penises every day . . . we are left to wonder if she means in her medical practice or socially. From this awkward - yet titillating (he admits to her) - experience, we have to see the totally unpleasant thing of an old guy - his work associate - being sick in the hospital, then dying . . . all totally ugly to too-perfect people.

Somewhere the wife sleeps surrounded by his shotguns, which he refers to as "rifles" . . . proving that he should not be allowed near anything resembling a firearm, and neither should his too-perfect-anxiety-ridden-wife. The movie ends - sorta - after he gets called upon to design an abbey in Paris where he runs into the Toronto beauty, now slightly older and wearing glasses . . . he is also slightly older, but still too-perfect, and is with a pert young thing, leaving us to wonder if it is wife #2 or another fling as the movie ends with too-perfect-HGTV shots of houses he apparently designed . . . or maybe they were just boxes with windows . . . I fergit . . . I wuz getting sleepy.

Don't believe there was more than one or two faint smiles in this entire 2-1/4 hours, this was heavy, intense stuff, a slog just to get through it. Please spare me the ". . . you don't understand that Westerns are slow"; I've been a Western fan since Hoppy chased down the bad guys, and this movie just drags, it hits us over the head with the message, and it takes itself way too seriously to finish up with the Hollywood let's be friends, all is forgotten ending.

Rosamund Pike turns in the only thing resembling a memorable performance, Wes Studi, the fine Indian actor, is reduced to subtitle grunts so trite that Indians must be wincing, Christian Bale is way over the top as he so often is, and the fine character actor, Ben Foster is reduced to a near-cameo role.

Despite the harsh message and the inherent violence, surely no one really reviewed the screenplay for authenticity, e.g., as Scott Wilson ("In Cold Blood"-1967) rides up with his mongrel sons it's apparent to everyone what's coming, but even as Captain Blocker and Rosalie Quaid slowly draw weapons, one a rifle, the antagonists make not a single move toward drawing their own weapons. Gimme a break.

Sound is woefully lacking as the audience struggles to hear/understand garbled dialog, hidden by mostly too-long mustaches. Anything resembling a road or trail was apparently still missing between New Mexico and Montana in 1892. And try not to notice that they take a train back . . .

Maybe I expected too much, maybe I'm wrong, there are a bunch of positive reviews out there. Go see for yourself. Try not to think about this review . . . ever.

This 2-hour mess smacks of simple money-making sprinkled with preachiness. Even two big-name actors cannot save it from itself; Hanks' role is awkward, beneath him and his character, Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee. Streep? Well of course she gets to be Kay Graham, the Washington Post owner and socialite who tells us over and over that the weight of the decision to print stolen Pentagon papers fell to her. We get it! And Meryl gets to be Meryl . . . yipee! It was way more fun to hear her sing like Florence Foster Jenkins . . .

The only thing remotely resembling action are scattered vignettes of the newspaper printing machines. Talking, more talking, talking in small groups, talking in big groups, talking all at once, talking on the phone, talking in every room of the house, talking talking talking . . .

(pause) Kay Graham : Do you have the Papers?

(pause)

Ben Bradlee : Not yet.

Not exactly nail biting stuff.

This movie will literally put you to sleep, especially the beginning which is a cobbled up montage of unidentified characters, doing puzzling things, for reasons that only an insider of those years could fathom. By the time any of this is made clear it is too late. With the technical prowess of Hollywood at his disposal, Spielberg has made a stage play . . . yipee!

Other characters. Who? Where? Oscar talk. So what? IMDb calls these "User Reviews" for a reason.

This movie might appeal to news junkies, political historians, or anyone needing two hours of sleep. Boring, simply boring for the rest of us.

Oscar season brings out the good stuff, but this 2+ hour soliloquy, by arguably one of the most momentous figures in the 20th Century, will leave even ardent history buffs gasping for one action scene, one cutaway from makeup, cigars, and prosthetics, no matter how effectively applied. This movie will serve a niche audience, a very special type of moviegoer who already knows and loves Winston Churchill; in fact, those relatively new to Churchill might come away thinking him a mumbling drinker, a joke cracking W.C. Fields, unsure of his place in the English government and timid regarding his approaching role in world history.

It would be an understatement to say this movie starts slowly, and at its best falls way short of anything remotely riveting. Combining the best of this plodding, myopic movie with the superficial "Dunkirk" (2017) might produce one watchable - and slightly believable - look back at World War II. Political junkies will take solace in the endless backroom machinations of Parliament, leaving the rest of us to enjoy the handkerchief waving chamber room antics. For the more discerning movie fan, it will be a leap of faith to imagine Churchill phoning Roosevelt for armaments while in the restroom, or conducting war strategy from a basement not wholly unlike "Wayne's World".

Oldman's Churchill looks like Churchill, even walks like Churchill, but perish the thought, he did not sound like Churchill. Most noticeable was the missing cadence of those wonderful words of Churchill, delivered in a now-slow, hesitating, even plodding at times, pace. While the oration style clung unerringly to the "Darkest Hour" title, just once I wanted to hear Oldman break into that famous full-throated drumbeat pace of, "Let us therefore brace ourselves for our duties, and so bear ourselves that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, 'This was their finest hour.' "

Wait for the DVD . . . or just watch clips at this year's Academy Awards Ceremony, where Oldman's Churchill will be on parade.

Well, it must be Oscar season . . . Hollywood is rolling out the good stuff, e.g., "Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri" (2017), is a no-brainer go-to for me if for no other reason than Sam Rockwell is in it, "The Green Mile" (1999), "The Way Way Back" (2013). Stir in several other fine cast members, no less than Frances McDormand, "Fargo" (1996), and Woody Harrelson, "No Country for Old Men, (2007), simmer with an awesome script, cover with an interesting story and serve with ongoing dialog so funny in places that you'll wet your pants, then suddenly so sobering that you hold your breath over these Thanksgiving leftovers. This movie defines "dark comedy", cover your eyes and watch through your fingers dark.

The movie runs just short of two hours, and I wanted to watch another hour; nor was I ready for the way it ended. This is truly an actors' hayride that takes the audience along for the ups, downs, turns and spills; watch what a fine cast can do with a good script. As the story unfolds, the characters are not quite what they seem, sometimes this is refreshing, other times disturbing . . . either way, always interesting.

Very few things pull this movie down, but the sound mix occasionally leaves the audience wondering what was said, jarringly sensual, maybe even unnecessary language cements the "R" rating, and the plot, however intriguing, has gaping logic holes in a few places.

Flashback, it's 2013-2014-2015, Woody Harrelson and Liam Hemsworth work together on three of the four "Hunger Games" teen flicks (sorry, that's another story). Somewhere (about 2014) they both see the end coming in this mother lode, so Harrelson (comfortable in his mentor role of "Games") says to ole Blue Eyes, "Hey Liam, you wanna make some easy pocket change?" "You bet, Mitch, uh, Woody". "OK, with your looks and my weirdness let's do a badass Western. The plot is stupid, but that won't matter, real Western fans are all dead anyway, so let's just make a campy teen horror chick flick." "OK, got it!"

And there you have a plausible scenario . . . for where/how this mess evolved. Throw in some continuously garbled dialog, especially from behind a too-bearded Hemsworth and you're left with nonsense . . . save for some good photography, realistic costumes, interesting sets, and decent Western scenery . . . for Greenwood, MS.

Further trouble for the viewer develops as minutes drag into hours (almost two), while the thin cliché of a plot gets more bizarre as it turns into Take-Your-Wooable-Wife-To-Work-Day at the local Texas Rangers. Gimme a break.

Stupid is as stupid does. If this is your cup of violence and gore, then go for it, but a note to the three other real Western fans still alive out there, stay away, stay very far away.

Christopher Nolan's directorial style is described as nonlinear. The historical significance of this well-known World War II event apparently caused Nolan to make a movie with no discernible plot whatsoever, no story, no character development.

This mess is capped off with the worst sound I've heard in a movie in the last 10 years. I will acknowledge that I'm an aging movie fan; however, when no more than 25% of a movie's dialog is understandable – even at a modern theater – something is terribly wrong. The spoken words, most already with thick British accents, are virtually drowned out by a grindingly loud score, gun and cannon fire, explosions, and the sounds of war machines. Tom Hardy has a garbled delivery on his best acting day; with an oxygen mask and a wailing British Spitfire ever-present, the viewer is left to guess what he might be saying . . . AND HIS DIALOG IS SOME OF THE MOST UNDERSTANDABLE IN THE MOVIE!

Some of the plot, where there is any, is silly (it pains me to even use that word in conjunction with a discussion of such a momentous event in history). When fleeing soldiers discuss throwing one hapless Frenchman overboard to save a sinking – and relatively large – fishing trawler, I felt that I'd wandered into a teen flick. Frankly, some of the "hero" characters are simply unlikable, the two fleeing soldiers in particular.

Surely there was some saving grace, right? No, and don't for a minute compare this travesty to such fine war movies as "Saving Private Ryan", "The Pianist", or "Schindler's List". The horrible sound and missing plot are accompanied by flat, washed out color (no doubt begging for Oscar attention), frequently fuzzy focusing probably meaning something to egghead critics, flat and shallow acting without discernible emotion – even when a young boy is accidentally and tragically killed, and scenes that are SUPPOSED to fit together but do not, e.g., darkness in one, daylight in another, back and forth, ad nauseam.

Good reviews? Yep, tons of them, many by dutiful Nolan fans stepping up to point out that the rest of us are stupid, unable to understand movie art. Movies with lots of pre-release hype and critical acclaim make me nervous, but hey, it's a war movie, how bad can it be? Ans. Very bad.

Matt Damon is a good actor, "The Martian" is one of the best movies I've ever seen, actors clearly need good material.

"The Great Wall" is one of the worst movies I have ever seen.

I love movies, always have. It's a stretch to call this a movie.

"The Great Wall" is awful, just terribly awful, 3 out of 10, based solely upon computer-generated imagery, costumes, music, and artwork, the closing artwork in particular. BTW, the closing credits run for over 10 minutes, and that's a good thing . . . the movie could have been 10 minutes longer! The lists of "Digital Artists" exceed the population of many small towns. It took me two sittings to watch the entire movie – and credits. If it were not for making this review I would never have gotten past half way.

The story is absolutely dreadful, surely written by eighth graders. The script and dialog are worse.

The movie's single thread of interest is a peek at the Great Wall of China – or imagery of it – but there is woefully too little of that and way, way too many million, no zillions, of green-bleeding "monsters" resembling a couple mean dogs that terrorized me as a kid.

Say more? Why? Stay far, far away from this mess.

Call it post Civil War void, but my history studies always seemed to jump over President Garfield's assassination, and worse, I knew almost nothing about him or what a rise from poverty he had made. This well ordered docudrama portrays him as exactly the right person - a good person - at the perfect time for our Country. Historians agree that he was very likely destined to be a great President.

President Garfield served and lived in Lincoln's historical shadow. In Office only 200 days, his death was a lingering agony - from July 2 until September 19, 1881, and clearly his doctor killed him. By today's medical standards, he would have been back at work in the White House in three months, tops. He died of sepsis . . . from massively unclean wound care. V.P. Arthur was the weasel puppet of a New York aristocratic and wealthy corruption baron. The assassin was clearly demented, yet allowed easy access - repeatedly - to Garfield and many of the Washington politicians.

Give this presentation very high marks . . . history come alive, and well acted.

Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISaIIOifVdM

Despite a number of "professional" critics being very unkind to this movie (they've always loved to pound on Ben Affleck), we found some things to enjoy, e.g., crystal clear and interesting photography (without the obligatory stumbling and fumbling in the dark), terrific costumes and wardrobes, great looking – and sounding – guns, especially the Thompson submachine gun and the "chunk-chunk-chunk" of the Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR), interesting and beautiful sets/locations, and handsome guys and gorgeous gals.

The movie is true to its "R" rating with some steamy sex without being overly graphic, certainly not pornographic. The story is especially intriguing although some critics are determined to pan it for being predictable . . . hey! it's a gangster movie, it is what it is, with very little pretense at trying to be more or something that it isn't. At times the plot was more implied than explained, e.g., are the gangsters running rum, making cigars, robbing banks, building casinos, or just killing people? Speaking of preposterous, some of the shootouts – even for a gangster movie – border on video game impossible, for example, car chase scenes at close range with cops bristling with submachine guns unable to hit the driver despite hundreds of bullet holes all over the fleeing vehicle.

Some of the characters are interesting, some not so much so. Ben's sidekick, Chris Messina is humorous, the bad guys are bad guys, and Zoe Zaldana grabs our hearts and minds, the viewer just knows she is something special. Forever a Chris Cooper fan, I found his role a bit far fetched, and his very young daughter (Elle Fanning) was actually a distraction, impossible to believe. Brendan Gleeson as Ben's cop father is almost a cameo, but Matthew Maher puts a defining stamp on "Southern redneck". Ben's own character is stoic, showing almost no emotion despite dominating the movie minutes; maybe it really is time for Ben to decide, actor or director, but not both at the same time.

In our particular theater, which usually blasts the sound, we struggled to actually HEAR much of the (interesting) dialogue, but no points have been deducted from the rating because this certainly SEEMED a theater problem and not the fault of the movie; however, Affleck's character resorts to mumbling many of his lines. This movie should transfer well to DVD and home flat panel TVs; at 128 minutes, settle in, there is a lot to absorb.

Ben Affleck acting, directing and writing.

As an aging Western fan, just consider me a lone sentinel standing watch against this current spate of other movie genres masquerading as Westerns. THIS MOVIE IS NOT A WESTERN.

This movie contains a purely pornographic plot and script, even if the visuals might somehow escape an XXX-rating . . . its R-rating makes a joke of the MPAA film rating system.

It is almost impossible to find a shred of redeeming value in this movie . . . perhaps it was the oddity of finding the beautiful daughter of Clint Eastwood, Francesca Eastwood, appearing on screen with her mother in a cameo role, Frances Fisher – "Unforgiven" (1992). Well, the dialog was so mumbled, so garbled, so poorly delivered and edited that much of it was unintelligible . . . and that is a good thing.

This movie works diligently to destroy everything we Americans regard as sacred, e.g., parenthood, Christianity, family, home, and childhood. Retribution? There is none.

Director J. T. Mollner's first full-length movie, and maybe his last?

Not since Mel Gibson's 2006 "Apocalypto" have I seen this much savage blood and gore on the screen; no, worse, this time wannabe Mouseketeer Kurt Russell is involved. Who could have imagined a Western . . . with Kurt . . . could contain scenes that are, frankly, disturbing . . . one in particular so bad that the viewer immediately wants to un-see it! Maybe I keep looking for Kurt's Wyatt Earp to re-appear, but not in "The Hateful Eight", also in 2015, and certainly not in "Bone Tomahawk" (2015) . . . what's with this 2015 beard thing? Kurt has no reason to hide behind a beard, it does nothing for his looks or his acting.

Notwithstanding this awful prelude, and some other nags, the movie has some absolutely charming dialogue, with actor Richard Jenkins literally stealing the show as "backup deputy" Chicory. Not since Pea Eye Parker and Gus McCrae bantered back and forth in "Lonesome Dove" (1989) have I enjoyed so much the casual – often totally out of place – and humorous back and forth. In fact, the entire movie – with B-list actors (except Russell) - is well acted and a pleasure to watch – from an acting standpoint.

A 6-rating because one point is deducted for bleak, dusty and boring photography, another point off for sound that is sometimes so mumbled that the wonderful lines are lost, and two whole points off for nearly senseless gore – no wonder the movie is not rated in the USA – it should be X-rated for the depravity and graphic gore alone! Some reviewers pan this movie for its slow and plodding pace . . . maybe so, but not for a true Western. Fans of the genre have come to revere Westerns for that very thing, the lingering looks at the Old West. Trouble is, this is not a Western, it is a horror movie set in the West.

You've been warned. At least shut one eye and peek through your fingers.

Magnanimous 7, my rating, maybe even overly generous 7.

It gets 3 points for just BEING a Western, 1 more for great photography, 1 for sets and costumes, 1 for the guns & gun play, and 1 more for cast/acting (and that's a stretch). Deductions – 1 for just BEING a remake of a remake, 1 deduction for plot/screenplay preposterous enough to make the original actually look plausible, and 1 deduction for using precisely the same trading post/cabin set used in another remake, "True Grit (2010)" . . . aw c'mon, that was distracting for any Western aficionado, e.g., I kept waiting for Rooster Cogburn to kick the Indian kids off the porch! :-)

This movie reminded me of the 1950s serial Westerns, then modernized to the absolute extreme of ludicrous, over-the-top, CGI'd, special effected, shoot-em-up, you can only die three times movies. Gimme a break. Real Western movies take nearly insignificant moments and turn them into legend, Will Munny did it when he walked into that Wyoming bar on a dreary rainy night, Augustus McCray did it when he decided to chase some buffalo. But this movie ends with a shooting war so immense it would be in every history book if factual, so full of shooting deaths that the real Johnson County Range War (1892) depicted in "Heaven's Gate" (1980) looks like a mere street scuffle. Gimme a break.

Denzel Washington is a fine actor and he brings his A-game (as he always does) to his first Western, but despite a Doc Holliday-like performance by the always brooding Ethan Hawke the remaining marvelous 5 bring little to the ubiquitous poker table, not even the take-any-goofy-role Vincent D'Onofrio.

The rest of the cast, including the one obligatory female, are totally and completely forgettable, most particularly the little, trumped up weasel of a bad guy, Peter Sarsgaard . . . his character – seemingly commanding an army of 100s – would not scare anything larger than a Pomeranian. Don't think all of this matters? At 2-1/4 hours run time, trust me, it matters.

Most of all the movie breaks down on plausibility, i.e., it has none whatsoever. From the Army of the Bad to the shoot anyone looking like a bad guy theme running throughout, this is Star Wars set in the American West.

Note to anyone not a fan of Westerns even remotely thinking of watching a (real) Western, try this list first:

Lonesome Dove (1989), Open Range (2003), The Proposition (2005), Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973), Missouri Breaks (1976), Dances With Wolves (1990), Unforgiven (1992), Quigley Down Under (1990), Tombstone (1993), 3:10 to Yuma (2007), The Shootist (1976), Last of the Mohicans (1992), McCabe and Mrs. Miller (1971), Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, (1969) Hang 'Em High (1968), One-Eyed Jacks (1961), Heaven's Gate (1980).

If you are suffering from not having seen a good (new) Western movie since "Open Range", maybe even "Unforgiven", here's a bottle of elixir currently being served up - late at night - by your friendly cable provider. Very late at night - it's violent.

Obviously this 2014 (2015, depending upon release dates) movie once played at theaters somewhere . . . but it got by me. It's interesting for several reasons, mostly the unusual lead actors . . . or maybe it's weird enough to just say it's a Danish production filmed in South Africa, reminiscent of another very violent Western filmed in Australia with an Australian cast and production crew, "The Proposition". Sorry to digress.

Two of the main cast members were plucked from another fine movie, "Casino Royale", Mads Mikkelsen, the blood-teared bad guy, Le Chiffre, and Eva Green, the dark-eyed vixen, Vesper Lynd . . . she is no less dark-eyed or ravishing in this Western. It was interesting to see Mikkelsen, a high-cheek-boned Chuck Connors look alike, play the ultimate good guy role in this movie, albeit with all the vengeance of a grieving father and husband.

Photography, sets, and action are riveting . . . well, some of the CGI-vistas are a bit too-perfect. There are other fine performances, Jonathan Pryce as a creepy undertaker/businessman, and Douglas Henshall (new to me) as an equally creepy sheriff/preacher (be quiet Clint).

The movie falters (for me) with the ultimate bad guy, played by Jeffrey Dean Morgan. Oh, he walks the walk and talks the talk, and from his hat to his spurs looks every bit the part . . . but when you set out to brutally terrorize an entire town, you better not turn your back quite so often on even the mousey of mouses. In other words, it's a little over the top.

All in all, it's a Western. Fair enuff.

139 minutes, rated R, mostly for intense violence, murder, brutality, disturbing graphic scenes, many of Civil War killed and wounded. Undoubtedly the real thing was still a million times worse. Very little sex or nudity.

Whether it is his acting or TV commercials, McConaughey is intense and brooding. Acting highlights are delivered by many of the cast with most unknown to me. Stand out performances are given by McConaughey, Gugu Mbatha-Raw, and especially Mahershala Ali as "Moses". Photography, sets, costumes, weapons and landscapes are meticulous and a visual joy.

At times the dialogue is sparse, and although I like movies with a slow and deliberate pace, there are a few times when scenes – especially in the swamp – were protracted for reasons difficult to grasp. Numerous flash forwards by about 100 years are at first jarring and difficult to absorb. As they continue they become more understandable, but no less out of place, even obtrusive.

Basis in historical facts makes the movie believable and realistic; the list of historical consultants in the ending credits is impressive. The movie struggled for a conclusive ending, any ending, and finally just stopped after a couple post scripts.

The movie wallows in helplessness and hopelessness, it is forever depressing. Very difficult for the audience to find a bright moment, a hero, or even a belief that things will get better. Whether re-visited once or often, the ability of our Nation to survive the Civil War and Reconstruction remains truly astounding. Anything focusing on this momentous period of our history can never be regarded lightly.

Notwithstanding my somewhat lengthy list of nits, I found the movie intensely and personally enjoyable, absorbing . . . maybe somewhat due to the new, reclining leather lounge seats at our favorite theater.

Clooney has the uncanny ability to become associated with awful movies. "Hail, Caesar!" is a mess that smacks of five guys plotting over dinner how to make some spending money.

Let's tick off what's good, that's easy and quick: Crystal clear photography (a Coen trademark), and interesting sets & costumes. The bad & ugly are endless.

The few laughs are strained and forever in coming. The movie is less than two hours but it seems endless with dialogue that just drags, scenes that last forever with no point, and actors who listlessly read their lines - FOR REAL, NOT JUST FOR THE SARCASM. There is no plot, no point, no meaningful conclusion to the stitched together vignettes.

Spoof I understand. "Oh Brother Where Art Thou?" is a spoof, a parody. "Hail, Caesar!" is a spoof of audiences stupid enough to cough up their money and time.

This movie seems to be appealing to a narrow band of reviewers and critics knowledgeable of Hollywood's Golden Age, with some pointing out how stupid the rest of us are for not understanding. That's nice. It doesn't work on any other level.

I expected more.

This movie tries, it really does, but in 2 hours and 36 minutes I began to long for the sound of the human voice, much like "Cast Away" (2000), not to mention that even mountain beauty begins to look like just so much more snow after awhile, especially when filmed in constant dreariness.

The actual, fact-based premise is virtually unbelievable; nevertheless, the director heaped on even more, e.g., from single-shot pistols firing more than once to 50 Indians unable to bring down one severely crippled man at 25 feet.

Little things begin to grate after a couple hours, e.g., long close-ups of Leo's snot-frozen beard, horses that were clearly malnourished, and grime and filth so constant that I wanted to take a shower. Character development is nonexistent, with only Captain Henry piquing our interest anyway. Jim Bridger, one of America's most famous mountain men, comes across mostly as a sniveling teenage murder accomplice.

In the final analysis perhaps I'm hardest on films I love the most, i.e., the Western genre, to which this qualifies, but instead of a lasting memorial chronicle of the West like "Dances With Wolves" (1990), we're left with yet another grimy, gory, outdoor thriller with a bear.

The kind of movie I want to like, but the facts kept getting in the way.

So, it's fiction? No, not really, every real person is precisely identified, right down to using actual names and screen labels.

So, it's a docudrama? No, not really, otherwise Hank Paulson would not have been the central character, played by the fine actor William Hurt, nor cast in any role even faintly resembling the financial savior of our Country.

Don't believe me? Then watch the real Senate hearings with the real Paulson, and his constantly changing ready-fire-aim approach while still posturing for Wall Street after arriving late for his sworn job of bank regulator.

If the real facts interest you, watch "Inside Job", which tries to shine some light on this massive corruption at the highest levels and the looting of the American Treasury.

But if you want to see good actors re-enact just how close we came to rending forever the financial fabric of this Country, while playing high stakes "Let's Make a Deal", this movie will git er done.

Matter of fact, with real, official Washington openly throwing around terms at the time like "financial meltdown", one can only wonder what kept it from happening. Wait! I know! John Q. Taxpayer stepped up with $700 billion, later reduced to $475 billion, so that the Wall Street Wizards could continue funding golden parachutes and outrageous salaries. -------------------------------------------------------------------- From the movie, and in reality very close to what happened: "Michele Davis: They almost bring down the US economy as we know it but we can't put restrictions on how they spend the $125 billion we're giving them because... they might not take it!"

The Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Public Affairs upon hearing that the nine bank CEOs may refuse to take free money from the federal government if they had to be held accountable for how they spent it". ------------------------------------------------------------------ BTW, the real Ms. Davis is now Global Head of Corporate Affairs for Morgan Stanley . . . you really can't make up stuff like this.

Have you seen "Margin Call" (2011)? For anyone whose career/job might have included an all-night session or two, the premise is not only realistic, the exhaustion-laced tension is palpable . . . due in no small part to a fine cast of actors with a great story and a near-perfect screenplay. Almost everything "fits" for the viewer, with the possible exception of some contrived internal tensions between the various players that are all but impossible to decipher.

The direct connection to our Country's near financial meltdown of 2008 is obvious albeit bounced between factual and ridiculous . . . I can explain. The plot is laced with real buzzwords from the debacle, e.g., "MBS" (mortgage backed securities), "tranche" (a group with related characteristics); however, the concocted discovery trigger is a complicated mathematical formula that only a rocket scientist can unravel (the junior analyst's educational background).

Financial experts and historians point to far less nuanced reasons for the real crisis, e.g., massive dealings in nearly worthless collateral, unprecedented fiscal stimulus, inadequate capital, and regulatory failures. Nevertheless the movie gets everything else exactly right, all the way down to an elevator discussion with a night shift cleaning lady stuck - and ignored - in the middle, very indicative of our largest investment firms and their rarefied masters of the universe world.

For a die hard Western devotee it is difficult to find fault with any movie keeping the genre alive, if even on the periphery . . . and this movie is unusual, Tarantino virtually guarantees an off-center approach, not bad per se for a Western, but certainly different. In some ways this presentation had the feel of "Murder on the Orient Express", "Stagecoach", and a (frigid) "Once Upon a Time in the West".

If you like lengthy dialogue, this movie will thrill you, e.g., it exceeds 3 hours, with 95% of it set in a one-room stagecoach layover. I haven't heard so many BS stories since high school pool hall trips in the 1960s. There are glimpses of the beautiful Colorado-meant-to-be-Wyoming snow-covered mountains, but only to ensure that the viewer knows the location is completely isolated. Albeit worse than ruggedly nasty, the warm interior with glowing fireplace and meandering conversations made me sleepy, and I literally dozed off for who knows how long . . . embarrassing for a movie fan to even admit.

So? What's wrong with this Western touting some comedy with its gore? It is virtually impossible for the viewer to transport himself/herself into the movie, something Westerns have always been able to do. Whether as the hero, villain, or innocent subject, Westerns tug at us, beckon us. Not this time. With the possible exception of wanting to wear Samuel L. Jackson's hat, the characters are repulsive, even the handsome Kurt Russell.

So? After all the talking, and the posturing, and the mystery, was it worth the wait? Not really, a pure Tarantino finish. So just enjoy the "ride" . . . uh, saunter, and wait for the remastered version of Roy Orbison's beautiful 1967 song, "There Won't Be Many Coming Home" to play as the closing credits roll.