Reviews (27)

As an American, I'm always interested in films about real events from the perspective of allies.

One of the things advertised is that this is, "The British answer to the Hurt Locker." I surely hope not, because this was nothing more than a slap in the face to actual British soldiers who fought alongside the U. S. and Canadians in the War on Terror.

To start, one of the characters is your typical "new guy" only they made him act as much like a lost kid than anything. Throughout the movie he asks questions about complaints and jokes the others have about the kit, the politics, and so on. This is clearly done for expositional purposes for the audience, who may not know much about the military, their equipment or tactics. The problem is they did it and made him look like a 10 year old who has no business being deployed. Countering every complaint is a lieutenant who does the indefensible: defending the SA-80, a rifle so horrible that they had to hire HK to at least make them functional. He serves as your typical "yes man."

Then there's "Smudge" whose entire existence is to complain and stalk around looking mad. He doesn't want to be there. He doesn't believe or care about the mission. He's a naysayer who's probably the most irritating (but focused on) character in the film.

Then there's Taff. He's Welsh and he's overweight. Other than that he's arguably the most entertaining character in the film. That means he's the first to die, we can't have any of that muddying the waters of this truly "profound" film.

Last but not least you have Captain Richardson who is arguably the worst leader ever put to film. He shrugs off his own man dying, pops in like Kramer every time an interesting conversation is happening, to which the men go tight lipped. He also effectively lets his unit perform a mutiny.

There are a few other largely forgettable characters.

There is almost no action beyond the men shooting at nothing for a few minutes. I'm okay with a war movie containing little to no action as long as it brings something else like deep discussion to the table. This movie effectively says: War bad. We wanna go home.

At the end of the movie, the men refuse to go out on their daily patrol. The captain tries to reason with them, but ultimately he gives in when someone mutters, "It's not our war."

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but yes...it is. That's how alliances work. I'm not justifying the war, but when your country agrees to partake that means it most certainly is your war. This has to be one of the most misguided endings of a war movie ever put to film. The whole squad essentially refuses their orders and drives back to base to (presumably) go home. I think the writer thought that this would be a better way of taking the moral high ground without looking like cowards. Unfortunately it very much fails at this. It's a huge disrespectful act towards actual British soldiers who valiantly served and sacrificed.

A very long and boring way of saying war is bad.

If you go into this expecting it to be even vaguely similar to the first film, you're going to be disappointed. You can tell this was designed to be a sequel where you don't have to have watched the first one to understand the second. What saves this movie is the chemistry between Ben Affleck and Jon Bernthal. The pacing was way off on this compared to the first film, it's slow to start then goes into overdrive for the last 45 minutes.

The plot: Focuses on a Salvadoran family who goes missing. Right from the start you know the plot is going to center on human trafficking, as this plot device is only second to nukes in Hollywood crime / action thrillers made in the last 10 years. You know that the father is dead and the kid is still alive, and somewhere in the mix between sex workers and assassins, you know the mother is around. The "big baddie" is only seen for roughly 4 minutes of screen time and him and his sidekick (who does most of the wet work) are probably the least menacing antagonists seen in modern action movies.

Much of the film focuses on the brother dynamic. This is good. This is what saved a relatively forgettable sequel, and I absolutely loved the first one. The chemistry is perfect, and Jon Bernthal brings a top notch performance of an emotionally unstable / stunted little brother. Ben Affleck delivers a good performance, though he has this weird accent / speech pattern that was not present in the first movie and is a little off-putting at first, though in his defense he didn't have many speaking lines in the first compared to this one.

Anaïs is an interesting deuteragonist / antihero, and her fight with Medina is one of most interesting put to film because of the fact that at this point much of the audience has figured out she's the missing mother, meaning you don't want either one to "lose." Coupled with an emotional score, it's one of the best scenes in the movie.

The plot is...a bit too bloated and doesn't resolve nearly half of the plot points it starts. At the end you see Anaïs rip the picture of her family in half, her husband and son (who's still alive) on one half, and her on the other. This is symbolic of...her walking away from her still-living child despite starting to get her memories back? There's only two real plot points that get resolved. Alberto (the kid) is found and shipped off to Harbor Neuroscience (which operates as a version of the NSA for kids with autism, it was a school in the first movie), because he is ALSO autistic which we don't learn until the movie is nearly over, and Medina finds an office chair (which she effectively steals from a crime scene) she likes after a conversation she had with Christian about her current one hurting her back and being uncomfortable.

Visually, as with most Gavin O'Connor films, it's well done with great cinematography. The only complaint is that it does (not to an extreme degree) the "Mexico Orange" color grading, but it's not nearly as noticeable as something like Breaking Bad.

It's worth seeing, and I would watch a third one, but they need to focus on a more refined plot. They tried doing too much, and since most movies don't exceed two hours there just wasn't time to do everything they wanted, and you could tell. Jon Bernthal was the standout star in this film, and it was nice they actually gave both Braxton and Christian more character depth, a common complaint with the first one.

I was one of those who expected your traditional dystopian flick when seeing the trailer, and that is what compelled me to go and see it.

Instead, I got a movie bogged down with existential questions where the pursuit of answers is shrugged off, in lieu of slow-motion shots of destruction / war.

Is this supposed to be a cautionary tale? Is this supposed to be a look at the importance (or perceived importance) of war journalists? Nobody really knows. In an effort to not offend anyone, the writer / director decided to literally offer no context as to why there's a civil war, and why among all other states...California and Texas join forces (both states are diametrically opposed to each other in terms of ideology and culture)? The most compelling part of the story is left completely absent. Through quick bits of dialog, the general consensus is the President of the "Loyalist" forces (basically every other state except California, Texas and Florida) has gone a wee bit tyrannical. A "third term" is mentioned in passing (to non-U. S. viewers, a president is limited to only two four year terms in office). It's also mentioned about a "antifa massacre" though it doesn't mention which side committed it.

One can't help but notice that the president and his followers are heavily implied to be the conservative variety, and along with that comes some very stereotypical and weird forms of racism (the whole "What kind of American are you" scene this movie has become infamous for).

The movie tends to focus on photojournalists as they make their way towards D. C. to try to interview the president before he's deposed by the aforementioned "Western Forces." Obviously this journey is fraught with danger and you're left wondering the entire time which side is which. Short of seeing the "Western Forces" flag patch on soldiers at the end of the movie, both sides wear similar uniforms and use similar weaponry, meaning there are times you're confused as to who's who.

What I do like is how they don't portray the journalists as some kind of beacon of justice and righteousness. Instead it shows the gritty reality of journalism, and that's it's not actually about exploring the human condition. It's about being the first one to break a story and to take the most disturbing / emotional photos. One of the characters essentially has a tantrum because he's convinced he missed the opportunity to talk to the president and it was all for nothing.

The visuals are very nicely done, the acting is acceptable (despite Kirstin Dunst's character spending the whole movie being bitter and scowling).

Ultimately it was a decent movie, it just needed a bit more context into the background and why there's a civil war. It acts as if this isn't actually important, despite the fact that's literally the selling point of the movie.

If you're looking for a film to keep you entertained and not have to think too much to enjoy, it's a great option.

Basically two robbers just so happen to rob a stash house (wine shop) completely unaware that it's actually used by dirty cops to distribute drugs. These cops get killed, and Manhattan is locked down overnight to find the killers. Soon it becomes evident that the dirty cops are actively executing anyone involved as a coverup, until the money launderer tips off one of the robbers that there's important information on a thumb drive before he succumbs to his wounds. This flash drive conveniently contains the badge numbers of cops on the drug dealers payroll. Fast forward, dirty cops all get killed except for the woman who surrenders for the sake of her daughter not losing her mother.

The movie definitely sheds light on motives for cops going dirty, as well as the premise of "shoot first, ask questions later." Surprisingly it's not heavy-handed on this message.

The "plot twist" was figured out in the first 30 minutes, but still entertaining with good performances by the cast.

Ever since I was young, I had an intense interest in the Cold War and the events surrounding the collapse of the USSR. When this documentary came out, I was excited because it's 9 hours of unmitigated truths, right?

Well...kinda. The problem with this series is that they interview people and "experts" who have information now that people did not have when these events were happening. This matters in context because this series does a great job at twisting the narrative, and that the USSR was this meek and misunderstood adversary, and the U. S. essentially was the root of all of the problems. It also lacks any context into why the bomb was dropped, and lays blame for the devastation at the foot of the U. S. and even its citizens. We're portrayed as essentially a genocidal bunch who wanted to annihilate the Japanese. No mention of their many war crimes including their massacres of millions in China. No mention of their intention to fight until the last man has taken his last breath. No mention of the death cult that was the Imperial Army. Were the effects of the bomb horrific? Absolutely. Nobody is denying that. But it's easy in retrospect to look back and say that it was a cruel thing to do, meanwhile thousands of men on both sides were dying daily.

It also portrays nuclear weapons as being the direct cause of the Cold War which is completely false. There were many factors, nuclear weapons only being one.

Beyond those few things, everything was good up until the last two episodes. The last two episodes delve into the 1990s onwards, specifically after the collapse of the USSR. Of course, it's hinted at the U. S. being behind it, and that poor old Ukraine was basically left to be a perpetual victim of Russia because they signed an oddly worded disarmament treaty, giving up their nuclear weapons which they're convinced would've acted as a deterrent from Russian aggression. No mention of how insanely corrupt Ukraine's government was and still is. It's also hinted that the direct cause of Russia's attack on Ukraine is, of course, the U. S. Each of the 9 episodes has a cold open involving modern day footage of the war, along with commentary. It lays the ground work for the last episode which essentially a film students visual essay on why we should continue to funnel billions of dollars into the war effort, with no accountability on how those funds are actually being used. If you ask, you must be a Russian apologist / supporter. The last episode specifically is so heavily angled towards leftist policy, it's almost hard to even finish.

Overall it's not a terrible series, there's a lot of interesting information presented specifically in the first 7 episodes, but take the last two episodes with a grain of salt.

Where does one begin with this? First, the highly improbable way that the bad guys gain access / take over. While I admit it was a nice detail of using fallen agents guns to equip your people, plus the 6+ armories the Whitehouse apparently has, the actual process is completely nonsensical. Using a bomb at the Capitol to create a distraction? What ever became of that? Nobody knows.

Then comes the typical "use facial recognition" scene to figure out the backstories of the bad guys. Surprise, surprise. They're right wing. Headed by literal right wing supporter James Woods. Included in the hostages are your usual civilians, but also a Rush Limbaugh-esque pundit. Of course he's depicted as emotional and cowardly. Even when he steps up to defend a young girl, he gets shot in the leg and immediately gives up the fight and goes back to sobbing on the floor.

In one of the most convoluted and glossed over parts of the movie, NORAD is hacked and a missile is launched at the plane carrying the vice president and the rest of the cabinet. This puts Richard Jenkins' character as the next in the line of succession. He immediately sends James Woods the codes for the nuclear football that was conveniently just laying around the Whitehouse. The whole motive for all of this nonsense? Keep the war raging in the Middle East so the "military industrial complex" continues to make money. Mind you, this is one of the biggest claims of the left, and is largely unfounded because we have plenty of countries to buy our weapons without having to go to war.

I'll give in, I had a good time watching it. Mostly because of the absurdity of it all, but at the same time the blatant politics of the whole thing (including their in-movie president being a direct copy of "President Unity" Obama) had my eyes rolling.

There seems to be a lot of hype about this movie, so I went with a friend when it first came out. Sure, it packed theaters, but after seeing it two additional times with two other friends, I come to the conclusion that it's just an "okay" movie.

I understand a lot of people are going to say, "Oh you're stupid this movie is great!" but at least hear me out.

Let's get started with the special effects. Hands down some of the best I've ever seen in film. Giant aliens ripping apart buildings was pure awesome. However, I saw this movie only ONCE in 3D. Why only 1/3 in 3D? Because the 3D was godawful. It gave me a headache, and being as it was done post-processing, it didn't look convincing, not that 3D ever really does.

Where the movie falls short is the random times of corny, clichéd dialog, and just downright bad acting at some points. Cobie Smulders, as much as I love her in How I Met Your Mother, was terrible. Her lines sounded scripted, and she simply existed to try to add a more surreal element to the film. Basically over-emphasizing how dangerous things were.

The movie was far too long in my opinion. I noticed kids in the theater starting to get fussy toward the middle of the movie because of how long it takes to setup the plot. A lot of people were confused as to how the Tesseract really worked and how it played a substantial part of the plot. Too much terminology for people to remember, to be quite honest. They should have skipped more scientific discussion in place of better character development.

There really was little character development. Yes, the team fought, then they made up, then they fought again, only to come back and win. That's as far as the character development goes. If you watched ALL of the Marvel movies, the first hour is rather pointless simply because all it does is establish the background of the characters.

The action scenes occurred right toward the last 40 minutes, and were well directed. You felt at true sense of teamwork. The biggest problem was, no character except for Ironman was in any "real" danger. The characters felt like they were just non-stop combat machines and you never really feel a "on the edge of your seat" moment except for when Stark disposes of the nuke.

The balance of drama and comic relief is nearly PERFECT. Tony Stark of course was the majority of the comedy.

All in all, the movie was fun to watch, but I certainly wouldn't say it's a cinematic masterpiece. While the special effects and great cast of characters bring this movie to life, it suffers with a dull plot that can leave you dozing off at a few points.

When I first saw this in theaters, I thought it was one of the most pleasing visual experiences I've ever encountered. While it is amazing visually, story-wise it lacks. A lot of people are giving this movie 10/10 ratings over the simple fact that the visual work looks nice. Problem was, this movie was made for the sole intention of being 3D, and seen in 3D.

So naturally, since I enjoyed it in theaters, I thought I would purchase the DVD for enjoyment at home. I took some time tonight to watch it, and realized that I wasn't as wowed as I was when I first saw it. Perhaps it's because I don't have a $6000 3DTV, but rather I watched it on a 50 inch plasma.

Here's some of the problems with this film: First, the storyline is unoriginal. It was very well written and put together, but the base concept was about acceptance, and respecting that other people are different than you, that doesn't mean you can take what's theirs. This storyline has been done 300 other times before. Maybe it would have seemed more original if the script wasn't shelved for 9 years.

Second, too much was crammed into a film. It started slow, didn't get to the point fast enough, and much of the story from the beginning is easily forgettable. Let's face it, the battle scenes where the awesome, but that's about it. The rest of the movie is easily forgettable. I'm not one for sappy love stories, but there could have been more character development within the relationship of the two.

Third, much of the storyline was filled with plot holes. Jake "died" within 40 seconds of lacking oxygen, yet the Colonel was able to fire a whole clip of ammunition and fire a pistol at the chopper. Makes no sense.

Fourth, some of the story was poorly acted. I'm convinced that it was the story itself, and not the actors. You can easily tell that some of the lines were rather cheesy, and being that Jake really thought he was part of their world, it felt awkward when he was trying to talk like them about spirits and whatnot.

I suppose it's not a huge turn-off, but the story could have been easily compressed down into 1 hour and 40 minutes or so. To me, there was too much, the story didn't make sense at times due to plot holes, and there was virtually limited character development, and I feel like it was far too long. When you are getting sore from sitting in the same place too long, that's when a film is too long.

Not 2 episodes into Family Guy, and they are already insulting religion, making fun of cancer, and so on. Normally I wouldn't mind, but it seems like the same old recycled writing as the other 7 seasons. Season 7 was a failure, and this one is turning out to be the same.

Basically it attacks Jews, Catholics, etc. They have the Jesus character show up, and then Peter asks what type of religion his family should be, in which Jesus replies "Stick with none, they're all a load of crap." Strong words for regular TV.

This season is going to be equally as bad to 7. Let's just hope they either get better writers, less opinionated bits, and back to the old, random Family Guy we all know and love. Otherwise, I can't see this series lasting for another season.

This film was one of those ones, that tries to remain unbiased, but you can clearly see it is, in a small way.

First of all, this film often depicts Microsoft as some kind of ruthless company, that didn't have any ethics or morals, despite them even paying the creator of QDOS a large sum of cash, without even knowing if the general public would be interested. While both companies took that risk, Apple simply took apart an old computer, inserted a MOS 6502 chip, and called their own. Not to mention, they originally ran on Microsoft's software, in which they were literally begging Microsoft not to cut their support after they refused to pay the licensing fee.

Also, Microsoft never stole anything from Apple. In the movie, Jobs get's angry with Gates, claiming they took their software, changed a few things, and called it their own. But yet currently, their OS is built on FreeBSD, something they didn't even make. The fact is the idea for a GUI (Graphical User Interface for those non-tech savvy people) had been floating around for ages, Apple made it first, but Gates was working on something similar at the same time. You can't copyright ideas, if so, Apple wouldn't be able to use it either.

Also comes the fact that Xerox never showed particular interest in either company, they simply wanted the best.

This movie is fun to watch, 10/10 for that, but if I was to get real critical, the biased ways of this film are a bit in favor of Apple.