Willie-12

I, like many people, assumed this was going to be a typical Roland Emmerich (RE) film...a lot of eye candy where things blow up real good, but not much else (although I have to admit, Independence Day and The Patriot are both decent movies). I have rarely been so wrong...at least when it comes to a film. For whatever reason, with Midway, RE went to painstaking lengths to make sure he portrayed a vast amount of authenticity, and audiences are the better for it. Don't get me wrong. There are a few scenes where RE utilizes his creative licensing, but far less than expected. And yes, there is an abundance of CGI...too much in my opinion. But because I was so invested in the story and the characters, it really didn't matter. I have to wonder about many of the negative reviews for this film. Did those who wrote them not know their World War II history? Because some of them seem to think that this is mostly dramatized. Well, it isn't. Even some of the scenes that definitely feel unrealistic actually happened. For example, when one of the characters, seemingly out of pure instinct, mans a gun on a stationary fighter plane parked on a carrier to shoot down an enemy plane...a plane that was about to crash into said carrier, this is something that actually happened. As did the character's immediate promotion. And there are other examples of that kind of accuracy found throughout the film. So I was quite surprised to see multiple reviews complaining about inaccuracies. That is just not the truth. Midway is a very good, solidly made film, and, in my opinion RE's best.

I've seen some give The Covenant a negative review because it is about two guys who don't really exist, and that there are plenty of people who Guy Ritchie could have could have chosen to base this film on. Of course, that's the point. There are plenty of soldiers who had to abandon their interpreters and their interpreters' families when the U. S. withdrew from Afghanistan in August of 2021. Promises were broken, many who held up their end of the bargain were captured by the Taliban, tortured, and killed. The stories are plentiful. And so Ritchie focused this story...on two individuals who could easily represent the lot of them. Just because this is not a very popular story to tell, the botched withdrawal happened. It happened, and because of that, we owe it to those who bled and died, and who are still bleeding and still dying to this day to make sure people are, not just made aware, but are also intent on not letting this happen again. Technically, this is a proficient piece of work. The audience doesn't just watch a story unfold. They experience it. Ritchie is a master storyteller, especially when there is action involved. But with TC, Ritchie actually dials back the action compared to many of his other films. The "dialing it back" concept has elevated the movie to a higher station. Indeed, this is an "award worthy" film. Although, nowadays, the term "award worthy" doesn't necessarily mean that it's good. Make no mistake about it, TC is not just good. It is phenomenal. And yes, I do realize that that's pretty subjective. But I don't really care. If you like war films that are beautifully put together, and also have a message that needs to be heard, then TC would be a very wise choice. But hey, that's just my opinion.

I really liked the first two Creed films. They were not perfect, but they were very good. And at the heart of those films, was the relationship between Rocky Balboa and Adonis (Johnson) Creed. Like it or not, that's just the way it is. All of the other parts of those first two movies were good. But it was Rocky and Adonis' relationship that held everything together. Take either one of them out of the equation, and the substance is gone. It is not believable that Rocky wouldn't be there for some of the moments in this installment...some of what would have been most certainly a few of the most important events in Adonis' life. His rematch, and swan song fight against Conlan, the death of Mary Ann, and his monumental match against Damian. As far as the audience is concerned, we don't even witness, at the very least, a phone call between the former mentor and protege. In addition to all of that, there are parts of C3 that just didn't make sense. No one has ever heard of Damian before. As an audience, he has had no part in Adonis' life until we see their story here. And I don't care if this is Hollywoodland or not...no way does someone in their mid-thirties, who has been in prison for a decade and a half, and who has never fought a professional fight...no way does that man get a fight for the heavyweight championship of the world (it was considered a minor miracle when Leon Spinks upset Muhammad Ali, winning the heavyweight title in only his 8th professional fight). Even Balboa's miracle shot at the title given to him by Apollo in the first Rocky film came when Rocky had a professional record of 44-21 (or something like that). Much of what was supposed to be dramatic just came across as manufactured melo-drama. Finally, there were also some questionable moviemaking decisions (including editing issues) which led to a pacing problem. I have a feeling that some of the issues in this film were the result of a first time director who just couldn't sharpen up the rougher edges of the movie. I think inexperience in directing, while also trying to star in the film at the same time, was just a bit too much for first time director, Jordan. He certainly is talented, and I'm sure he'll learn from this experience. And I want be clear here, there were some positives in C3, like the acting and some of the cinematography. However, in my opinion, the negatives outweighed the positives, and it's not even close.

This is in response to truppier, or something like that. I would like to say that if he liked the film then good for him. Those of us who didn't then good for us. If this movie wanted to make any sense at all, then, at the very least, it should have had a cameo with Stallone, or a phone call or something. Adonis had too many important moments that the idea Rocky wouldn't have made contact is a bit unbelievable and ridiculous. And I know Stallone wasn't in it for creative differences, but it doesn't change the fact that his absence hurts the credibility of the film. If that's being "salty" then oh well.

One of the reasons a film like this doesn't get more attention (I believe it made less than $200,000 at the box office) is because of the heavy-handed approach that is taken by the filmmakers who are so overzealous when it comes to their "cause," their political philosophy becomes their guiding light. And it's that light that leads the story astray. The real issue in this case wasn't whether or not Cameron Todd Willingham actually committed the crimes of arson and first degree murder of his three children. The real issue was did the prosecutors in the case prove he committed these crimes. And the answer to that question is a loud and clear "NO.!" No, they did not. The other issue here has to do with the type of defense attorneys that are assigned to cases when defendants cannot afford private counsel. However, I will say that even when public defenders do not have access to the same amount of money, and even if they may not always have degrees from more prestigious institutions, that absolutely does not mean they are stupid hicks who don't know the law. There are plenty of good public defenders in the state of Texas. Unfortunately, Willingham apparently didn't have one. There was plenty of reasonable doubt in this case. Again, that was the issue here. Not the innocence of Willingham. Was he innocent? I think so. But "I think so" isn't what would have kept Willingham from a needle in his vein. Reasonable doubt should have. That is what mattered here. Not the director's or anyone else's political mission regarding the abolishment of the death penalty. Anyone should have been able to see this story, and be outraged regarding Willingham's unjust execution. Even those who, otherwise, support the death penalty. But Director Edward Zwick and those who helped him bring this story to the screen didn't seem to care about that. And because they didn't, they made a story where injustice existed, and where anyone with half a brain could have seen said injustice, and turned it into a morality, anti-death penalty mission that wasn't interested in speaking to everyone. And because of that, all Zwick really accomplishes, is creating a polished film that preached to the choir. What a missed opportunity.

Shot Caller is a solidly made film. There isn't anything earth shattering here. The story is a bit generic, and there are some implausible moments. However, the heart of this film lies in the performances of the actors. They all buy in, and it's nothing short of mesmerizing. I have always said that I do not care if a film treads familiar ground, as long as the screenplay and direction are up to the task. Of course, one cannot talk about performances without zeroing in on the lead actor. Nikolaj Coster-Waldau does a tremendous job as his character makes the heartbreaking transformation from upper middle class, white collar citizen to hardened criminal and gang leader. It's hard to watch him slip into an abyss of violence, murder, and hopelessness. Make no mistake about it. This film does not glorify these crimes that Coster-Waldau's character commits. However, what is evident, is that he went from being a guy who had to do some bad things just to survive, to a guy who seems to relish the idea of weilding his power to invoke fear in anyone who dares to cross him. Like I said...heartbreaking. But quite compelling as well. If you're looking for a solidly made crime-drama that may have eluded you until now, you could certainly do much worse than Shot Caller. As always, this is just my opinion.

• This is an update to discuss the review by lynne-943-341908 above. This reviewer has been a member 10 years, and they have written 4 reviews. Guess how many have been negative. All of them. I have no problem a negative review. However, I do have a problem with self righteousness and arrogance. I also found the review insulting. This person thinks those of us who liked it don't know anything. I guess her and her husband have to have a mediocre film where things blow up real good and such. Perhaps they'd prefer films like the transformers films by Michael Bay. Not that those are bad films. They're more their cup of tea I guess.

First Blood is a phenomenal film. I remember seeing it on cable when I was a kid, and it even had a profound impact then. I guess it's because it wasn't just an action flick. No...FB was also very much a drama, with characters who were deeply developed...even many of the ones who were minor players with no real backstory. Now, yes, there were some scenes that were a bit over the top that required some suspension of disbelief. But not as many as you may think...especially when you take the sequels into consideration. And I actually like some of the sequels (namely FB 2, and Rambo III). But the sequels fall into the category of entertaining ridiculousness. Some of them were fun, but nowhere near as deep as the first film. In fact, I think FB was sadly underestimated by most of the major award associations. That is unfortunate, because it is one of the best performances of Stallone's career, and it was more than worthy of an Oscar nomination for Best Actor. It is also one of Stallone's most mature and well grounded films. I also think that Brian Dennehy, in my opinion, almost steals the show (almost, but not quite). By the conclusion of the movie, there is this weird mixture of contempt, yet compassion towards his character. Again, like Stallone, he should have been nominated for an Oscar as well, only in the supporting actor category. And I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that, if he had been nominated, I would have had no problem with him winning. If you have never seen this movie, and you like depth and poigniancy, to go along with the action and thrills, then, by all means, watch FB. I guarantee that you will not be disappointed.

It is disappointing to admit this, but David Gordon Green's version of the Michael Myers/Halloween saga should have probably ended after the release of Halloween 2018. In fact, I would go so far as to say that they should have increased the running time of H-'18 to about 120-130 minutes (from the actual running time of approximately 105 minutes), and then made H-2018 the only sequel in the series...a film that acted as a true continuation of, and a fitting conclusion to the 1978 masterpiece helmed by John Carpenter. Or, perhaps it could have been a 180 minute film, divided into two parts (released in consecutive years)...the second part being a continuation of the events that would have been very different from the existing sequel of Halloween Kills. Instead, we got a film (H-18) with an incredibly strong first half, and a second half that began to fall off the rails a bit. However, it was still a very good film. Then came Kills and Ends. The former was disappointing. The latter was monumentally disappointing. It seems pretty clear that, after H-'18, the filmmakers didn't really know where to go to continue the story. So they added a lot of filler material as justification for making two more films. I won't go into details regarding Kills since this is a review for Ends. However, here are a couple examples: First, Kills seemed redundant in multiple ways. An example would be how Laurie was, in large part, sidelined for much of the movie. And so was Hawkins. But the film keeps returning to both of them as they're laid up in a hospital room, and most of that time all they're doing is...conversing. Yep...that's right. They're talking to each other. While Michael is wreaking havoc all around the town, Laurie and Hawkins, two of the best characters in the film, are, quite literally, on the sidelines. Kills also seemed redundant in that people kept repeating their intentions, over and over (and if you've seen the movie, then you know what I'm talking about), while failing to accomplish said intentions. Needless to say, evil did not die that night. Fast forward to 2022, and we come to the events in Ends. First, a few positives: Ends did have a good beginning, a pretty good conclusion, and the acting was very good. In fact, this is the best performance Jamie Lee Curtis has given in a very long time, and maybe of her entire career. There are only three reasons Ends is worth someone's time. The beginning, the end, and Jamie Lee Curtis. The cinematography was quite good, and most of the actors are definitely giving their all. However, the story and screenplay are where this film falters. And boy, does this film falter. And that brings me to the negatives:

• Michael has very little screen time in Ends. In fact, I would be surprised if he was in this film for even 10 minutes. And yes, he was only in the original for about 15-17 minutes. But that made sense. John Carpenter knew that it's best to leave the unknown...well, unknown...at least, for as long as possible. But that was the first introduction everyone and anyone had into the cinematic universe of the Halloween films. Plus, H-'78 was Laurie's film. Ends should have been both Laurie and Michael's film. It really wasn't. In fact, the character who is most focused on in Ends is a character no one has ever seen before. It is mind boggling that they would introduce a character of the magnitude of Corey Cunningham in the last film of, what's supposed to be a cohesive series of films.

• Corey Cunningham as the lead just does not make sense. Especially considering the fact that he doesn't make it to the end. There really isn't enough time for the audience to care about him, and if the point was to have someone carry on as the "new" Michael Myers, then why in the world would you kill his character towards the end?

• The narrative is disjointed. The beginning and the ending are good. But the in-between is a convoluted mess. It just doesn't make sense. The relationship between Allyson and Corey is not even remotely believable. Much of that has to do with a glaring lack of chemistry. And then there are other characters who should have been seen more and should have been more involved, but weren't (i.e. Michael, Hawkins, Lindsey). In fact, speaking of chemistry, the two characters who did have chemistry were Laurie and Hawkins. And yet they have very little screen time together.

• Missed opportunities, in my opinion. There were multiple, but I'll just focus on one (and yes, I know this is my opinion). For a while now, I, and many others, wanted to see the character of podcaster Aaron Korey again. However, naysayers kept on reminding everyone that there was no way he could have survived his brutal beating at the hands of Michael Myers. Why did people want to see him again? Because his character had depth, and that was impressive, considering he was only in H-'18 for a handful of scenes. For whatever reason, audiences were drawn to his character. Bringing him back for Ends would have provided the opportunity for a deep character study. To see how his opinions have changed about Michael Myers could have been quite compelling. How does he feel now? What does he think about, possibly being the one who resparked Michael's appetite for causing death and destruction? And knowing his lover was killed by the hands of that maniacal monster...does he wish for revenge now? Does he believe in the boogeyman now? Will he join Laurie and others in brining Myers to a final justice? Or will he become the copycat, with a desire to inflict the physical and emotional pain that was inflicted on him? Instead, the character they bring back, that almost everyone believed was dead was the character of Sondra? What the hell? How did she survive her attack? And since she was brought back, why relegate her to what amounts to a minor intriguing, yet fleeting thought? What a wasted opportunity. And to those naysayers who said Aaron couldn't have survived, I say this: if Sondra survived, then Aaron Korey could have survived. One last missed opportunity: In my opinion, Michael should have been alive when he was disposed of in the grinder. Maybe paralyzed but alive.

H-Ends, in my opinion, was monumentally disappointing. Now we are at the conclusion of Green and McBride's version of this story, and it seems like their heart and soul was definitely seen in H-'18, but not so much in Kills and Ends. If I'm being honest, it's almost like the attention to detail that was evident in H-'18, was gone by the time Ends was in pre-production. Maybe it was the delay that was caused by the pandemic. After all, originally Kills was supposed to be released in 2020, and Ends in 2021. By the end of last year, David Gordon Green was supposed to be half way home on his continuation/sequel of The Exorcist. It would be quite understandable if distractions multiplied along the way. There is still no excuse for this mess. It almost reminds me of what happened to the Star Wars sequel trilogy. But that epic mess was largely the result of too many cooks in the kitchen, who all had the freedom to go their own way. And while Ends did have 4 screenwriters, the main core of Green and McBride were in this project from the beginning to the end. I guess that's why it's so disappointing. Once again, at the end of one of the most classic cinematic franchises ever, many of us, instead of thinking "Oh, what an awesome ending," are left, instead, thinking "Oh, what might have been." But hey...that's just my opinion.

In 1992 I saw a framed movie poster hanging on a wall in a movie theatre and it was a bit intriguing. However, there were no social media sites on the internet, and the internet wasn't even a thing for most people living in the free world, so there was no way to try make an inquiry as to what this movie was going to be about. The poster's colors were a very attractive black, yellow, and red, and there was what looked like a dinosaur skeleton. The apparent name of the film? Jurassic Park. And of course, what stood out the most was who the director was...Steven Spielberg. Keep in mind, this was, probably 7 or 8 months before the movie was to be released. I couldn't wait to see it. And in June of 1993, I did just that. It was an amazing film, and I enjoyed almost every minute of it. Fast forward to today, and I have now seen every sequel in the franchise, and I can say that, in my opinion, the first film is still, by far, the best of the bunch ( although I did think The Lost World was pretty decent as well). What is the worst? Until today, I would have said Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom. Now, by about a hundred miles, the worst is Dominion. The makers of this steaming pile of dino doo-doo seemed to have worried a bit too much about bringing back several characters from JP1, that they forgot to make sure that these characters would be a part of a good film, with a solid story, believable dialogue, and other well written characters. So, unfortunately what we have here, is a very subpar film. This, quite frankly, is very lazy filmmaking. Take what is one of the biggest franchises in the history of cinema, make yet another sequel to add to the collection, do the bare minimum to try and force the film into the Jurassic movie universe. Sadly, Dominion is already raking in some serious dough at the box office, and, although it might not perform as well as expected, it is already starting to approach the billion dollar range. If it does get to, or surpass the "one, followed by nine zeroes" figure, then do not believe those who are trying to convince everyone that Dominion will be the last in the series. As long as a film franchise is performing well economically, we can all rest assured that someone out there will want to tap into the cinematic and economical juggernaut that is Jurassic Park/World. If that happens, I hope it will actually be a worthy addition to the the first two films...although my hopes will not rise much above mild curiosity.

First, I want to say that Anna Chlumsky is a good actress. At times, she gives a pretty admirable performance in Netflix's "Inventing Anna." But she starts to wear out her welcome in the latter part of the series. As does the title character as played by Julia Garner. Like Chlumsky, Garner is all-in on her performance. However, she is playing a character whose real life counterpart is one of the most unlikable, annoying, manipulative, and vindictive people on the face of this planet. And, apparently, the real-life Anna has not learned one single thing from her experience in prison. When she was released from prison a little over a year ago, she immediately went back to her deceptions and narcissistic ways. Demanding Fortress give her $720 million dollars. She stayed in one of the most expensive hotels in New York, and started buying clothes from the most expensive stores. How? With the money she was given for interviews and such. After a month, she was taken into custody for violating her Visa, and not going back to Germany by the time she was supposed to. Why did she do that? All she said was that it wasn't her fault. She also said she will clear her name because she never knowingly conned anyone. And that, along with this mini-series' painful run time, uneven performances by Garner and Chlumsky (who looks like she has continuous constipation while overacting at times), and the fact that the show tries to turn Anna into some kind of anti-hero, has minimized my interest in the story, and has made it difficult for me to recommend to anyone. But, that's just my opinion.

If you told someone that you were going to make a horror film, but you also told them that it would be a horror film that has...

• Not only no "f" words, but would have only mild profanity throughout
• No sex scenes
• No nudity
• Very little gore
• And no kills

...most people would tell you that, not only are you nuts, but you also should prepare for massive disappointment from a lack of interest by most production companies. However, even if you found a production company willing to make the film, there would probably be a massive rejection by most horror film fans who have come to expect a lot of bare skin, blood, and guts with their scares. I remember when I first heard about James Wan directing a film that would be called The Conjuring. I assumed that Wan was going to make another version of the "Saw" film. However, Wan proved everyone wrong. TC was a film that defied conventional wisdom when it comes to the horror genre of the last 30 years, or so. Indeed, TC was a horror film that met all of the criteria mentioned in the list above...it lacked strong profanity, it lacked gore, and so on, and so forth. And yet it still scared the living crap out of most people who saw it. It was a terrifying film that earned it's "R" rating based on scares alone. Let me say that again. The Conjuring earned an "R" rating because it was scary. And, as far as I'm concerned, it's one of the scariest films ever made...easily in my top 5 most terrifying horror films. And what's most unique about TC, is that surrounding those scares is a character driven story, that (and yes, I know this is going to sound a bit crazy) actually has a few touching and heartwarming moments as well. Wan has constructed a film here that has many layers to it, and yet he never forgets that at its heart, it is a horror movie. So, if you've not seen TC, and if you want substance with your thrills and chills, then you need to see this film.

P. S. This update is to address an asinine comment by delle-good (something like that). It's people like delle-good who make comment or review sections a pain in the ass sometimes. Delle-good feels like he or she has to belittle other people who have a different opinion. Hey Delle-good...there are A LOT of people who have reviewed The Conjuring and think it's one of the scariest horror films ever. A LOT. You have your opinion and we have ours. You don't get to determine what others think or how they feel. You like heriditary...that's fine. A lot of people liked that film too. So here's what I won't do. I won't belittle you by telling you that hereditary is just a movie that pretends to be high-art, but is so ridiculously idiotic at the end, it's a wonder anyone would ever think that it belongs in the horror genre. I guess it could be a comedy. But comedies are supposed to be funny on purpose. Anyone who thinks Hereditary is scary must be easily manipulated...you know...someone who likes to be seen as cultured and intelligent but has to belittle others and their opinions by insulting them. That's how small-minded people make themselves feel better.

The original Home Alone has become one of most iconic and beloved Christmas films of all time. What followed was a barrage of sequels that, with the exception of HA2, sucked pretty bad. And, although the second film was nowhere near as good as the first, it was, at the very least, an entertaining and occasionally funny follow up. So, now we have Home Sweet Home Alone. And there are not enough negative adjectives in the English language to desribe it. Awful, terrible, awfully terrible (or terribly awful, if you prefer), crap show, dumpster fire, and so on and so forth. HSHA is a text book example of a production company seeing just how far they'll stoop, while making a mockery of, and stomping the hell out of the childhood of many people. And it's all in the name of making quality pictures...just kidding. We all know that it's all in the name of $$$. It's so disappointing. It is becoming more and more obvious that executives of the "super-production" companies don't give a damn about striving to make quality films. They'll hijack any successful film or film series, hire writers and directors who will give said executives whatever the hell kind of movie they want, even at the expense of making them badly. HSHA is devoid of any sort of original thought or circumstance. It also completely misses the point of the original, or of part 2 for that matter. The kid is barely likeable. The so-called intruders are just completely misunderstood, and the sense of urgency exhibited by the mother character has no real emotional impact. Almost every bit of fan service...every bit of nostalgia...all of it only exists in such a way, that one could almost picture the executives and the production team making sure that all the proverbial boxes had been checked. Jokes that harken back to HA '90, gags that do the same...all present in a way that illustrates duplication, not admiration. Even the performance of the, usually solid, actress and comedian Ellie Kemper. She falls a bit flat here, but that has more to do with the poorly written dialogue, storyline, and direction, than with her acting ability. And there are past performances of Kemper on the t.v. Show The Office and in the film Bridesmaids that prove she can, with the right screenplay or teleplay, and the right direction, be an effective actress. So, if you've already seen HSHA, then I can't help you. But if you haven't seen it yet, then you are envied by the lot of us who have seen it. As always, this is just my opinion.

After seeing Rogue One for a second time now, I can't help but think that, perhaps, Gareth Edwards should have directed the Star Wars sequel trilogy. And I mean all 3 films. Who knows if that would have made a difference or not, but I have to think that it couldn't have been any worse. Edwards nails it with RO. The atmosphere, the characters, the feeling that it instantly belongs as part of the saga...all of this added up to a much better movie than episodes VII, VIII, and IX. I had no problem at all with imagining RO being a natural fit between Episodes III and IV, effectively making it both a sequel of III, and a prequel of IV. Indeed, when IV starts, it naturally feels like a genuine extension of the conclusion of RO, as IV picks right up where RO left off. And the plot of RO is actually quite simple, and yet works perfectly in explaining why a plot point found in Episode IV, that has been bothersome for many, actually makes complete and utter sense. How in the world did the rebellion find such an uncomplicated (relatively speaking) way of taking down the first Death Star? This is a question that has been asked by many people over the years regarding the climax of IV, and RO gives what turns out to be a very clear and quite believable answer. And the performances by the actors are all very capable and well done, as they embody the characters that fit this universe like a comfortable glove. Rogue One is a great example of how a Star Wars movie can be both, respectful to the saga, while also offering something fresh and new. Kudos to those involved for, at the very least, getting this Star Wars story straight as an arrow, and right as rain.

Heaven's Gate: The Cult of Cults is certainly interesting, and will probably keep most viewers' attention. However, it does get a little bogged down in the middle, as it tries to give an explanation for the different focus of the group after the death of Ti. It's dealt with in a way that would suggest that everyday (for lack of a better word) Christians would have seen the group becoming more Christian-like. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, there's a point in the second part where religious scholar Reza Aslan says that after the death of Ti there were many more parallels with the Christ-story. He said the HG followers began to change the focus (based on the direction from Ti) and had to do damage control that led to cognitive dissonance. He then claimed that's what Christ's followers did when He died on the cross. Aslan conveniently forgets the fact that Christ made it clear that he was going to die, and then rise again. Jesus said that, and the prophets of the Old Testament said that too...that the Messiah would come, be rejected by his own people, would be sacrificed, and then would rise from the dead. Apparently Aslan has never actually read the Bible, especially the Old Testament. Now one doesn't have to believe any of that. That's their prerogative. But stating broad untruths isn't helpful to anyone. Perhaps Aslan should remember that. Now, other than a lack of focus in the middle, and the use of ignorant "experts" (I'm assuming Aslan wasn't purposely deceiving viewers), this was a pretty good documentary.

Update: This is for a user named profeshalice who made this statement at the end of his or her comment:

"If people want this to be more interesting perhaps they should look to fiction."

Fiction? Really? There are plenty of non-fiction stories that are very interesting. I think what most people were complaining about was the bias nature of the doc as evidenced by using a supposed "theologian" (Reza Aslan) to make comparisons between the beliefs of the Heaven's Gate cultists and Christians. The two do not compare, and the makers of this film (HBO included) should be more responsible and objective when choosing their sources. They're the ones who were pedalling fiction here.

The worst spin-off I have ever seen. The acting is a steaming pile of garbage. The show, Kid Danger, was good. This wanna-be is not. There are some very good child actors in Hollywood. Unfortunately, none of them are in Danger Force. Who knows, maybe when their older they'll be better. If they don't get better, then they can forget about a lifetime acting career.

The worst spin-off I have ever seen. The acting is a steaming pile of garbage. The show, Kid Danger, was good. This wanna-be is not. There are some very good child actors in Hollywood. Unfortunately, none of them are in Danger Force. Who knows, maybe when their older they'll be better. If they don't get better, then they can forget about a lifetime acting career.

One of the reasons I enjoyed the film The Hurt Locker so much was because of how realistic it seemed. When I watched that film, it almost had a documentary feel to it. And during some of the battle scenes, it felt as if the audience was right there, among the action. Another film that took place in a war zone and felt realistic and documentary-like, was Rescue Dawn, one of the most criminally underappreciated films I've ever seen. No doubt the director's (Werner Herzog) extensive experience making documentaries aided in portraying Dawn in such a realistic manner. And now, there's another war film that rivals both Locker and Dawn, and that war film is The Outpost. And it may be the best one yet, in my humble opinion. There are so many technical achievements in Outpost, that it would be worth watching for that reason alone. But, thankfully, the true story that surrounds this technically proficient film is absolutely gripping, so much so, that it will not easily let you out of its grasp, even days after watching it. I watched it with my dad on Saturday night (10-3-20), and it's still with me today. I cannot get over what these soldiers went through on that day...something I think most of them knew was inevitable. They were sitting ducks in one of the most poorly placed outposts in United States military history. And once the main battle begins, it does not let up for a considerable amount of time. Indeed, during that scene, the action was non-stop and graphic, and my dad and I both were on the edge of our seats. The Outpost is one of the best war films I've ever seen. The story, the writing, the direction, and the acting...all exceptional, and all worthy of recognition by the major awards associations, including the Academy Awards. I would not be surprised to see nominations for numerous technical awards and the individual ones as well, especially for the performance of Caleb Landry Jones. In fact, there's a scene near the conclusion of the film where his character is being counseled regarding the difficult things he saw and did during the battle. It's probably the most powerful scene in the film, and much of that has to do with Jones' portrayal of his character's interactions with the counselor. It's powerful, moving, and heartbreaking.

Right now, with 11 or so weeks left to go in what has been a very long and unusual year, The Outpost sits atop the list of my five favorite films from 2020. Could that change before the end of the year? Maybe. Will it? I doubt it.

As I have before, I'm adding an addendum to address a comment made above. To: pranesh-34163 - Your very brief, arrogant comment tells me one of two things. Either you didn't watch the movie and decided to comment anyway, or you did see it and you are purposely being deceptive. No one was whining about anything. The only whiner I see is you. This was a true story about a group of soldiers who were stationed in the worst place for a military outpost in the history of warfare, which is why so many of them died. Maybe you didn't like the film because it portrayed a reality that you don't want to think about. Maybe you're just an arrogant Gen Z, or millennial who thinks you're better or more sophisticated than most people. You don't have to like the film...that's your prerogative. But when you denigrate others who did like the film, and when you call people whiners who express sorrow for what happened to these soldiers, then you show every one what an ingrate you are. And if anything, this is not a pro-war film. In fact, it's a film that criticizes those in the military and in the government who were responsible for making an outpost in the worst possible place. Of course, since you probably didn't watch the movie, you wouldn't know how ridiculous your comment is. You have no idea what you're talking about.

**MAJOR SPOILERS**

It's interesting. Adrian Lyne is responsible for two of the best erotic thrillers ever made. Fatal Attraction came first (the second is Unfaithful). What I like about Lyne, is he knows how to balance the erotic scenes with heavy drama. He is also a master at providing a false security in his films. In other words, when wathcing Attraction, the film is front loaded with the erotic scenes. For almost the first half hour of Attraction, one becomes so involved with the relationship between Dan Gallagher (Michael Douglas) and Alex Forrest (Glenn Close), and the initial chemistry that begins to evolve between the two, that it's easy to forget where this story is ultimately headed. Don't get me wrong. In that first half hour, there are definitely signs that Alex may not be the most stable individual in the world as she exhibits signs indicative of chemical imbalance. She will not take "no" for an answer when she tries to convince Dan to spend a second night with her. She responds to a prank in a strange way...a prank that Dan plays on her when he pretends to collapse while playing with the Gallagher family dog in Manhattan's Cental Park. She believes it's real at first, and begins to panic. After a few seconds, Dan opens his eyes, sits up, and starts laughing. Alex is initially pissed, claiming that her father died of a heart attack when she was young, right in front of her eyes. Dan apologizes, and then Alex begins to laugh while telling Dan that her father isn't dead, but living well in Phoenix. Dan appears to be a little bit perplexed by this as he lets out a little nervous laughter while saying, "Well...I guess you got me." Why this scene is so disturbing isn't fully realized until later in the film when Dan finds out that Alex's dad really did die of a heart attack when Alex was a kid. We don't find out whether or not it happened in Alex's presence, but it's subtely implied that it probably did. Alex, after their second day together, and following what becomes their last sexual liason starts to show much more intense psycholigical issues as she gets extremely angry when Dan attempts to leave. Ultimately, she then slits her wrists in an effort to keep Dan at her apartment to take care of her. The wounds are actually pretty superficial, but Dan does stay to make sure she is alright. It's after this scene that one is quickly reminded that this film is really about a literal "fatal attraction," and Alex comprehensively begins to make Dan's life a living hell. And that's what I appreciate about Lyne's film and his skills as a director. Make no mistake about it, this is not a film that celebrates infidelity. On the contrary, it illustrates just how damaging infidelity can be. Dan obviously deeply regrets his decision to have the affair, and becomes terrified when he realizes that Alex is a very disturbed sociopath who will stop at nothing to either win his allegiance through black male and bribery, or ensure that, if he refuses to be a part of her life, he will rue the day he ever crossed paths with Alex Forrest. Lyne lays bare the myth that having an affair can be fun and intriguing and the false notion that, as long as one is being careful, then they can live and act as if everything is perfectly normal. Lyne also obliterates the notion that one can cheat on their spouse with little regret and guilt (It's important to note that Dan actually starts to show signs of regret and guilt well before Alex goes on her ballistic rampage), and he effectively delivers his message to the audience that, not only are affairs dangerous, they can also be catestrophic family destroyers. One last observation: Fatal Attraction has multiple scenes that portray a suspense and ominous feeling. But one of the most effective scenes of suspense comes in the form of the camera focusing on a ringing telephone. Yes...a ringing telephone. It's so simple and yet it's also filled with much fear and tension. A scene like that illustrates the genius of Lyne. If you have never seen Fatal Attraction, I strongly recommend it. I also strongly recommend another Adrian Lyne film about the destructiveness of infidelity...the film I briefly mentioned at the beginning of this review...the 2002 movie Unfaithful (starring Richard Gere and Diane Lane). There's a role reversal in Unfaithful in that it's the wife who has the affair, and there are some similarities between Fatal Attraction and Unfaithful. However, overall they are two very different films (Attraction is the better of the two, but Unfaithful is quite good too). And yet both effectively portray the destructiveness of infidelity.

There is exactly no doubt that Teacher was very low budget. There is also no doubt that it had liberal leanings and symbolism (i.e. the rich, one-percenter white guy who likes to collect firearms is the villain; the common folk are the victims; etc.). And some of the acting was not real great and a bit melodramatic (that being said, I thought David Dastmalchian was very good in the lead role). However, if you can get past all of that, then you will probably find many of the elements and issues raised in the film pretty compelling. For example, the film touches on multiple themes that plague our society in the here and now (both physical and cyber bullying, suicide, emotional and physical abuse of a child, divorce, and so on). I was impressed with what the filmmakers were able to accomplish on such a shoestring budget. It is better than many theatrical releases.

This is not a bad show. It just gets a little carried away with the whole "rich people bad, poor people good" nonsense. And there is a contradiction evident in OB the size of Mount Everest. The "pogues" (common, poor kids) are decrying the "kooks" (rich kids) all the time. And yet the pogues spend all of their time trying to find some mysterious, gold treasure that may or may not exist. So, even though the pogues are always criticizing the kooks, it is quite obvious the pogues want to be just like them. Only, they want to get rich quick. They want to be kooks, minus all the hard work and energy that is usually involved with becoming wealthy. Nothing like good old fashioned liberal hypocrisy.

Bad Influence is easily one of the best films to come out of the early 90s. In fact it was shot in 1989, which is why it really feels more like a late 80s film. And who better to have in a film like that than two of the most recognizable actors from that era. Indeed James Spader and Rob Lowe were a couple "Brat Pack" members who always had the ability to break out of the "Brat Pack" era and stereotype. Not that that was a bad thing. Hell, if you're going to be stereotyped, that's not a bad one to be a part of. Those kids (more like young adults) made some pretty damn good films (Pretty In Pink, St. Elmo's Fire, Less Than Zero, and one of my personal favorites, About Last Night...). But there's no doubt that, for most of the Pack members, that era was the peak of their film careers. Spader and Lowe were part of the few who broke out. And Bad Influence was, sort of, the beginning of that breakout. And speaking of breakouts, this was the film that really put Curtis Hanson on the proverbial map. Even though he had directed other movies, none of them were very successful. And, although BI was not a box office hit, it turned a small profit and, for the most part, was critically acclaimed. The acting was good, the story was compelling, the screenplay was well written, and the directing was sure of itself. Hanson allowed his characters to develop slowly and methodically, and yet never once did the film seem boring or bogged down. No, Hanson had confidence in audiences (he doesn't dumb the film down)...confident that they'll be patient enough for the movie's second half payoff. All of these ingredients (acting, writing, etc.) come together to make for a very good film. Not a perfect film, but a very good one. If the option was available, I would give it a rating of 7.5 stars.

Side note: Although Spader is good in his role, Lowe was the highlight of Bad Influence. This is one of the best perfomences of his entire career. He's very effective playing the smart, young, and handsome antagonist. In a word, his portrayal of the diabolical and sociopathic Alex was chilling.

First it should be noted that I am a Christian. I am a follower of Christ and I am not ashamed to admit it. And so this is going to be a difficult review to write. I am honestly not what I would call a Kendrick Brothers fan. But, I'm not a non-fan either. I have some personal issues with some of the messages that their films portray, in that sometimes they go a little heavy on, what I would call, a health and wealth Gospel message. This was especially evident in Facing The Giants where, once the central characters finally and fully turned their lives over to Christ, they began to experience a plethora of blessings in the form of multiple state championships, and multiple births. If you have not seen the movie, then what you need to know is, that early on in the film, before a revival breaks out across the school, the main characters are unhappy for various reasons. The school football team has struggled, and the coach's wife has not been able to successfully bring a baby in the world. Like I said, all of that changes after they make full faith proclamations in the form of multiple championships for the football team, as well as mutliple children for the coach and his wife. That is a dangerous message to convey in a world where, Jesus Himself, told his very own followers that, because of Him, they would face much trial and tribulation in this world. Just because someone becomes a Christian does not mean that their troubles are over. On the contrary, living a Christian life does not somehow miraculously cloak the believer and keep him or her from problems. Jesus never promised an easy road. But He did promise that when things get bad, He will be there for us and He will never let us go. And so, now we have the new Kendrick Film, "Overcomer." Now, even though I'm a Christian, I cannot review a film and hold it to a different standard than I would a mainstream film. There is no doubt that the Kendricks have become much better filmmakers over the years, seemingly learning much along the way. But just because they haven't had access to the same resources that big Hollywood directors have access to, doesn't mean that I am going to overlook this films shortcomings. And there are many. So, let's start with the good. The movie looks good. Technically speaking, the Kendricks have made a very good looking film. It had some great cinematography shots that aided in the film's slick look and feel. It was also well paced. For a movie that was right at 2 hours long, it never really felt long...it never seemed to get bogged down with unnecessary characters or sub-plots. That helps when a movie doesn't have much strength in the acting or screenplay department. Which leads me to the bad. This was a poorly written script. There are no two ways about it. There were jokes that fell flat because they, either didn't need to be there, or they were executed very poorly. And there were many scenes in the film that were obvious forecasters, of some other scene or point in the film that was coming later on. And the mechanics of the actors (the way they carried themselves) were often awkward and disingenuous. At one point, one of the characters goes to visit people at a local hospital with his pastor. Then, while they're there, a nurse tells the pastor that since there are many people already visiting the patient, maybe only one of them should go in. Now, in a well-made film, getting that pastor to go into the room without the other person would have been accomplished in a more realistic way. But, the filmmakers don't really care about that, because the intention of the plot trumps the decisions of the characters. In other words, the characters do things and make decicions based on what the plot demands from them. Good filmmakers don't forecast their manipulation of their characters, thus allowing their characters to make decisions that would seem more realistic. Kendrick wanted his character out in the hall for a reason. He had to be out there so that he could, accidently cross paths with another character who ends up having a monumental impact in the film. Even the way Kendrick gets his character to cross paths with the other patient is awkward and unrealistic. He nearly gets run over by some people pushing a hospital bed down the hallway, so he has to jump backwards, and ends up jumping so far back he accidently falls through the doorway to the patient's room. Even writing about the scene is awkward. It just doesn't ring true, and because of that, the entire interaction seems false. Add all of that to an extremely melodramatic (the filmmakers, obviously wanting tears to fall, stop just short of sending someone into the audience to beat the tears out of them with a baseball bat) plotline and acting, along with a poor performance from many of the actors (including the main character that the film revolves around) and you've got a really bad film. I know I will incur the wrath of many here because of my opinion, but the truth's the truth. I cannot give the Kendricks a pass just because they are working with limited resources. And, when it was all said and done, this film cost 5 million dollars to make. It's the Kendricks' most expensive film to date. And even though 5 mil. is still considred low budget, it's enough money to hire some good screenwirters, as well as some half-way decent actors. Perhaps that's what the Kendrick's should be doing from here on out. Provide the resources...produce the films. Because producing does seem to be the one aspect of filmmaking where they really do excel.

There's not a whole lot to say here. I finally watched Psycho IV...yes I'd been avoiding it because most people told me it sucked. And while I wouldn't go so far as to call P-IV a great movie (it's an adequate send off for the beloved series), it is better than I thought it would be. There were some interesting scenes here that shed some light on Norman Bates' transformation from a disturbed and somewhat chemically imbalanced teenager, into the psychotic monster that we see in films I, II, and III. One of the best parts of this movie is the return of Anthony Perkins as the adult Norman. And Henry Thomas does an admirable job as Norman the teenager. But the best performance in the movie, or at least a performance just as good as Perkins', comes from Olivia Hussey as Norma Bates. She effectively plays the part of Norman's very abusive and overbearing mother. Even someone who does not have homicidal tendancies can be pushed past their breaking point. So it stands to reason that a psychotic like Norman, when pushed past his breaking point, turns to serial killing...a murder spree that included the killing of his own mother. One can almost see why Norman turned out the way he did, and no, that is not a justification for killing people. It's simply just the way it is. Psycho IV surprised me. I was prepared to watch this final chapter, and then, more than likely, conclude that it was pretty bad. Well, I watched it, and I can honestly say that it isn't a bad movie. It's actually a pretty decent one, and a admirable addition to the Psycho saga.

What happened? How did we get to this point? And although I think Disney definitely had something to do with the problem, you can't put it all on Disney. There's plenty of blame to go around.

Fans: We played a role here. And if you don't believe that, then you probably weren't an original fan. I mean a fan from all the way back to 1977 when this saga got its start. We bit*hed and moaned about the prequels (some of which was well earned). George Lucas became disillusioned and so he went and sold his epically original sci fi saga to Disney. He just didn't want to deal with it anymore. This led to Disney deciding to go ahead and make a final trilogy...something that so many of us fans had been looking forward to ever since our childhood when there was that tease of more episodes. Six more in fact. We never really knew if it was true. And if it was true, we didn't know when those other films would be made. Lucas gave us the prequels. And then Disney gave us the final trilogy. This should have been a dream come true. But it wasn't.

Lucas: He makes this list by default. After all, if he hadn't sold his story to Disney then we wouldn't have had to endure VIII and IX (VII wasn't great, but it was a good set up for the last two films).

Kathleen Kennedy: Don't need to say much here. We all know why part of this debacle is her fault.

Rian Johnson: While I didn't hate VIII like many fans did, it wasn't even close to what was hoped for after seeing VII. Mark Hamill did a supberb job as the old, disillusioned Luke. But that's about all he was. I do give credit to Johnson for including the scene with Luke and Yoda. That was well done.

JJ Abrams: Let's be honest, Abrams gave us a pretty good VII. But after things went awry with VIII, he had to focus on damage control. This severely limited his options for how to make IX the film we all hoped for. In some ways I think he did an admirable job considering the fact that he had to try and fix some storylines that Johnson included in VIII.

SJWs: Oh yes. I don't care how much flack I get on this one. Politics entered into the final two episodes in a way that they never had before in the Star Wars universe. And so just about every politically liberal issue you can think of, made it into VIII and IX.

Fans again: As disappointed as many of us were, we still forked out our money to see these movies. This especially applies to epidode IX, as it still made over a billion dollars worldwide, despite the fact that many of us had been warned about the possibility of IX royally sucking after some leaks all but assured us that we were not going to care for this film.

Palpatine's Presence: This should never have happened. It was one of the worst decisions I have ever seen in a film. It made no sense for him to still be around, other than to be a gimmick that would be used to lure us all in. Including Palpatine in this film also polluted the Star Wars universe by making the end of Return Of The Jedi almost obsolete. I mean, I guess it really wasn't a victory at the end of VI, was it. Oh how stupid our characters were...hoodwinked by an old man who was thrown down a shaft that should have killed him. They even thought it killed him, but, alas, that was not the case. And one more thing. When you take Luke's proclmation that "No one's ever really gone," and you couple that with the fact that Palpatine survived his plunge down a reactor shaft, one has to wonder: How do we know that Palpatine isn't still alive after the conclusion of episode IX? I mean, if he survived being thrown down the reactor shaft, and was seemingly blown to bits or vaporized...then surely he could survive being...well...whatever it was that Rey did to him. So the fact that JJ Abrams opened this can of worms by bringing Palpatine back, means Abrams has created a situation where fans and others will always have some degree of doubt regarding Palpatine being alive or dead. Because if he came back once, what's to stop him from doing it again.

The end of IX: It sucked. It sucked hard. There were so many things that happened in the end, that, even in a movie that was nearly two and a half hours long...it all seemed rushed and sloppy.

And so how monumentally disappointing for someone who had been a fan from day one. A fan who had always dreamed that the prequels and the final triology would get made some day. I had even thought about how, in the last three films, the original cast members could still be in it, if those last three films were supposed to take place thirty or so years after VI. All of those things came together. And yet it all added up to...well, not much. Not much at all. I kind of wish that these last three films would have continued to focus on the original characters only. There could have still been new characters. But, honestly, I don't know if even that would have worked. There is one thing that I never, ever thought I would say in a million years regarding Star Wars. If this was going to be the final result, then I wish these last three films would never have been made. But, as the old saying goes, hindsight is 20/20.

Greta is certainly nothing unique. Person "A" takes a liking to a lonely, seemingly vulnerable person (Person "B"). The lonely, seemingly vulnerable person is actually a sociopath who has the ability to go full-blown crazy at the drop of a hat. And so they do, causing Person "A" to make a decision to either turn tail and run, or fight back. In Greta, Person "A" decides to fight back. We've seen this same premise before, multiple times. Sometimes it's in the form of a fatal attraction, like in Fatal Attraction. Sometimes it's in the form of a so-called friend going postal on the person that they're so-called friends with, like in Single White Female. The difference here between Greta and the two films I just mentioned is that the two fims I just mentioned are actually quite good films (Fatal Attraction being the best of the bunch). Now, that doesn't mean that Greta is a bad film. It's passable. The acting ranges from good to very good, there are a couple of genuinely creepy moments, and finally, the end is probably the best part of the movie. Indeed, I was about to come to IMDb to give the film a 5 out of 10. However, after I saw the conclusion, it was enough to bump my rating up to a 6 out of 10. That's not to say that it completely caught me off guard. But, it was done well enough that, even if it was somewhat predictable, it was still pretty satisfying. So, if you're watching Greta, and you feel like it's too familiar...too unoriginal, try and stick with it. Because the end is, in my opinion, the best part of the film.

These monster movies always do better internationally than domestically. In 2014 Godzilla did a little better than breaking even at home. Internationally, it was a box office smash. Kong: Skull Island had similar numbers (but actually made less than the budget in the U.S.). Godzilla: King Of The Monsters also made more internationally, but far less than the previous films. About $150,000,000+ less. So why? What happened with GKOTM? Well, there was one big difference. GKOTM got political. And not just a little political. It was ridiculously political. In fact, the audience is supposed to buy into the idea that our world would actually be a better place if we would just allow these super creatures to kill people. Many, Many people. And it doesn't matter that one of the main characters gets a pass when she commits an unethical act, because it is actually better for the world in the long run. Not only is the plot and the political philosophy absurd, and causes absurd actions by the characters, it also makes for a very boring monster flick. It is the type of thing that happens when makers of a Godzilla movie actually think people have come to see their film so they could be preached to. And it's also the type of film that really only teaches people one very important truth: If you drastically misjudge what fans actually want from filmmakers, then, more than lkely, you'll make a film that disappoints in multiple ways.