bopdog

All episodes have their own character, and something good to recommend them. BUT - this is by far the single best NCIS epi I have ever seen (and I've seen them all to date).

This is heartfelt. It authentically opened my emotions up, and by the end I was in tears. Not tears of sentiment, but of true and honest emotion. Jimmy Palmer (the character) was amazing, as was Gibbs, Bishop, and Ducky (everybody, actually). I LOVE this episode! I wish more of them were of this stellar quality - but with hundreds and hundreds of NCIS episodes that would be asking for the super human.

The first season was superb! The second season was so bad me and my TV viewing pals could only stomach 10 minutes of it. Funnily, the second season had many of the actors I can't stand (except Rachel McAdams, who is great!). I lasted about 30 minutes in that POS.

The third season was again superb - I had planned to stretch the 8 episodes out over a week, but was so drawn in I watched it all in two evenings. I highly recommend seasons 1 and 3. You'll love them!!!

This movie was so bad it was a disgrace. No single character was endearing or likeable. No pairings of characters were in the least "real" (movies are fake, of course, but good ones, even silly ones, FEEL authentic). Not a single plot point made sense, or was in the least bit relatable to the audience (or at not to least me, anyway).

If you read all the reviews here with 9 an 10 scores, you'll notice they all have a suspiciously flat cheerfulness, like the promotional text on a new car brochure, or other advertising copy. Check it out. But please, in the name of the Muses, and Art, and movie lovers everywhere, stay far away from this clunker.

Any honest review would be, likely, misleading. There ARE funny gags here and there and decent moments - but overall the narrative is clunky and coarse. Not much fits together. It's as if this was only the second draft of a project that would ultimately need five or eight drafts to be good.

The secondary characters were haphazard, and many were not at all fitted into the Big Story. Certainly no sense of an ensemble. I will avoid all potential spoilers, so let me just say that several outstanding female actors played characters who just sort of showed up, related to nothing, then moved on. That was perplexing. One Oscar winner's character in this was so obscure I honestly can't place her now. Hahaha!

Enough said without names - but that disjointed, unexplained aspect was rife throughout the movie. I'd say this movie would more accurately be a 4, but I scored upwards because they tried hard. So a "5" score is actually generous.

I actively ignored the quality of the movie, and the texture of the narrative, as one does when watching a "proof of concept draft" or a very early and rough draft. If it was bad in that passage, I just let it be bad, and breeze on by me. I didn't try to analyze it or look too closely. Doing that, half watching and half ignoring it, I was able to stay in the theater to the end. Overall, I kind of enjoyed myself, although will not be bothering with the DVD.

P.S. I like and admire the cast! Just not in this movie.

I'm from the US, with my own cultural pre-sets for entertainment and narratives (can't help it!). This Swedish movie was nonetheless easy for me to identify with and get deeply engrossed by. Yes, it tracked Astrid and the characters in her life a little differently from I'm used to - but that only added to its charm and intrigue. Young star Alba August incredibly portrayed Astrid at various ages - and not as a stunt of fancy make-up, but as a real and vivid character growing and evolving. I can totally see the Astrid in this movie creating Pippi Longstocking my own kids, and the world, loved.

Back to the "other culture" Swedish thing - I found I could not predict each new development at all - but I also resonated with each new phase, and understood and identified with each aspect, some rather poignant, of Astrid's life. Lastly, while some foreign movies can be depressingly heavy and dull, Becoming Astrid was bright, loving, and intensely enjoyable.

I walked into the theater with low expectations, but was blown away. OMG - "Captain Marvel" was AWESOME. I suspect the initial low ratings on IMDb were from "fanboys" and other young people who wanted chases and shoot-em-ups - the kind of mass melees and Battle Royales seen in the Avenger gang fight movies. That's OK - each to his own taste! But this Marvel movie actually dealt with real and important themes that sucked me right in, and kept me riveted until the end.

In my personal cosmology, on some level we are all the same, and time does not exist, except as a shared construct, and perception is projection (i.e., in some way we make it all up). OK - that's me. But to see Marvel wrestle with these ideas, present them in a fascinating and thrilling story-line, AND feature a cat? I thought I'd died and gone to Heaven. Do not be mislead - there is tons of action, too, and brilliant FX and Sci-Fi dazzle.

And... it doesn't hurt that Brie Larson is sturdy, talented, and adorable. And this was Samuel L. Jackson's best role in what? 20 Years? He played a good guy for once... even kind of a hero. That sat VERY well on him. I hope he considers doing more positive movie roles henceforth.

Bottom line: if you've been watching Marvel/DC movies with a child's eye, consider if it is time to step up to a grown-up version. You stand a chance of advancing your movie-art appreciation with this. Possibly. And if not, let enough time pass until you're ready for the adult world. Please consider that this might be a great movie to begin life like the grown-ups do it. You'll have a blast!

I remember this event from my childhood. It was the excellent trailer that took me to the opening day today. It is a REALLY outstanding movie. It is so good that when I think back on it, my mind goes ahead and wishfully inserts supreme actor Liev Schreiber into the cast (he wasn't in it, however - D'oh!). It's that kind of good.

The movie is dramatic and intense, the suspense approaches "unbearable" (but not quite). One striking feature is there are no histrionics. No manly men bang tables and shout heroic things. That type of hitting the audience over the head with Drama with a capital "D" is unrealistic anyway - and very corny. Here everyone acts like real people. Life happens in speaking voices. And yet, without the melodrama the tension the suspense keeps getting wound tighter and tighter - just from the natural circumstances of the commandos' mission. That's how the movie could feel so natural, and how we could get into it so deeply and effortlessly.

The plot is unexpected, and even a bit outlandish. It is a true story, though, so one gets the sense of deeper meaning, rather than just some dumb action movie, where the director jacks up the suspense and thrills just to please 14-year-old boys. In fact, there isn't much traditional war movie or thriller style movie action - but it is fast-paced.

I saw Mile 22 last week, and liked it, but that was mere button-pushing and manipulated adrenaline. That has its place. This movie, on the other hand, managed to twist me up into knots of anxiety, even though I KNEW THE ENDING; the outcome is historical fact. Didn't matter - I was on the edge of my seat the entire time.

When it was over I felt as if I had a deeper understanding of something fundamental about humans. I had a meaningful experience of humanity. I was thoroughly "entertained" - actually, more like riveted.

I liked this, despite low expectations. A trusted friend with good taste said it was great thriller action, if one likes that sort of thing. I do, sometimes.

This movie makes no demands on your intellect - but a movie, even a crazy, loopy one, must have at least an internal logic. This one did - even though much of the time I had no idea exactly what was happening. By the end I certainly had no clear idea of what had happened to whom, etc. But the action and stunts have a high degree of artistry, and I could appreciate that.

This is no Jason Bourne movie. In fact, it's not even in the planet as Bourne. Haha - But as a work of art, it works, somehow. As a proper narrative? Ehhh - not so much. But I had a ton of fun anyway, and you might too.

I had a good time. Denzel is a god, of course, so he's always watchable. I must present a quibble, however: the movie makes little sense. Haha! I took it in as a series of random scenes that were not really tied together or explained.

I did not know what the Denzel character did, or for whom, or why. About 3/4 of the way through I also realized that I had no idea who the villains were, or who they worked for, or why.

Despite that I enjoyed myself, and guess that you will too. It IS very well made, if not particularly careful with the narrative flow.

This movie is awful. There are no English subtitles, and for those of us who are a little hard of hearing that's a real problem. The dialogue recording is so murky and uneven, I had to rewind a re-listen 3 or 4 times in some passage just to get the sense of what they were saying - and that with my SONY sound bar system on "max."

The movie is not worth doing a point-by-point check list of all its faults, so let me simply by saying everything is either incomplete, poorly done, or missing from this film.

I glanced at the User Ratings here on IMDb, and as a trained statistician I immediately saw evidence of what looked like a studio in-house buzz campaign. Ballot-box stuffing with fake votes. Today it had 3,800 "10 star" votes. Hahahaha! Impossible! All the other roughly 3,900 votes are 1,2,3, etc. The block of 3,800 10-star votes are also all US voters, where the studio and the marketing/PR firms are located. Clearly a click-farm for hire.

The ranking among non-US voters is 4-stars, which is more realistic number (although even that is a bit high; those 4-star and 3-star votes could have been as high as that because they were "mercy" votes from people who just felt so embarrassed for Nicolas Cage, and didn't have the heart to give the once-great actor yet another zero grade.

Dwayne "The Rock"Johnson keeps getting better and better. This movie could have been camp - with the actors and hipster director/production team incessantly winking at the camera. Not so! Yes, it is a silly plot, and totally unbelievable - yet we are not asked to believe it - we are asked to trust Dwayne and the rest to take us to a place of genuine entertainment. And it WAS genuinely entertaining.

That is enough to ask of any movie. We were NOT talked-down-to, or otherwise patronized with, as I said above, hipster conceit. To paraphrase the great Greta Gerwig - none of this could have happened, of course, but it is all "true."

Go see it with an open mind and a desire for loopy, goofy, exciting fun. You will not be disappointed.

Here's a nutshell version why "Baby Driver" failed: Director Edgar Wright did some great 'homemade-style' British indie flicks: "Hot Fuzz," "Shaun of the Dead," "World's End." With Simon Pegg and Nick Frost (and many other great British actors, like Bill Nighy, etc.), the small indie UK movies could be small, because the talent was so huge. They could be a bit 'loose', even sloppy. It was OK with those previous hits, because the wonderful cast filled up the screen for the audience, and kept them entranced. "Baby Driver" was simply too big for Wright's casual, loopy style, however. What might seem charming in a casual context can now seem woefully under-developed. The movie came off more as unfocused and an annoying, disjointed ramble (albeit a frenetic one), than creative and edgy.

Lots of hype with "Baby Driver," but sadly, it is misplaced. The vaunted soundtrack is meh - 'OK' but not memorable. The music sounded geriatric, as if it was being played on a desk-top stereo by someone's Nan, at her Rest Home on an afternoon when she was feeling frisky. The actors are superb! But the overall theme and direction has mislead them into a no-win confused mess.

Yes, there is LOTS of action. LOTS of violence. LOTS of the 'no talk, just shoot' heroics that so often can be energizing and refreshing in a macho action movie. But here it just comes off as cruel, even creepy. In fact, after this movie was over I was stuck with the nagging feeling that this was little more than a flabby rip-off of Quentin Tarantino's style. While Edgar Wright is undoubtedly a lovely man in person, and possesses many other talents, as a director, he is no Tarantino (after all, Tarantino is just barely Tarantino).

One trembles a bit when one considers what last year's amazing "Antman" would have been like had Wright, and his uneven lounge-party style, not been replaced!

My background vis-a-vis this mini-series: I read both books, each when they were new, and liked them. I watched "The Pillars of the Earth" on Blu-ray, and liked it. It was not as good as the books, but enjoyable given that it was, in the end, a TV show.

World Without End is just plain awful. I thought about how to capture its horribleness, and decided I could not do it justice. Instead, I will only say I give you my solemn word that this is bad. Save your money and your time, and avoid!!!

First - Frederikke Dahl Hansen was wondrous. Sort of a Danish young Jennifer Lawrence. Magical - great career ahead of her!

Gethin Anthony's character was rude, selfish, and very much like a spoiled two year-old throwing his darkest tantrum. My first reaction was - Dude, how could you do such a cliché of Americans?

As his acting-out continued I was nagged by a strange sensation - his whole shtick rang false. It was too frenetic, too strained and hyper. Then I looked him up on IMDb and saw that he is not American at all, but in fact English. His character's pal is an English actor too. And the so-called writer/director, Raso, is also not American - he's Canadian.

I find these young hipster prima donnas' appropriation of my culture and ethnicity offensive. If they want to be self-obsessed, snotty little narcissists, that's their choice. But they have no right - either artistically or ethically, to be dicks in MY name, as it were. How dare they pretend to be of another culture, only to sabotage and besmirch that culture from their disguise? That's dishonest to say the least. If they have a beef with Americans they should man-up and come right out and say it. Be known for who you are, dudes! They should use their own damn identity to defame the human condition, to befoul our waters. They should not hide by doing it by masquerading their intent and their "bona fides." Actors pretend, yes, but we also expect an authenticity of the artist. These clowns had none.

This movie had so many exciting premises that promised a great indie gem. Instead, it misfired on most of them, and the result is rather a mess. Its worst sin, however, was not dropping the ball (that is to be forgiven in a first-time indie director), but rather in the clumsy ugliness of the male characters. More than merely having no redeeming qualities, the males here also gave me the creeps, and left me with a psychic sludge that was a bit painful.

THAT was just bad manners on director Mark Raso's part.

I am a fan of WWII history - factual and flights of fancy. And I am an ardent animal lover. And I have found Jessica Chastain a satisfactory, often great! - cast member in movies in the past.

So what could go wrong? It's hard to pinpoint, and painful to have to say it, but this movie felt "icky" to watch. I felt as if my psyche had been violated in some way, even "poisoned," if that's not too strong of an analogy. Granted, I didn't "enjoy" Schindler's List, either! But at least it, and other holocaust-ish movies, felt as if they were presenting something useful. Maybe not healing, per se, but some quality of the human narrative that moved us in some way. They felt honest. This one just upset me, and creeped me out, without offering any of what I could call a redemptive quality.

If I may be permitted to say, "The Zookeeper's Wife" felt like a prime example of the cinematic criticism of "gratuitous." Gratuitous violence does not equal reality (yes, I know, horrifying violence was WWII's theme). And gratuitous depression and grim horrors do not equal pathos. At least for me.

I have no doubt that all the producers, the director, the actors, all are wonderful people in real life. I have no doubt they worked really, really hard on this. And while you may love it (some IMDb voters seem to have), know that at least one prime candidate for an appreciative audience member (me) found it awful, hurtful, and unclean.

I'm a fan if Sarah Silverman. I do see her boldness, and spirit of "going for it" in this performance. However, I am disappointed to say that the movie doesn't go anywhere, or do anything. There isn't really a "story" in the sense of a narrative, with a beginning, middle, and end - even an artsy, unconventional, or avant-garde beginning, middle, and end.

This movie just lays there, static. It's really just a tiny snapshot of a sad and profoundly dysfunctional life, albeit an impactful and striking snapshot. While the dysfunction was portrayed accurately and with some skill, we need more.

It's like showing us a photo of a close-up of some water, and saying "Behold - the mighty Mississippi!" One would need to show more to convey riverness. Or, to expand the corny analogy theme further (sorry), it's like a one-note waltz. That might be a GREAT note! But to be a waltz, you need three notes.

Ben Affleck keeps showing us he is an artist of the highest caliber - after a sad descent into schlock and paparazzi-chasing mediocrity 15 years ago. He has demonstrated he is a true equal to his childhood friend, superstar Matt Damon. That is such good news, and a welcome happy ending! Well done, Mr. Affleck.

"The Accountant" avoids clichés, yet treads ancient pathways of human narrative that we all know, and we all resonate with on a deep, natural level. Maker sense? It is a solid story, and a satisfying on. It also feels authentic - nothing seems to be just for effect. It had style, but was not "stylish." The style was organic, naturally wrought from the artistry of the entire movie.

I found myself pleasantly surprised by the turns the story takes. I was cheering for the "good guy" (such as he is). I hasten to add there were no cheap shots, though. And it certainly wasn't any kin d of cartoon, or fantasy "hero" movie. There were no cheapo shots, as far as I could tell.

And, after all that thoughtful stuff - it was one damn entertaining movie. I had a blast - I loved it!

As an amateur history buff, professor, and movie fan, I am more than willing to sit through "talky" movies. Historically accurate movies. Long, slow, reflective movies. But I have a problem with bad movies.

This one was more like "the high school play," with the entire cast, mostly male, displaying annoying juvenile chest-pounding, shouting, and petulant disobedience.

The few women in the cast lent little as well. Actually, now that I think about it I cannot think of a reason why any of the women were in any of the scenes. Maybe I'm exaggerating, but I sincerely ask, what were the women characters even supposed to be DOING? And the bizarre accents made it hard for me to understand 80% of the dialogue. I understand the whole discussion about accents, and the perspectives of the audience, etc. But dang, because they were evidently speaking English a lot of the time, I felt they should have spoken clearly enough, fake or not, to be understood.

I could have done with less of the random-seeming alpha male b.s. The "chest pounding" I referenced above.

All in all, I found myself very ANNOYED by this production. Historically - the operation was kind of pointless. Cinematically, the artistic vision and rendering here was equally pointless (IMHO).

Unexpected pleasure. Jennifer Lawrence drew me in; then the depth and "truth" of the story got me to enjoy it all. I read some negative notices saying it was "boring." I can see why a nervous person might say that - this movie is about that deep place inside us where we make our life choices. That may not be a thrill like a car chase or a shoot-out, but it was immensely more engaging.

I don't care if this is a faithful biopic or not. It might be - but it doesn't matter. The script and narrative were about the heart - make that Heart. Life often sucks; sometimes disappointment could easily be life's middle name. This story was about a woman who slogged through the pile of doodoo life dealt her, found the family and love and joy (and all that good stuff) that is at the core of us all, made the tough, life affirming choices and persevered until strength and happiness (and grace) were her real, genuine experience.

Robert Di Niro's character was a bit of a bully - passive-aggressively, AND aggressively. I like cheerier stories, and would have chosen to eliminate that character, or at least his prominence in the story. Same with her mother, and Peg, the half sister. But to the character Joy's credit, she tolerated them all, without undue fuss and without rancor. My first impulse would not have been to do that - and I found Joy's forgiveness and grace inspiring.

Overall, excellent movie. I am surprised the poo-pooers had the gall to post their whiny little cries of "boring!" and "what's the POINT?" online, for the whole world to see how shallow and dull they are. Oh well, takes all kinds, I guess.

Lastly - I think it must be time for director David O. Russell's recent cinematic shtick to be over. That is, the Di Niro, Lawrence, Cooper trio thing is on the edge of becoming tiresome. All are so talented - but they need to move on to higher and brighter pastures, with different people. IMHO

I sincerely think my dismal rating of this movie is more than just a mismatch in taste. The trailer looked good, actually. Kind of a whimsical "out there" dark comedy. Turns out the trailer was pretty much the whole movie - at least the good parts of the movie. I was up for it! I was let down, though.

There was nothing funny - as far as I could tell (again, I'm being sincere), no jokes were even attempted. Seriously - those who have called it funny or a laugh riot leave me rather perplexed. I can only respond, assuming non-studio employees actually said that, with "Really?" The look of the movie was dim - and the settings were shabby to the point of being totally depressing.

After the movie, on the drive home, I had the sense the creators of this film were probably shooting for a "Bourne Identity" thing. And that's OK! Lofty ambitions that turn out to be WAY out of reach are fine - laudable, in fact. We all need to dream, after all. You have to admire gumption. But there was nothing "Bourne-ish" about this save for a clumsy and thin attempt at some plot lines.

I certainly wish the cast and crew better luck with their future projects. This, however, was awful, as my one star in the IMDb rating bar says. Not a swing and a miss, so to speak, but rather not even in the ballpark.

I read John Green's book, Paper Towns, and liked it. It wasn't my favorite of his books - but it was a very good read (his The Fault in Our Stars is a magnificent, stellar book, a very good movie, and my fave). I was ready to enjoy Paper Towns the movie, and did.

No one wants a movie version of a book to be a rigid scene-by-scene depiction of a book text, like some sort of visual aid from high school. Yet I did notice the movie was juvenile in a few spots, and the book never was.

Green's writing makes his books' subject matter appealing to anyone of any age. Yes, kids and their parents do seem to be his focus, and they feature prominently in his work. But the books are by no means "kid books." I am also puzzled by the common publisher's description of his books as "young adult." Just saying - nothing kid-like about them; they are real-life, meaty, and wonderful human stories.

Was this flick really good or really lame? I couldn't tell! Something nagged at me, so I watched it again two days after it opened. Now it's crystal clear: The great parts of the movie are those featuring the Margo character, played by English girl Cara Delevinge, and Q, the main male character, played by LA boy Nat Wolff. A less important character, Lacey, played by LA girl Halston Sage, was also very good, possessing the grace and gravitas one enjoys in a first-rate movie.

Despite liking this movie, I must confess to being impatient at times (especially during the road trip), because the childish petulance, thick-headedness, and whiny aspects were a bit too strong. The clunky script or directing (?) in those patches got a bit tedious. As if not just written ABOUT kids, but rather written TO kids.

The movie was probably a 6 or 7, to be strict, but the good parts were exceptional, so I gave this an 8.

I liked part of it, and was disappointed with another aspect of it. I liked the dogs, the "name" actors, and the overall, one-paragraph story. I had trouble with the script, the execution of the story, and some of the minor character actors.

I was also nervous about seeing a corny, ultra-patriotic political war message. That was surprisingly absent. Handled with subtlety, it was in very good taste. I was also nervous about the prospect of an overly sentimental dog story, one that might even be maudlin. tear-jerker (Sad is OK, but intentionally "pushing buttons" over and over just to create melodrama is tiresome). Needn't have worried - it was handled with a deft touch - subtle, yet moving. Good job with that.

The problem I had was the script, and thus the movement of the plot. It felt like some pieces were missing, somehow. Not fluid, not smooth. It was clunky and a bit clumsy - like a hastily made afternoon TV movie.

The girl, Carmen, was actually the best all-round kid here. Good actor - I totally bought her emotions, her dog training skills, and her overall motivations. The curl-haired guy, Chuy, was so annoying as a character - I couldn't tell if I was disliking the kid or the character. I suspect it was the character (so maybe that was good acting? Dunno).

I am a university teacher, and in my line of work this story would be great, but again, the script itself came off as a rough draft. A few more rewrites and 6 months of polishing would have made a big difference.

All in all - not bad. Probably family friendly, from 8 years old and up.

Didn't read the books. I did read The Hunger Games, and enjoyed books and movies. This one had its great moments, but overall fell a little flat for me - but I think that's an age issue. A generational problem. Not that I am too old to appreciate rebellion and questioning authority, but rather because I've seen all the "Maze" tropes a hundred times before.

Recycling old tropes isn't a bad thing, nor am I implying it's some kind of art crime! Rather, I am just noting that anyone over 35 may find it a bit old hat and even tired by now??? I'd have to add books to the list of "The Maze" forerunners - Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World," Michael Creighton books, and others I can't recall now. And all the "Mad Max" movies - "Logan's Run," "Lathe of Heaven," and of course "Lord of the Flies." Even 1990's fare such as "Water World" and "The Postman" echo a bit here. And other movies I can't remember. Add the iconoclastic vibe, taking down The Man and The Establishment, and unethical experimentation and manipulation by The-Powers-That-Be, and you might already be wearied of "The Maze" before you even get to the cinema.

In some ways "The Maze" has a trick ending, and relies too much of corny plot twists - "Surprise!" wears thin. I could imagine that once someone knew the trick ending, the movie would be unwatchable. It would be way too silly, way too tedious and dull. Virtually unendurable to sit through. That's never a good sign for a movie.

Katniss - she still holds interest, together with the whole Panem bunch for me!!! So I am not "anti" anything. I just want a newer, fresher approach is all. If you're young - and this is your first exposure to these themes - go see "The Maze" and go nuts and enjoy yourself! If you're a grown-up - don't expect anything new or fresh, or startling. It just isn't there.

This was certainly a "lovely" film. It is obvious that the writer/director cared about presenting something genuine and touching - rather than some plot driven smash-a-thon. I could relate to the themes. They were telegraphed so clearly, however, there were no real surprises. We could see each line and exchange and development coming from a mile away - and the movie took forever to get to each tiny step (it's 2 hours and 15 minutes).

It pains me a bit to say it, but the movie's glacial pace and repetitive nature slowed it down a bit too much. And how it would linger over each small movement in the two kids' relationship, and then go back over it and over it and over it - made it feel repetitive. I suspect women might find this more of a match to their style of fantasizing? If the movie wasn't so earnest, and "real" in some very authentic ways, I would have found it annoyingly tedious. Didn't quite happen, though. I was surprised to find myself flashing back to some very sweet moments from my own teen-aged love affairs. It was sweetly evocative in that way, which I appreciated. I can't remember seeing a movie depicting the development of love with "youths" turning into adults so authentically and with so much meaning for me. Usually romances are either rom-coms, or formula set-ups, or twinky vampire book treatments. Or set pieces from current hip culture. This was none of those. This was nice. Sloooow, but nice.

Although the very predictable (and extremely limited and overly simple) plot points failed to "move" me particularly - it was interesting but no big drama - I was generally liking all the characters. I was glad for the characters finding romance, and I enjoyed reliving a bit of my romantic development in a fresh way no other movie had managed to do. But getting all weeping with the deaths and near-deaths and reuniting and all - nope. It was just life, and no cause for any tear-jerking hullabaloo.

It is uncomfortable to say, because I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, but this is a really awful movie. First, the trailers were very misleading. This flick is a limp 4th or 5th generation duplicate of "Twister" (1996; and an exciting and excellent weather adventure, with future Oscar winners Helen Hunt and Phillip Seymour Hoffman, as well as Cary Elwes and Alan Ruck, for example, and Bill Paxton recently Sargent Farrell from "Edge of Tomorrow" - all showing up with excellent actor skills, loads of charisma and talent). "Into the Storm" was NOTHING even remotely close to a finished, professional movie, let alone "Twister." Second: The "acting" was so bad it would look bad even if it was on a YouTube skit. I won't go into line-by-line analysis, and instead will just say it is wooden, emotionless, and so unconvincing I had to remind myself they were actors in the same movie - ANY movie.

The only way the acting could have been more dead and flat is if the actors held their Xeroxed copies of their scripts and read the lines verbatim.

Saying such things about a movie that maybe many people worked very hard to create and produce is not a good feeling. I promise, I am not trying to be mean-spirited, but you need to know what you are in for BEFORE you hire a baby sitter, make evening plans, and plunk down $40 for parking, a couple of tickets, and popcorn and drinks.

The actors are probably genuinely great and wonderful humans in whatever careers they have chosen... but please, please, PLEASE make that not acting.

BTW- The special effects were very good - maybe spectacular. The model building and FX shots were actually top-notch. Too bad the script was so lame, it could not make all that good looking disaster seem interesting.