starwolf

So, yeah - it's a super hero movie. It doesn't suck the way a lot of people are crowing about, but it's not a masterpiece either the way a lot of other people are shouting.

The good: I thought Margot Robbie's acting, without mentioning her accent, was pretty much spot on for what I would have expected from Harley Quinn. (I came close to naming my Harley Sportster "Harley Quinn" but then this movie started being advertised, so I named her "Binky.") The plot made sense, even if it was a bit of a stretch here and there. Other people have complained about it, but I liked the music. I thought "Spirit in the Sky" was misplaced when it started, but whatever. Viola Davis plays a bad guy pretty well. I thought the actor who played Griggs (Ike Barinholtz) did a great job making us care about him and what happened. Jay Hernandez did a good jobs as Diablo. Most of the SFX didn't suck.

The bad: Well, Margot Robbie's here and then gone again accent. (I could give her a slight break because I know how hard it is to carry an accent throughout a performance. But, OTOH, this wasn't a live show, she could have had an accent coach, and she got paid a lot more than I ever have, so no - no slight break.) For me the show screeched to a halt every time Leto's joker appeared on the screen. Man, I hated that characterization. It simply didn't work for me, even a little bit. Ditto Cara Delevingne - my Lord she is a terrible actress. And IMHO her body might look nice but her face certainly isn't all that. So, with the lack of a trace of acting ability coupled with not being gorgeous - she must be sleeping with someone to be getting these acting gigs. I simply couldn't buy her enchantress except when she was hidden under heavy makeup and CGI. Why the heck was Captain Boomerang in this story? He didn't add anything plot wise. At least Slipknot was there to show us the effectiveness of the "persuasive device" used to make the Suicide Squad go along.

The ho hum: So yeah, once again Will Smith played Will Smith. If you like his "Oh hell no!" plus his "now I'm going to speak slower in a lower register so you can tell I'm a serious and tortured soul" then you will like his 1,000th (a made-up number to emphasize my point) rendering of this character.

All in all, not a failed movie and not a master piece.

Not great but entertaining for an afternoon.

Seriously, when one of the best performances is turned in by Margot Robbie what can you say about a movie? Christoph Waltz is playing the same bad guy he's played in four or five other movies. Skarsguard plays the strong silent type well but there's not a lot of fire there. Samuel L Jackson just seems like a late arrival to the whole thing. His part seemed more of an appendage to the story than an Intercal part of it.

The color palette was horrible with muted blues and blacks and browns all through the movie. To me the story was reasonably disjointed and repetitive. Jane is captured, Jane escapes, Jane is captured again, Jane escapes, etc.

Frankly I thought the earlier Johnny Weissmuller movies had better action in them, but this was a pleasant enough movie to see with my family on a Sunday afternoon.

This movie is, quite simply, bad.

I was aware of Ralph Bakshi's "Wizards" and I found most of it appealing although I was not a fan of the rotoscoping. But the actual artwork I liked a lot.

Then I was at the 1977 Houston Comicbook Convention and Art Festival and some woman from United Artists hosted a talk where she showed artwork and stills from the upcoming movie.

I was pretty excited. I loved The Lord of the Rings, and had a habit back then of rereading it every year starting in April.

The movie showed up and it was terrible. Yes it took ridiculous liberties with the story but the biggest issue in my mind was the endless rotoscoping. Sometimes you would see the same scene over and over, rotoscoped into different shades of color.

I get it - rotoscoping is cheap compared to actual full animation, especially when you are just using clips from other movies and shows. And sadly that is what it made this movie look - cheap.

I still remember when the movie ended some guy a couple of rows up from me said, "What the hell was that?" And I heard several variations on the theme, "That was it?"

In short, not enough artwork and too much reliance on cheap rotoscoping, too much reworking of a story too well known (if you think you can write a better story, write it! Don't steal someone else's), and just an abrupt end to the movie.

People can say now it was great but it was not well received as evidenced by the fact that Bakshi studios never made the second part.

First things first, I love this movie! It delivered everything that I expected it to give me, and did it very well.

Yes, I am a Star Wars fan. But I am not a blind fan and I can recognize some of the issues that the prequel movies had, or even The Return of the Jedi had. This movie gave me the same feeling I had back in 1977 when I was watching the original Star Wars for the first time. It was a lot of fun, had a simple story that made sense, and had characters who are likable and relatable. In addition there were the usual Star Wars aliens, vehicles, and settings in the movie.

I have heard people complain that this movie was too much like the very first movie. In my mind, they were paying homage to the very first movie and using what worked in previous Star Wars ourings to make a new Star Wars. The movie had a few twists and turns as we find out who some of the main characters are and how they're related, it brought back old familiar faces which is always a fun time, and it left us with the mystery about who some of the new players are.

I saw some other guy on here reviewing the movie complaining that there was no character development. First of all, we know who the characters are coming out of the gate. How are you going to develop Han Solo any further? Although I do think the movie managed to add some depth to the relationship between himself and General Leia Organa. It added depth to the main bad guy's character, and gave us a fairly complicated character in the storm trooper.

All in all, I think the people trashing the movie or simply those who want to be hipsters and want to show that their tastes are above the plebian by trashing a popular movie. I don't care, I thought the movie was a blast.

It's not Citizen Kane, but let's face it - unless you're really into making movies yourself Citizen Kane is boring. This movie is not.

As I said, as I sat there and watched it I had the same feelings that I had watching the original Star Wars movie. I highly recommend this movie to anyone who wants to go to the movies and have a good time and see you a worthy addition to the Star Wars pantheon.

For those complaining it was dull - I think the issue might be it successfully tried to invoke the feeling and optics of the original series. I have run across several people who think TV shows like I Spy, The Avengers, and The Man From UNCLE were/are dull because of the 60s style.

Having grown up with those shows, lying in bed at night and listening to my parents TV as they watched them, I love those shows. It's true they emphasized style and characters over action and many modern viewers don't care for that. But for shows like, for example, I Spy, the bantering and relationship between the leads was more important than whatever situation they found themselves in.

In the original The Man From UNCLE the relationship between the two wasn't as important as I Spy - they did rely more on episodic action and drama. But there still wasn't a lot of action.

I think this movie succeeded admirably in re-establishing the style of the original and, against my expectations, I enjoyed Armie Hammer's Illya Kuryakin and Cavill's ultra-smooth and suave Napoleon Solo.

All in all, I think this was a much more successful remake of a 60s series than, say, the dreadful 1998 The Avengers with Fiennes and Thurman.

This movie is beautifully shot, the dialog works for the most part, the two leads carry their parts well - almost, but never quite, sinking into parody.

The object of the mission, to stop a rogue group from getting a process that would allow them to easily enrich and weaponize fissionable material, really is secondary to the establishment of the male and female leads and building their relationships.

If you liked the original series, I don't think this is going to disappoint. If you didn't grow up on shows from the 60s, it very well might not - but not because it's a bad show.

On the whole, I liked it much better than I thought I would.

I wanted to like this show. I saw the trailer/teaser for it and I was intrigued.

Sadly, the real show doesn't stand up to the excitement generated in the trailer.

The good thing - the show is technically well made. The photography for the most part is well done, the sound is good, etc. The women are beautiful to look. They are trying to create lots of mystery to draw the viewer in for the long haul.

The bad - the story is just stupid. The premise and the way the characters interact to keep her on the run even though they know she is innocent is silly. The acting is so-so to pretty poor. It's hard to really believe any of these people are FBI trainees. And the actual classes at Quantico are unbelievable - in a bad way.

I have lasted 2 and half episodes and I am done. I have given up.

I don't think it's worth the time to watch the entire season to solve the "mysteries" they generated,

Okay, the positives - a couple of cute women. We have Jaimie Alexander who, while not a raving beauty, does have lovely eyes. And we have Audrey Esparza who, in my opinion, is a raving beauty.

We had a competent actor in Marianne Jean-Baptiste, although it looks like she is in only one episode.

The bad... Some of the acting is really not great. The two leads, to start with, are pretty ham-fisted with their acting.

The script was stupid. They went to great lengths to show why Jane Doe had to go into the field, and it all just seemed too much of a stretch. And seriously, the FBI in New York City doesn't have almost instant access to interpreters of almost anything?

There is a terrorist threat to "hundreds of people" and an iconic site like Liberty Island and the FBI responds with... 3 agents and a civilian? In an SUV? Having to take a boat ride? They don't drop a couple of hundred fully armed agent from helicopters? In New York City?

And hopefully they will get around to explaining it, but the premise just seems stupid.

Anyway, my 15 year old daughter lost interest. My wife, a very competent actor herself, complained in several places about the acting but even with all the eye-rolling about the illogic of the pilot said she would like to see one more before writing the show off.

I like Jonathan Rhys Meyers. I was looking forward to seeing this series, but it has pretty much lost me.

Maybe I don't get it, but I have watched the first two episodes and it just seems vapid. Nothing I care about happens, I can't get invested in any of the characters, the Mina and Johnathan Harker characters are boring, Dracula himself has been virtually defanged...

Even the sex scenes are fairly boring.

Oh, and then there's the overwrought and out of place story line where the oil companies are bad guys - in Victorian England? Really? If that isn't trying to pander to a select class of viewers I am not sure what is.

In any case, I am pretty sure I am done. If it goes another season I will be surprised, or even perhaps mildly astonished. And if it does I might give it another look but for now I am not wasting my time any longer.

I finally saw The Lone Ranger. I saw it on a airline flight - so not the best venue, I agree. On the other hand, there's nothing like a captive audience.

It's not a bad movie at all. It's enjoyable to watch, and then quite forgettable afterward.

My issue with the movie is that it plays like Pirates of the Caribbean in the Old West. It's by the same people, so perhaps you would expect the humor and the over the top stunts to be the same, and if so you'd be right.

Well, when I say the same, I don't mean there is sword fighting on top of a giant wheel. But the big stunts could have been lifted from POTC, and the humor is played exactly the same. That in and of itself isn't bad, but it lends a "been there, seen that" feeling to the movie.

Depp's Tonto isn't exactly Captain Jack Sparrow, but I don't think you can argue that it's completely unlike him either. Depp is a good actor - I just think he lets his love of dress up and heavy makeup do his acting for him, sometimes. That's the same issue I had with his Barnabus Collins in Dark Shadows.

As a baseline, I loved the first POTC, the second one was "okay," I really didn't like the third one and never saw the fourth one. Also, I am a huge Lone Ranger fan - I am from the generation where the Lone Ranger was Clayton Moore and Tonto was Jay Silverheels. I got to meet Jay Silverheels one time as a very young lad, and it was a highlight of my single-digit years.

Having said that, I am willing to give someone else a chance behind the mask, and Armie isn't bad at all - although I don't entirely care for the wimpy characterization they started him off with. I know, I know, they did it to throw his heroic conversion into contrast.

I think the best explanation of the movie is one proposed by another poster - it's a story told years later to a little kid by Tonto, exaggerated to make Tonto's role in the whole thing bigger and over the top. I was surprisingly okay with that.

On the whole, not the best movie I have seen in a while, but better than almost any Michael Bay movie and worth seeing once.

I have always liked James Spader and try to see things he is in. He plays a suave evil character really well.

That said, this show just isn't great. Mind you, it's not bad. But it's just nothing you haven't seen before. You have the evil criminal mastermind who knows way more than he possibly could and is seemingly godlike in his knowledge, and the young ingénue who is the only one he will talk to.

Does it feel like Silence of the Lambs? Yep. Does it seem like a bunch of other titles? Yep.

Beside the fact that I like Spader, I thought the most interesting person was the FBI agent, Donald Ressler.

Anyway, it's worth watching if there isn't anything better on and you don't have a good book to read. I'll watch another one, but if they stay like this I doubt I will make an effort to finish off the season.

I didn't know anything about this movie. My wife and daughter were out shopping Saturday, and they called me at 7 to say, "Hey, can you be at the theater by 7:30? We're going to see a movie and want you to come join us." So, I put the dogs away, washed the paint off my arms, and drove like hell - to the wrong theater! But I did get to the other one while the coming attractions were still playing.

As I said, I didn't know anything about this movie, and I would not have picked it to go to. But as the movie started, I found myself quite enjoying it! The story, which obviously juvenile, was paced well and the mystery of who (and what) Clary is was well done.

And, let me just say this - Lily Collins was radiant in this movie. And Lena Headey, as always, is a joy to watch in any movie although they don't give her much to do in this.

So, the first act of the movie, as Clary is figure out who and what she is was well done. The second act, was beginning to become more of a CGI fest, but it was still well done. The huge fight scene when they were in the dining hall of the Hotel was done well. I was actually feeling a little tense for the good guys and wondering how they were going to get out of it.

The last act - the huge battle and the appearance of the villain is where the movie really started to drag. It went on too long, it didn't really make a lot of sense at times, and the whole "is he or isn't he" thing just didn't come well.

I actually checked my watch during the battle - always a sure sign that the movie is losing my attention.

But, based on the first two acts and disarmingly way young Ms. Collins carried this film well on her shoulders, I still think it's worth a 7 and should be a fairly solid bit of entertainment for anyone not feeling jaded by the whole Twilight thingy.

Just imagine if Lily Collins had been the star of the Twilight series - I might have watched more than 2 of them!

I was really looking forward to seeing this movie after reading the book. Sadly, instead of any story approximating the book, I got a mess of not-so-special effects with a way over the top story.

During the sequence with the burning trestle bridge (I don't want to be any more specific because I don't like posting spoilers) I actually turned to my wife and said, "This is stupid." She agreed.

My 11 year old daughter liked the movie so maybe grownups weren't the target audience for this mess.

If you liked the book, keep away. If you want any kind of thought or story internally consistent story, keep away. If you want mindless depictions of the 16th president acting like a super hero, leaping tall buildings in a single bound, felling giant trees with a single stroke, performing moves that would make Jet Li proud, this is your movie.

I found watching this movie painful. Not painful in a good way, or painful in a way that brought to mind my own experiences as a father of a family where we had a drug addict. I mean painful in the way of watching paint dry, and not a particularly interesting color of paint.

This movie is like watching the home movies of a group of people that I really. really don't care too much about. It is overlong, overwrought, and dull! Anne Hathaway would shine through a documentary on colonoscopies, so she is definitely not the problem. In fact, I don't know that any one person is the problem, other than a couple of the singers who reminded me of fingernails on a chalkboard.

No, it was the pacing of the movie itself, and the long, long, overlong scenes full of, well, nothing much. The rehearsal dinner, for example. Oh my Lord, how long did that last - 5 hours? And, I have to admit, I am not a fan of hand-held, shaky cam movies. I know to some people they carry a certain cachet of verisimilitude, but to me they convey the message that the producer was too cheap to spring for a steadicam.

All in all, I really did not like this movie, even a little bit.

It was a very good movie, with a wonderful mood and fairly strong story, although it wasn't telling the story you thought it was. The characters were very strongly drawn, I thought, and the pacing was terrific.

Nothing blew up, no CGi effects, and it's not based on a comic book, but I liked it anyway. And the two women leads were well worth watching, and Edward Burns is worth watching anytime. The musical score was well chosen to pace the movie.

I recommend it for a contemplative mood, when you're in the mood to "curl up with a good movie."

Talk about absurdist humor all you like, this movie is a misfire from the start. It's clear the writers and actors thought it would be funny from the total oddball point of view, but it stinks on ice. Neither I nor my two sons thought it was worth a lot.

This is the very first time I have seen someone take a video game and do a good job of turning it into a movie. Excellently done. The critics I see carping about the lack of originality just don't get it. I saw one of them say something about zombies not as good as "Night of the Living Dead" and a train not as big as "Ghosts of Mars." Doesn't he get it? The zombies were pretty much exactly as they were the game -shambling, shuffling along until they are close enough to attack, and then diving in for that bite! The train, of course, was lifted pretty much exactly from the game. They weren't trying for a "Ghosts of Mars" type thing.

Milla was amazing. I read another review that claimed "Tomb Raider" would be considered a better movie because it had a higher babe factor. Well yes, Angelina Jolie is a babe, but guess what, so is Milla. And the story line was a heck of a lot better than "Tomb Raider." It had a point, was internally consistent, and a great setup for the start of the game.

In case you're unsure of my point, I heartily approve. Great job with the movie.