kgprophet

I have seen this series of monster movies on the big screen, I enjoy the spectacle of larger than life movies. I used to automatically go to a big special effects movie. All I needed to hear was the budget was 100+ million. However, having been inundated with many many Marvel movies, all loaded with special effects, I've become a little burned out. Also, I have grown leery of movies with numbers at the end, because it has been obvious studios want to cash in on the name instead having an interesting story to tell.

A trailer for the upcoming Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes played right before this film. It shows different tribes of apes engaging in battle. Having no idea what the plot of GXKTNE was, I had no choice but to notice the similarity of this film to the upcoming Planet of the Apes. Kong is living in this hollow earth world, he discovers other big apes that live there, separated into tribes. There is fighting galore. I'll have to admit as much as I like the Planet of the Apes franchise, I prefer other types of science fiction. I enjoyed the Planet of the Apes reboot, but I only can handle so much of the ape world.

So here is what is supposed to be Godzilla and Kong, with Godzilla even coming before Kong in the title. Yet Godzilla only has a cameo in this outing. So little as to be deceptive advertising. Actually, humans only have a cameo in this outing as well. It is really all about Kong finding his place in the underworld of apes. The humans briefly appear every once in a while, but all they say is "something is going to happen". As for the special effects, it definitely is quantity over quality. Although the movie is nonstop action, a lot looks like late 90s quality special effects. Especially water effects. We are used to "Avatar" quality water effects, GXKTNE is subpar.

And I gotta say, Rebecca Hall, a talented actress that has a unique 'look', does not look good in the short bob haircut in this film. All the humans in this film don't have much to do, except for the girl with who has the same problem as Kong, she is the last of her kind and feels lonely. The script fails to smoothly incorporate all the elements into a cohesive story. I have to admit I might be getting tired of the monster movies. There is a thing as too much action. I give it a 5 out of 10.

Dune 2 Review

The following was my first reaction after watching this film...

It was good, but it was long. I mean it was good, it was good. But it was long. Now I'm not saying I didn't like it, it was good ok? But it was long. Did it need to be that long? Well ok it was a really big story so yeah OK it probably needed to be that long. But it was long, man. But it was good. But it was long. I don't know what my final decision is because you know, it was good. But it was long...

I caught someone sitting in front of me checking the time as the film slowly slogged on. Performances were solid all around. The story is well worn. The photography was, well, iconic. But it seemed a little too much on the extreme close ups of faces. My god, the lensing was so tight that in one shot the character's eyes were in focus but his nose was out of focus. On Imax, we can inspect every pore on his skin.

Overall, there was something more exciting about part one, as we are introduced to the setup. Am intriguing world shot in a iconic way. Engaging characters in energetic scenes. I saw the first part twice in the theatre. I have the DVD at home and have watched it again since. I am not so excited about revisiting part two. I guess it's a kind of phenomena like the Matrix. The first film was very appealing because of it's well crafted fantasy world that was exciting to learn about. But by the second movie, it was already kind of been there, done that. I sort of had the same reaction with The Dark Knight Rises after enjoying the bombastic Dark Knight.

Dune as a story is so popular, George Lucas used it as one of his sources for Star Wars. The chosen one template is very familiar, and it takes larger-than-life filmmaking to make it something that stands out. This comes in the form of the depiction of a desert world that has gargantuan flying machines. The domiciles in this world are simple but elegant. The costumes are evocative of ancient religions. The music fit as well as it did in part one.

Appropriately, the second movie is simply titled Part Two. For it is more of the same. So the second outing there is less awe to some degree, and more drama, with shots of very very large heads. I'm not knocking this film in any way. I think perhaps my own short attention span is at fault. As an editor, I wouldn't dare question the wisdom of the people who put this together. It is a service to all fans of this classic story to tell it right. Perhaps if I was the director, I would pick up the pacing of the dialogue just a wee little bit. But I'm sure it wouldn't work as well.

In conclusion, the movie has many good scenes of grandeur, but has more scenes of big faces. Sure, great care was taken to hire some of the most attractive faces available, so that helps. I guess I enjoy rollicking adventures more than slightly sedate adventures like this one. Maybe time will change my attitude about Part Two compared to Part One. But for now I will give it a 7 out of 10.

I originally saw this film when it was released back in 1989, due mainly to the reviews. It was nominated for three academy awards. The structure of the drama addresses the pitfalls of convincing yourself that everything is going fine when it really isn't. It centers on Jon Landau, always a solid actor, convincing himself that he can make empty promises to his mistress and stay happily married. Landau's character also engaged in some shady business dealings, but insists to himself that he has a clear conscience.

Allen has great strength in creating believable characters, and shows his experience by being able to hone the dialogue to address the central dilemma. It makes for a lean running time, and it honors the audience's expectations. The moment the audience starts to see beyond the character's blind spots, those blind spots get addressed. So a smart and earnest theme that is fleshed out by honest conversations. Landau confesses his double life to a religious mentor, and addresses the existence of natural guilt. Is everything we do witnessed by the eyes of god? Allen makes Landau's character truly at odds with sense of right and wrong, forcing him to confront the consequences of his actions.

Allen counters this heavy morality tale with a fun story about a popular TV comedian who has narcissistic behavior towards people around him. Played by Alan Alda, he displays his insensitivity while Allen shoots a documentary about him. Mia Farrow plays a potential love interest (although Allen is married). Alda tries to swoon Farrow, which annoys Allen's character. Farrow then is confronted with the consequences of falling for a shallow but charismatic celebrity. These confrontations are also spelled out by flashbacks, and acutely appropriate scenes from old films. All done with a steady narrative that goes between serious crime and maybe some kind of episode of "Friends".

However, the third narrative involves the older Allen spending a lot of time with a young girl, perhaps sixteen or so. His 'relationship' with her in the film has soured over time, knowing that Allen in real life had an inappropriate relationship with his adoptive daughter. When they married in 1997, he was 62 and she was 27. Thankfully scenes between them are sparse, with no intended sexual undertones.

When I rewatched this film for the first time in many years, it still stands as one of his best. It hits the right notes, compelling one to linger over the behavior of the main characters in comparison to our own. Yet Allen shows no remorse through his own on-screen character, avoiding any pitfalls he has gone through himself. I still give a 7 out of 10.

There are a couple films that come to mind when trying to judge how good Ferrari was. The first is "Napoleon". It is another biography that came out around the same time as this film. Each film needs the main character to capture the audience's interest. For both films, the dysfunctional marital relationship was a major narrative. Because of Joaquin Phoenix's legacy of gripping roles ("Joker"), he successfully embodied the main character. The film suffered for other reasons, but it kept my interest. "Ferrari" cast Adam Driver as the main character. I first saw Driver in "Midnight Special" as a quirky and interesting scientist. I really like Driver, and thought he was a good fit as the bad guy in the new Star Wars movies. However, I think someone else would have been a better fit as Ferrari. Driver doesn't exude power and leadership like the role needed. Someone who is bit older and more fits the physique. If this was made 10 years ago, someone like Christian Bale would've been a good fit.

The other film I can't help but compare "Ferrari" to is "Ford vs. Ferrari". Although it came out four years prior to this film, it is recent enough to gauge what is a better film about racing. "Ferrari" never pretended to be about racing, it is a biography of the man. Meanwhile "Ford vs Ferrari" is about racing. The movie centered more on the cars than the people. In "Ferrari", care is taken to give many of the supporting characters some depth. The downside is that the majority of the film focuses more on the people than the machines. For that reason, I preferred "Ford vs Ferrari". In truth that film features very little of Ferrari other than being the rival for Ford.

On the flipside, the driving scenes in the "Ferrari" are very dynamic without being gimmicky, and are a feast of sight and sound. The cinematography does a good job showing us vintage Italy. The dialogue could be cringe-worthy if one cared to scrutinize the Italian accents. In general, when rating this Micheal Mann film, I thought of "Public Enemies". That film follows John Dillinger, but has a different tone than this. Sadly, the tone here is very mild for "Ferrari", and the whole is not greater than the sum of the parts. This is mostly evident in the climax, in which no swelling of emotion takes place, at least not as intended. I give it a 5 out of 10.

One thing that should attract certain movie lovers is the director Peter Yates. He directed "Bullitt", and was good showing gritty real locations in telling a realistic crime story. Here, he continues with an understated style that doesn't try to create Hollywood looking sets, and overly-dramatic plot revelations. Whether out of necessity of adherence to the small time hood style of living portrayed in this film, or out of necessity in financial backing, it feels low budget.

I am a big fan of thrillers. I worship the film Bullitt, its hard-nosed unglamorous angle at the world of crime and police duty changed the genre. Of course, the famous car chase earned it's own legendary status. This film keeps things perhaps too low key. Again, perhaps this was in the name of realism. But I never bought Robert Mitchum as this low key hood. Sorry folks, he has way too much star power to hide in such a small role. His physique also belies the weak persona his character is shown to possess.

I also thought the supporting characters were too low key. As the plot unfoils, and there is a traitor in the midst, little tension seems to really build. So I am mixed about my reaction to this film. On the one hand, I am a fan of gritty thrillers like "French Connection" and "Seven Ups", and have a great appreciation of the authenticity of using real locations. On the other hand, sometimes such documentary style of filmmaking feels cheap. The cinematography can feel too much like "point and shoot".

So this is a small film with a simple story. The matter-of-fact type of editing wants to give the audience a sense of what life is like for these people. History buffs could certainly enjoy the vintage footage of strip malls and muscle cars. Future filmmakers also found inspiration from this film. For one, the straight forward bank robberies deliberately occur without any Hollywood razzle dazzle. In truth, professional criminals like these are well prepared and is reflected in how they handle people during the robbery.

The robbers repeat several times that they don't want to hurt anybody. This helps the hostages get over the shock and fear. Likewise, they are constantly giving instructions to prevent any confusion and make it clear they are in control. One can certainly show some respect for the professionalism that is on display. Future filmmakers have added their own twists in the bank robbery formula, and it reflects the unique approach they bring to moviemaking.

So, sigh, the deliberate lack of twists (except for third act), also feels thin in the form of thrills. There is some action involving cars, but no signature car chase sequence (Yates didn't want to be pigeon-holed). The bank heists are low key. As much as the story is about Mitchum, this really is an ensemble piece, and all actors have their chance to speak the lingo with their Boston accent (one could see "the Departed" finding inspiration from this film).

Ultimately, this is not a memorable film. It feels like an all too simple bank heist film that doesn't stand up to the drive-in movie thrillers of that era. But mostly, Mitchum feels like John Wayne trying to be a insignificant low-life. I just couldn't buy it.

This review contains only minor spoilers.

The next movie James Cameron made after the massive hit "Aliens" was "The Abyss". The fable of how this movie came about has become more legendary than the film itself. When it came out in 1989, it failed to connect with audiences. However, the production work going into depicting a submersible oil rig is thrilling to watch. The film opens with what I think is one of the most thrilling first acts ever made. A navy nuclear submarine is tracking a bogie as it zips through the water, and succumbs to the depths of a large trench in the ocean.

Cameron no doubt was influenced by Spielberg's "Close Encounters of the Third Kind", with a nautical version of friendly aliens making visits to the manned underwater facility. The elements of an undersea adventure with a military subplot might have worked well enough. Adding the water aliens seemed a little too much. For sure Cameron wanted this movie to have multiple themes: Futuristic living underwater, Military Action Thriller, Aliens, and Divorce. It is that last theme, Divorce, that probably originally turned people off to this movie more than anything else.

James Cameron used to work as a trucker, so he enjoys inserting blue collar lingo and mannerisms into the group of characters that work on the undersea oil rig. The script centers around the rocky relationship between the head of the oil rig and his wife the designer of it. Their attempts to overcome their obstacles is mirrored by the obstacles thrown at them in the movie. The extended version fleshes out this rocky relationship. Cameron probably envisioned couples watching the film would relate to the on screen couple. But instead their chatter just gets annoying.

One enduring quality is the high production values showing the obstacles as they challenge our fearless crew.

Obstacles include: (Minor Spoilers Ahead)

-Searching through a creepy sunken submarine -Trying to keep a support vessel under control during a hurricane -Undersea oil rig damaged after being dragged over the sea bottom -The unforgiving cold, pervasive, and highly pressured ocean water -Nuclear weapon under control of unstable military commander -Nearly running out of oxygen -Actually drowning -Comprehending extra-terrestrial lifeforms visiting you

(End Minor Spoilers)

That's a lot of obstacles to overcome, and the special edition takes almost three hours to get through them. Since I have seen this film once before on the big screen when it initially opened, and many subsequent viewings on video, I now watch it to appreciate the tremendous amount of difficulty it took to pull this adventure off. Using almost no digital technology, they actually filmed on large underwater sets. Then there is a good deal of miniature work, and stop motion animation of the slick submersible vehicles. The opening scene of the nuclear submarine sinking is as elaborate as a climactic finale in most other big action movies at the time.

As for the extra-terrestrial elements. Well, Spielberg did it a decade earlier and more successfully. The underwater aliens don't really inspire. But again, it is an appealing dimension to the story and is part of the fun roller coaster ride that this movie ultimately is. The big selling point for seeing this special edition in the theatre is the extra big effects sequence at the end. Technology at the time wasn't up to par to create the special effects so the sequence was cut when it was originally released.

Again, fans of this film have seen the special edition and probably know the story by heart. But to witness it back on the big screen prompted a few rounds of applause. Mainly because despite the advent of Blu Ray disc movies being readily available since about 2006, it took another 18 years for the title to finally get a high resolution release. (Cameron's response to the delay is that he has been busy).

If you have not seen this ambitious movie that was originally thought up when Cameron was in high school (as he tells us in the director's introduction), you may have a hard time getting on board with the whole concept. But you may be able to appreciate the commitment to this overreaching epic adventure made earlier in James Cameron's career. 6 out of 10.

This is a film that should not have worked. It wants to go from goofy, to serious, to moralistic, to sentimental, all at once. Which is similar to the multi-tone "Everything Everywhere All At Once". Both movies try to juggle different tones and themes and both succeed for the most part. One thing Barbie has going in its favour is that it knows its limitations and mercifully clocks in less than two hours. The script explores many aspects of the aura of the Barbie doll and its legacy. This is a fresh topic that alone provides interesting insight. An original premise in the world of cookie-cutter franchise sequels. Both the positive and negative aspects of what the Barbie doll represents is addressed without holding back. Amazingly, even the Mattel corporation itself is lampooned. So the script is not only allowed to address less popular characteristics about the doll, but finds real insight about what Barbie and Ken represent to young kids compared the more mature adult world.

But a script normally can't have its cake and eat it to. It's a lighthearted trip into Barbieland, but also finds true sadness in how we give up our active imagination once we get older, and the need to be serious about the real world. Not only that, but it delivers straight forward lessons about a male dominated society and how woman are rarely given positions of power. Give credit to co-writer and director Greta Gerwig for mastering all things Barbie, sticking it all in a blender, and making a cohesive piece of work that transcends expectations for a movie based on a toy doll. Give credit to the powers that be that took a chance on such an unlikely hit movie and keeps the narrative moving along in engaging and unpredictable ways.

Not that one could make this movie with other actors in the lead roles, but the persona and especially the physical likeness of Margot Robbie and Ryan Gosling seem to be a perfect match. Robbie especially brings a heartfelt sadness in a couple of scenes that make her character more than one dimensional, despite being based on a plastic doll. Gosling brings his lighthearted personality to the role of Ken convincingly, yet allowing the one dimensional character to wish for a sense of belonging.

I also really enjoyed how the script made comparisons of the plastic world of Barbie and Ken to the plastic lifestyles of the uber rich in LA. When watching scenes of Barbie & Ken hitting it off, I could see Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce in their place. The production feels like a big Hollywood musical. Large sets with large scale musical numbers. But yet they have an avant garde feel to them, as if it was a Tim Burton film, or maybe a fantasy scene from a Coen brothers movie. The hundreds of props littered throughout the film also provide meaning as they are symbols of the masculine and feminine mystique.

Barbie the movie is a surprising existential essay that finds meaning behind the plastic. The script achieves in its quest to draw interest from the average moviegoer by revealing how much of the Barbie world lives within us.

The definition of a good thriller is that the plot should be slick and smart. That means the film is edited in such a way that it follows the narrative closely without a lot of extra fluff. It also means all the characters in the story act like real human beings and make logical decisions. One thing I have found about David Fincher is that he has OCD when it comes to details. The details are presented in an intelligent fashion. In this film, the details can be straight forward or logical when it comes to the plot. Fincher tells the story through cutaways, insert shots showing the little details that explain our main character's actions. For example, early on when the Killer (who remains unnamed) loads a magazine into his gun, it takes no less than three cutaways to accomplish this.

The opening act has a voyeuristic perspective, akin to "Rear Window" as we slowly get into the Killer's head through voiceover. The first act has an almost hypnotic quality as we study his situation, vigilantly maintaining a stakeout over several days, waiting for a mark. Filmmakers need to be careful when using voiceover, as it sometimes can be a conceit. Usually you try to tell the story through visuals. Here, the majority of the voiceover remains in the first act. Then through the rest of the film, bits we heard earlier are repeated at key moments during the film. My reaction is that these extra VO drops were unnecessary, but also act as a disruption. His train of thought in these moments is confronted with an unanticipated setback.

Finchers adds a couple touches of humour. I have stated in another review how important it is to find the right amount of humour to an otherwise serious drama. Too little and the drama starts to get stiff. Too much, and you are being removed from the reality of the situation. Fincher keeps the humour to a minimum, compared to one of his peers, Steven Soderbergh. Soderberg excels in this genre, with films like "Out of Sight" and "Haywire". The latter also includes Michael Fassbinder, the pro/antagonist in this film. All the supporting characters this film are almost cameos, but all are excellent.

The story remains focused on the Killer, never really revealing the greater plot, or what to anticipate as we follow the Killer through his agenda. But again, this is smart scriptwriting because it respects the audience's intelligence, who can easily fill in the blanks. Another staple of the Thriller genre is globe-hopping, James Bond style. The film is constantly on the move, as our main character travels from one airport to another. It is also adds the extra element of realism by shooting mostly on location (save for some interiors). The moments of action are well done. There are "Bourne" like moments with the action scenes, but not as frequent.

The film, because it is a singularly focused story about the Killer and a job gone wrong, has a generally small scope. The actions of the Killer are pretty straightforward, and there are no real twists. I appreciated that lack of multiple subplots, too many scripts try to overachieve and can become confusing by throwing too many side characters or too many twists. The slim story could be a drawback if expectations were higher. However, Fincher is very skilled at drawing you into the workings of clandestine activities with his meticulous cutaways (sometimes he'll shoot 70 takes to get a shot right). This precision matches the Killer's precision in resolving his issues.

There is only one gimmick that made me groan. Everytime the Killer presents an ID at an airport or rental car place, we see his alias is the name of a well known sitcom character. This is a cute moment of humour, but in reality would be a very stupid thing for our smart assassin. One doesn't even need to be of the 70s generation to recognise these well known character names (Sam Malone, Bob Hartly, Felix Unger, Archibald Bunker, etc,). Reruns of these TV shows run on digital side channels and on streaming services, so younger generations would also be able to recognise these names. If there is a security agency (like Interpol) looking for him, once they link a sitcom character's name to the Killer, they can easily search for other fictional sitcom characters to try and track him.

Ultimately, I sat through this procedural with rapt attention, with the tight editing and intriguing spycraft providing the momentum. With the opening titles resembling the quick montage of action shots and graphics like "Mission Impossible", it set expectations appropriately. One of the better thrillers made recently, it rises above other movies like "Equalizer 3" (which left me wanting). Not as big in scope and story as "Fight Club" or "Zodiac", but entertaining as "Se7en" and his outstanding TV series "Mindhunter". 7 out of 10.

Spoilers Ahead

Denzel Washington has been an A list actor who almost consistently chose projects that wouldn't disappoint his audience. His strong acting skills bring integrity to the Equalizer franchise, and consistently deliver on the goods. The third outing received mostly good reviews, with the caveat that we should expect more of the same. The setup is appealing, our hero is stuck in a lovely little town in Sicily. The bulk of the film shows Denzel becoming friendly with the locals. It is no wonder why the majority of the running time shows him interacting with the supporting cast. Denzel has a natural charm, but a somewhat foreboding presence, and it works well here.

Because of the main character's actions, he has the potential to bring trouble to this peaceful community. But here is one of the points in the story that isn't really exploited to it's full potential. Similar points in this refreshing take on the retribution genre are left unexplored. A sympathetic doctor is seen as a respected elder in the town. There is a tiny hint of his military history. He should have been more involved fighting the mafia gang that harasses local merchants. Another missed opportunity is Dakota Fanning's CIA character. She has a vulnerability reminiscent of Starling from "Silence of the Lambs". She is a fish out of water when she comes to Italy. She needed to have a more hands-on situation in tracking down the bad guys. For instance, we find out she is a marked for a hit by the mafia. This could have been realised as a more tense action sequence than what does occur. Sadly, her screen time is very limited.

There was also something missing in Denzel's character as he witnesses the harassment. I think his moral dilemma could have been explored more. With an Oscar winner leading the way, the potential for a more serious crime drama, "Godfather" style is missing here. As Denzel's character finally carries out the retribution, the large scale showdown we all expected doesn't happen.

Major Spoiler

We instead are supposed to accept that this large mafia figure's compound has only one aloof bodyguard standing at the main gate. Without first checking in, he opens the gate and lazily checks out a car alarm. Denzel, or anybody for that matter, easily takes out the one guard and waltzes into the compound unnoticed. The subsequent killing spree didn't rise above expectations. I thought to myself "OK there will be the surprise confrontation at the end of the film". We are made to believe the story has been resolved and everyone lives happily ever after. Maybe when Denzel goes back to Boston. But no. It turns out all the buildup, with the likeable Doctor, the CIA chick, the Shop Owner, The Young Cop, and others, are left on the wayside through most of the third act. Likewise, with the inevitable comparison to the John Wick franchise, the action sequences are too quick and on a smaller scale than you would expect. Or, if compared to the "Taken" franchise, Denzel doesn't have a hero moment rescuing the CIA agent from peril.

The lack of more action is curious, since this film should have had a large enough budget. So ultimately I have tag this production as lazy. For instance, the majority of Denzel's scenes have him sitting comfortably, usually at a small cafe. Even when confronting the bad guys. I understand Denzel is in his elder years, but his character works better being more agile. The same for the Doctor with the military past. He could have been more involved with confronting the gang. It would've be an effectively shocking moment in the story if the beloved Doctor was killed by the gang (which I thought was the case when someone is left to hang outside a broken window). This would create a really strong reaction by the townspeople, and more importantly, motivate Denzel's character to take action.

So sadly, an underwhelming script with Denzel shown mostly enjoying his Italian vacation, is only mildly interesting as the designated bad guys are knocked off in interesting ways. All that was really left was the gorgeous cinematography of this photogenic Italian coastal town. I hesitate to not recommend this low scale revenge flick, since it is made better than most of these types of films with numbers at the end of their titles However I still give it a 5 out of 10.

Many Spoilers Ahead.

It seems obvious for some movies that the script writers aren't even trying to find a new approach to some of the same old tropes of your typical adventure yarn. I found that the case in the slick and enjoyable action flick "The Gray Man". "Creator" has a lot in common with a lot of mostly cliché movies. Creator and Gray Man both toss a child into the mix. You can consider her either the Chosen One or the Child Prodigy tropes. Like the baby Yoda in "The Manchurian". Or the chosen kid in "The Last Airbender". There's dozens more examples, like that annoying baby in "Willow". The kid is towed along through all of the adventures, and reluctantly uses his magical powers to save our protagonist from certain peril. In "Creator", the child prodigy's special powers are sending an electro magnetic pulse (or EMP) wave around him, rendering electronic devices powerless.

The dystopian world this time is reminiscent of "Chappie" with a robot police force. It could also resemble "Elysium", where a more dominant group orbits above in a massive spaceship, sending terror to the villagers down below. The twist they try in Creator is that the villagers are androids. Well, they all look and act like regular humans, they just have a big opening in the back of their heads. Even that type of android seems cliché. The asian setting is meant to evoke images of Viet Nam when, "Apocalypse Now"-style, U. S. Forces used advanced military equipment on mostly primitive villagers.

What is also uninspiring is the Bourne-ish "assassin turned compassionate" trope. In fact our protagonist, named Joshua, even loses his memory after his own Bourne style mission. Another strike against is introducing the subplot while the opening act is unfolding. We are forced to try and juggle a bunch of important plot points while dodging bullets. Another hit and a miss is Joshua's wife, Maya. Within moments, they first are cuddling (with zero chemistry), then suddenly facing each other off when a conflict arises. She disappears for most of the rest of the movie. The script attaches many complicated aspects to her character, which made me go "Huh?" "What?". Ultimately the revelations about certain main characters that occur throughout the movie made me lose track of who were supposed to be the good guys and the bad guys.

Part of the problem is the filmmakers jumping on the "A. I." bandwagon. Like Mission: Impossible: 7, the words "Artificial Intelligence" and "A. I." are sprinkled about in the dialogue, perhaps to cash in on the latest controversy involving A. I. and the threat of it taking over society (such as the Terminator franchise). Here A. I. is the perceived enemy, and has created human-like androids that I am supposed to feel compassion for, because machines are people too (like Data in the Star Trek series).

This forced compassion on the main characters wasn't successful for me. In the third act, there at least a couple scenes that are shot and scored to be tearjerker moments, but fall flat. And yes, here we are with a bloated two hour and 13 minute run time, testing the patience of the audience. The story is set up in acts with title pages for each one. The slick look of this obviously expensive production looks great on the big screen, and I guess that was all I was really expecting when I went to watch it in the theatre on a rainy day.

Director Gareth Edwards earned my interest by doing an excellent job making "Rogue One: A Star Wars story". It certainly doesn't diminish my attitude about him as a filmmaker, but I hope he learns from this experience how to better win the audience's compassion for characters. 5 out of 10.

Classic Noir films have seen a boon in availability these days, a dream for Film Noir fans. I recently watched "The Woman in the Window" with E. G. Robinson. That film came out in 1944, six years before this film. But they both have very similar plots. A man falls for a beautiful woman. The woman has a calamitous relationship with another man that ends in murder. The main character decides to try and cover-up the murder. However, he regularly rubs elbows with an officer of the law who is working the murder case. The plot setup makes for great tension as the murderer tries to outwit the man on the case (like in the TV show "Columbo"). It also delves into the sordid world of torrid love affairs and crime.

I'm not sure if TMWCH is directly based on the Robinson film, but the story structure is similar. Ed is the name of the main character in this film. He is a detective partnered up with his rookie detective brother. One thing that I felt was a detriment to this story was the bizarre number of out of this world coincidences that trap our murderer (or accomplice) as a suspect. It got to the point of being so ridiculous that I thought this movie should have been renamed to "The Unluckiest Man in the World". Some examples:

Spoilers ahead.

-When Ed dumps the body, another car just happens to come by and catch him in the act.

-In fact, they even stop to ask him for directions.

-In fact, even though is was at night, they saw the dead body right away and reported it to the police.

-During his drive back, Ed happens to run into another police officer that knows him.

-By coincidence, another gun used in a crime just happens to have the same bullet markings as the gun used to kill Ed's victim. (That's like two people having the same fingerprints).

-But wait, despite Ed dumping his murder weapon into the river, someone just happens to find it!

-Ed's detective brother becomes especially eager to examine some suspicious facts about the case. Drawing him closer to Ed.

-The case is cracked when the driver of the other car that caught Ed in the act, happens to not know he is colour blind! Full grown adult, never once had a clue he was colour blind, never once did anybody see him call something green when it was blue.

-When Ed secretly visits his femme fatale, his brother just happens to catch them together.

-Finally, when our couple become fugitives, brother knows the one place in the entire city that they are hiding. Although the brother checks out the building where he thinks they are hiding and doesn't find them, he has a hunch and returns.

-The lady in hiding loses here scarf in the wind just as the brother is about to leave. Does the brother notice the scarf?

I found the plot to be very unsophisticated, despite this film being released near the height of the film noir wave. It takes place in San Francisco, with a few scenes showcasing the sights of the city, including a climax near the Golden Gate bridge. Many facets of film noir cinematography are present here. But the most appealing thing for me were the fantastic bubble cars that came out of the 40s. There are quite a few shots of characters in their cars, and the vintage cars look surreal, like out of a comic book. The brother and his fiance live in a trendy looking loft. Other scenes are the dramatic lower shots where you see the ceiling, something not normally seen in a standard Hollywood film. Lee J. Cobb certainly fills the role of a gritty detective very well. Jane Wyatt, who is the one who pulled the trigger, isn't terribly manipulative as you might expect. However, John Dall, who plays the brother, doesn't match up to the other lead actors in his acting abilities. His delivery is slightly wooden. But in a certain respect, so is the dialogue in general.

Noir films from this era vary in quality. For this film, I found most aspects of it clunky by modern movie standards. But it's still worth a look. 5 out of 10.

There have been numerous dramatizations about the building of the bomb. Certain movies were bombs themselves (Fat Man and Little Boy). I was expecting the movie to centralize around the work going into building the first atomic bomb. Instead, it is really only the backdrop for a biography about Oppenheimer. Nolan and the screenwriters spiced up his story, using a hearing with flashbacks as the narrative structure. That type of structure allows the film to jump around in time, following the impacts of a decision throughout his life. Jumping around is definitely Nolan's directing style. It keeps the pacing fast, and helps to parse out portions of the film that would have otherwise become static if told in linear fashion. This is the case of the hearing. It is conducted in a small and uninteresting room as a location. Same for the many many conversations about being engaged in politics.

One review mentioned the directing style resembling Martin Scorcese. The "Goodfellas" director was the pioneer of the hyper-pacing when telling a story. Nolan perhaps might feel that Michael Bay syndrome of quick cutting to force the audience to keep watching by subjecting them to some new stimulus every few seconds. Nolan probably justifies the quick cutting knowing that this is meant to be a summer tentpole film, which needs to resemble a roller coaster ride. So you get a lot of big music cues, big scenes, a big group of side characters, and just a little tiny bit of humour. Adding the right amount of humour is extremely important for a script that wants be a serious drama. Too many yucks can decrease the amount of gravitas to the story. Too little humour keeps the audience in an emotional rut. They need to have a bit of levity once in a while, especially when the movie gets heavy handed. Matt Damon plays the general in charge of the Manhattan Project. As seen in the trailer, his heavy handed character almost gets to the point of over-acting. Thankfully he is allowed to be more than one dimensional. There still is the memory of Paul Newman playing Damon's character in "Fat Man and Little Boy". That movie made many bad decisions, one was to make Paul Newman an overdrawn movie villain.

As I sat through the three hour running time, something occurred to me that was a revelation, I could actually hear and understand the dialogue! Finally someone convinced Nolan to turn the music down a bit. The music score must have been a huge undertaking. I think few people realise the amount of man hours it takes to go over footage only a few minutes at a time and carve out a music cue that encompasses many factors (character, story, location, time of day, mood, etc.), and not become derivative or repetitious. Ludwig Goransson displays a wide breadth of musical knowledge that Hans Zimmer never had. He uses a musical palette of many instruments and styles (including Zimmer).

So the story gets around to the actual event of setting off the atomic bomb. I don't know why, but Nolan didn't want a computer simulation. The practical version failed to really invoke a sense of awe. Unless... Nolan wanted this movie to be less about the bomb, and as such only give scant details on its production, along with the tedious aspects of testing for two years. This film finds a lot of good intelligent interaction with the supporting characters, many are whom are physicists. The final act of the film focuses on the aftermath of the birth of the atomic age. We see how those other characters react to the event as well as to the pressure of politics. The red scare back then made it easy to make scapegoats out of innocent people.

So of course you are asking, does it fail the two hour rule? Does this film justify its three hour running time? If you are Martin Scorcese, you can justify a longer running time, like "The Departed", because you are condensing an even larger story. Such is the case here, mostly. As important as politics are, I feel audiences don't find it entertaining.

The supporting characters do a fine job of filling out the scope of this film. The film jumps around from Europe to Ivy League college campuses to the New Mexico desert. Meaningful conversations are written with a certain eloquence in mind. In other words, a lot of thought was put into the dialogue to add more subtlety about the greater meaning of what they are saying. Robert Downey Jr. Does a great transformation into a man who was the first commissioner of the Atomic Energy Commission. Not a very exciting man, thus played in a relaxed fashion by Downey. Emily Blunt has very little screen time in this film. Not much is explored about their marriage, and she has few lines for such a prominent actress in a seemingly prominent role. There are other familiar faces that pop up, which I won't spoil the fun. Cillian Murphy plays the role of his career. By far, Oppenheimer is a complex character, and some odd behaviour is shown. Murphy seems to be always in deep thought, and somewhat disassociated with the kind of everyday life most people have. Like being a proper parent.

There was some light applause at the end of the nearly sold out showing I went to. Here is a chance to learn about an interesting piece of history, and in the process experience a refreshing break from the summer blockbuster sequel assembly line. I would only say some parts of the story could have been condensed even more, such as some of the politics. Nolan is certainly developing a reputation for retelling stories in a more exciting way. Many see Nolan transitioning into a serious director with Dunkirk and now this historical piece. Such as his inclusion of nudity (for the first time?) in one his films. There needs to be an artistic approach that makes sense when showing nudity, and Nolan shows that kind of maturity here.

7 out of 10.

There are no major spoilers but some minor plot exposition in this review.

The Mission Impossible franchise was essentially rebooted when J. J. Abrams stepped in to make M:I:3. He saw the critical flaw from the first film when the likeable M:I team was killed off in the first act. Now, no more double-crossing within the crew. He also added a slight tone of humour, demonstrating a sense of fun for the audience. Abrams went on to make similar improvements to the Star Trek and Star Wars franchises. Since then M:I has taken off. Now, the new focus is less about the villain than it is about amping up the action. Mission Impossible is a product of the original James Bond era of the 1960s. Many TV shows were developed to cash in on the slick spy genre. So it is not a surprise that this franchise has essentially become the American equivalent of the British Bond franchise.

However, it is hard these days to come up with original action set pieces. How many times have we seen fight scenes staged on top of trains? (including Indiana Jones 5, released right before this film). Or a chase scene in a comically tiny car (also found in Indy 5). There is a gag where Cruise and his new female cohort are handcuffed while driving in a car chase. This was done in "Tomorrow Never Dies" with Pierce Brosnan and Michelle Yeoh on a motorcycle. They drive down a large number of stairs, something seen previously in other chase scenes. There is a scene where Hayley Atwell surreptitiously steals a paper clip to escape from her shackles. This was famously done by Linda Hamilton in Terminator 2. I'm not sure but Cruise himself might have previously done the paper clip gag as well. Brosnan first did the skydive off a cliff on a motorcycle in "Goldeneye".

Another gag that gets old is the face mask. How does a mask change the shape and size of your body? Of the square or roundness of the face? In this movie, one character puts on a face mask in mere seconds. But what about touchups needed around the eyes and mouth to make the skin look seamless?

Then (here it comes) there is the long running time. This is due in part because the film literally has about 5 groups of people chasing one another. There is the M:I group chasing after the Maguffin. There is the CIA group chasing after Cruise. There is the Paris (a woman not the city) gang, also chasing after Cruise chasing after the Maguffin. Also following the followers is a character called the White widow. Then there is Atwell, who sometimes goes rogue. Then there is Rebecca Ferguson, since she made such a great improvement to the cast. They even resurrect Henry Czerny as Kittridge, who also is in on the chase. Why so many characters? Why deliberately stretch the running time to almost 3 hours? Do they really think that's what audiences want? Believe it or not, there is such a thing as an action scene being too long. The cat and mouse play between action scenes starts to get tedious as well. What really stretches the running time is all these characters explaining whats going on to other characters. And it is literally "Character A has to meet Character B at such and such a place at a certain time". Things get convoluted to the point that you start losing interest in characters' motivations.

Ultimately, it is hard to dislike Cruise. I will recommend this film because it delivers the goods, but loses major points for thinking people want to sit and watch 3 hours of action scenes, even if they are well done. 6 out of 10.

Modern filmmaking has learned by trial and error what makes a film that satisfies an audience. "Ironman" and the "Force Awakens" are good examples. Pacing, tone, and just the right amount of humour are some of the aspects of the formula that makes a good film. We can see the results of applying the formula to "Tog Gun", making for one of the most popular movies in recent times. It is interpreted by the public that the primary reason for making yet another Indiana Jones is to make up for the mostly negative reception of the 4th film.

This is made evident in the excellent opening sequence that goes back to WWII and takes place on a moving train. Unfortunately no other action sequences in the film match that opening sequence. Another thing that will cause a reaction by audiences is the CGI effects to make Harrison Ford younger for that opening sequence. For one, it is still Harrison's 80 year old grandpa voice in this twenty-something version of him. The gratuitous effects throughout the film, along with this version of Ford where his face looks painted, gives this whole film a graphic novel vibe. Not a bad thing.

So is the old magic still there? I feel Spielberg and Lucas touches as executive producers, probably tossing in additional gags or finding ways to amp up the tension. I think all will agree that one thing missing is more humour. Things get serious early in the film when innocent side characters are needlessly shot dead in cold blood. Yes, it makes the villains truly bad guys, but it just sets a more somber tone to the film. What about Shia laBeouf? He is replaced by Phoebe Waller-Bridge, who starred in the stunning "Fleabag" TV show. However, her character seems to be a one note piece of cardboard. She shows that she has a couple things up her sleeve later in the film, but she doesn't sell it very well. Compare the engaging version of Catwoman played Anne Hathaway in "Dark Knight Rises". Her character showed more heart in justifying her life. Then there is the new version of "Short Round". As well as he is as a child actor, his involvement seemed merely perfunctory. Then there is Mads Mikkelsen as the main antagonist. A former Nazi, he worked for the United States rocket program. He fills the role well, but subtract a point for other side characters that are not very engaging.

Most of the film takes place in 1969, and involves the ticker tape parade given to the astronauts in New York City. Then it's off to other exotic locations like a typical Bond or Mission: Impossible film. Audiences will probably take note of the amount of CGI effects compared to the other films. Although there are sequences that have some bona fide stunts, even they have obvious background replacement. So yes, that detracts from the film.

As I mentioned, pacing has been refined these days that keep the story rolling along. Not so with IJATDOD. At the end of the second act, things settle down with some extended dialogue sequences. If it is meant to add some character development or advance the story, there must have been a better way to do it. Because (drum roll please) it breaks the two hour rule! The extra half-hour overstays the audience's welcome. They want the Indiana Jones experience, but not when it drags the ending out like this. One would think Spielberg would have had the sensitivity if he was crafting this film to find the slow spots and figure out how to keep up the proper crackerjack movie type of pacing. So, subtract a point for going into extra innings.

As a whole, there is enough Indiana Jones nostalgia for those who have those expectations. The story however is elongated unnecessarily, giving us periods of slow dialogue and unsuccessful attempts at character development. The very best element of this film that almost saves it is the rollicking score by the master composer John Williams. It elevates the film more than anything else. 6 out of 10.

I was only about 10 years old when I saw this on TV. The character of Larry is very touching. It was probably the first time I was given some insight into a person behind a disability. Tyne Daly (of Cagney & Lacy fame) is great as a social worker who has her own challenges as she tries to teach Larry how to act like an adult. Frederic Forrest personifies Larry with an excellent performance. There are moments as an adult, he has difficulties accepting a world when he is developmentally still a child. As the audience, I felt great sympathy for his challenge to learn that as an adult, you have to make compromises. A key scene is where Larry must learn to live on a budget. He wants to buy some toys and needs to decide which toy he needs to give up. The cashier asks how old Larry's child is (that she thinks is getting the toys). Larry responds that the toys are for himself. Another scene is where Daly is trying to teach Larry how to eat like an adult. Larry refuses, and throws some food into Daly's face. You could see her use all her might (mentally) to control her reaction.

The insight Forrest shows us is that there is still a real thinking person inside a damaged body. They are still capable of functioning as an adult, and deserve the respect as any other individual. I am writing this review on the day Frederic Forrest died. He took advantage of having average looks to bring the everyman character to the screen, a rare quality. For me, being able to remember how touching this TV movie was, having only seen it once over 40 years ago, is a testament of how powerful of an actor Forrest was.

I mean literally the image is so dark I can barely make anything out. I watched a couple other programs on amazon just to check. Yes, many new shows have gravitated to the dark image, but this is ridiculous. I can't make anything out in the background most of the time. Details get lost too. I think Rachel Weisz is an excellent actress and the production as a whole looks like it is well made.

So there is this current trend of dark TV and movie cinematography but then there is just plain unwatchable. Like I said, I watch other TV shows and movies on the same streaming channel and the same TV with the same settings. This goes beyond acceptable.

The whispers have been turning into solid fact that audiences are getting tired of superhero movies. Why movies like Eternals failed is that there is yet another character origin story to tell. Another world to build. But that is only one problem with this movie. I liked the first two Antman films, not my favourite MCU character, but Paul Rudd definitely added decent charm into the mix. So that is another problem, lack of Paul Rudd screentime and less humour. Except for a scant witty remark here and there, this is not meant to be a fun film. Even when Bill Murray shows up for a cameo. He says his lines and tries to be provocative. But exits rather quickly and gets tossed into the pile of new characters being introduced in this movie. Which is the biggest problem with this film. Too many new characters. It is a problem with world building, here the Quantum universe, having to establish all these groups of people and their stake in things.

For instance, this teenage girl was introduced and had some stake in the whole universe being destroyed or something. After the big battle at the end, they return to the girl and now the universe won't be destroyed, or something. I had literally forgotten about her. Same thing for Bill Murray, what was he all about? It goes on. There is a big group of CGI characters. The only one that stood out was a walking lava lamp who wished he had holes. Worse, the second act gets bogged down as we must have this quantum universe explained to us. "Why didn't you mention to us that you (saw this stuff, met these people) when you were down here?" is constantly asked of Michelle Pfeiffer's character. I think too much is made of her hiding this stuff. She didn't want to talk about it, let's move on.

The last problem I had with this movie was the ugly environments that made up the Quantum universe. Like most films like this recently, things are really dark. I mean physically dark, with many things going on the big screen hidden in shadows, at night. In general, I get tired of being immersed in gloomy worlds for two hours. I thought the trend was going away from the dark themed blockbusters. I guess filmmakers prefer the dark again.

So to sum up: Too little Paul Rudd and his humour Too many new characters Too much world building Too much time explaining all these things Ugly environments

I give it a five out of ten. I will give some stars for staying in bounds by not running over two hours, and being a mostly watchable film with no major stumbles. Oh, and I didn't care for Evangeline Lilly's new hairdo.

I saw Bullitt a couple years after it was initially released at a Drive-in movie theatre. It features the famous car chase scene that spawned an entire genre. I became obsessed with the adrenaline filled car chase scene. Network tv at the time frequently played movies in prime time. Sometimes the movie didn't run long enough to fill a two hour time slot so they would fill the extra time with short films about movies in production. These 5 minute or so films called Featurettes were made for exhibitors to entice them to show the studio's movies in their theatres. So the theme for these shorts was business-like most of the time. The "In a world" trailer narrator had a deep and serious tone. Interviews with the director and stars were also business like, talking about the professionalism of the team. Kind of like how professional football players are directed to always answer interview questions in a magnanimous fashion. One of these shorts was about the movie Freebie and the Bean.

Latching on the car chase phenomena, the comedy was loaded with car chase stunts. The featurette showed a number of these wild scenes, along with a slapstick chase scene through a restaurant kitchen. I begged my parents to let me go see the film, but it was rated R. I eventually saw an edited version on TV. Also, the film was made into a TV show for a short period of time. As a kid, I had the mentality for slapstick and wild car chases. As an adult, the terrible script surrounding the actions scenes severely diminish the film. Starring James Caan and Alan Arkin, the star power was pretty strong. Caan from "The Godfather", and Arkin from "Catch 22". They play detectives trying to find a big break in a mob case. I sincerely wish the film concentrated on the plot, however it was decided that the characters spend time being jerks to everyone. This I guess was supposed to be funny. Instead it was annoying. Then there is a pointless subplot where Arkin believes his wife (Valerie Harper) is cheating on him. Caan comes off as a corrupt cop that is the Archie Bunker of detectives. Arkin plays someone with a hispanic background. Caan spends most of the movie insulting him with stereotypes.

Then there is the unfortunate portrayal of a transgender person as a heartless hitman. There is a scene where Caan brutalizes someone for information. Some of the schtick between the leads works OK, but not often. Cut to the action scenes. I decided to add this movie to my collection nonetheless because the stunts are in fact pretty extreme for the time.

My relatives wanted to go out to see a movie for the holidays. Pickings are pretty slim out there so Avatar 2 is the default go to movie. Cameron sensed it was necessary to simplify the story for the general masses. But how many times do we have to hear "I got this bro"? Dumbed down dialogue started to become laughable at times. Yes I understand there were co-writers, but it was all overseen by Cameron. Simplified storytelling gives us the same villain from the first movie, Colonel Quaritch. But wait, wasn't he killed at the end of the first movie? Aaah, in Avatar world, nothing truly dies forever. Through retconning, all the bad guys get to come back. Strike one there for lack of originality. Now on the other hand, there is a rowdy band of whale hunters that are more relatable as quasi-villains.

What worked and didn't work at the same time were the fabulous fantasy locations. They were all very pretty, but it didn't gave us a sense of awe. That is simply because you can only present something new to an audience once. Subsequent sequels will not drop jaws like the very first time. I will say the water effects were almost flawless. Underwaterworld shots are gorgeous. To that end, Cameron gives us extended scenes of the Forest family learning the ways of the water. There was agreement with my relatives that those scenes could have been trimmed. I think briefer scenes exploring this place would have had a better impact. Remember 'Less is More'.

So all the set pieces throughout the film could've been given a trim without losing impact. In fact more succinct editing could have provided more impact. The showing I went to was in Dolby. For some reason the music sounded too quiet. Especially compared to the foley track. If the music really was mixed quietly, it severely undercut the emotional beats.

As for the large ensemble of characters, we see Sigourney Weaver as a teenager, along with a large litter of kids, mostly in adolescence. Cue the rebellious teenagers. Meanwhile Jake, our hero from the first film, gets sidelined a bit in order to give the kids screen time. When he does get some lines, they are sometimes cringeworthy. When the characters interact they become too much like kitty cats. Their cat ears fluctuate. Their cat tails swoop around. And they cat hiss at each other. Then there is the wild boy who is human but grew up with the Forest tribe. The story tries to legitimize his presence with the bad guys. He is kidnapped, but cooperates with their plan to get Jake. At times I had the reaction of "huh?" when trying to understand his character. Like why were there more desperate attempts to save the other kidnapped kids but not their human bro?

SPOILER AHEAD

The simple story leaves little surprise when they battle the humans at the end. There was one unanticipated death. But like I said, don't be surprised if this individual pops back to life in another sequel. The simplified good-guys-against-the-bad-guys story is predictable throughout the finale. Nobody did a double take when all the other characters live to fight another day. But on the other hand, if all the main characters survive the battle, what was the point?

END SPOILER

As for being a holiday event movie, it fulfils the requirements for the standard Hollywood movie experience. I would probably go along with other folks and say the first one was better. Partially because it was shorter. Partially because the dialogue wasn't as basic and repetitious.

I figured if I was only to see this film once, it should be on the big screen in 3D. To that end it is the rare type of film that is improved by 3D, but watching in 3D is certainly not necessary to still appreciate the look of the film. In some reviews, some people are saying that the emotional beats did not feel as strong as they should be. I partially blame the too quiet music, the clunky dialogue, and some of those beats being a little rushed.

I will give this a 6 out of 10.

It is maybe like "Being John Malkovich" when you make a movie about your life. I saw this Spielberg outing as a chance for him to show off his filmmaking skills, justifying the great amount of accolades given to him. How he told this story was more important to me than the actual subject. A gifted filmmaker in his 6th decade of productivity, you respect the places he has taken movie audiences, and you respect that he has shown growth in his discipline over time. The first thing you may not be able to avoid is the similarity in other directors who are infatuated with those first memories that sparked their career. I like those films if they are done well. Knowing how a filmmaker saw their world when they were young helps you to understand why they films in a particular way.

For instance, when your parents have a troubled relationship, it shapes how you depict modern families in movies like "Close Encounters" and "E. T.". Spielberg has become a natural in making easily digestible stories. With great appreciation to Spielberg's longtime editor Michael Kahn, there is a fluidity to the pacing of his movies, choreographing scenes to address the material in an efficient way. As much as I caught Spielberg touches, I sometimes found myself immersed in certain scenes, only later realizing I have been witnessing a long stretch of time occurring in a single shot, for instance.

The reason I got immersed in parts of this film was due to flashbacks of my own life. I found some amazing similarity with this partially dysfunctional family compared to my own. I had a workaholic Dad who expected me to follow in his footsteps. Instead I got involved in the arts. I was a professionally trained piano player not a filmmaker. In this film it is the mother who has the musical dimension to the household. But my mother was the one who really nurtured my artistic abilities, and pursued a career in painting herself.

The portrait of Spielberg as a child showed he didn't need a lot of nurturing to pursue his destiny. I had my mind set on music and worked my own way into that world. Another connection I had with this film is that Spielberg was bullied in school. I suffered from bulling myself and both of us ultimately prevailed. What helped to make this movie a breeze instead of a slog is keeping the running time to a relatively reasonable length. It was also a breeze because the story was structured to emphasise the aspects of Spielberg's world that affected the way he is now, more than the story of his introduction and pursuit of filmmaking. To a certain degree, Spielberg already accomplished the story of how he made his first home movies in the film "Super 8". The Fablemans makes a big deal about recreating a spectacular train wreck sequence from the film "The Greatest Show On Earth". Spielberg in real life finally fulfilled that obsession with the train wreck sequence in "Super 8". Nevertheless, this film has moments showing how Spielberg had the proper instincts to be a gifted filmmaker.

With the help of a trusted screenwriter, the story focuses on Spielberg's family. The ensemble work reminded me of a good Woody Allen film, where each character represents different aspects of the folly of life. Conversations at the dinner table can have profound impacts on a person's view of life. The hard truth is exposed to a child, which is a part of growing up. So the first half of the film turns the lense toward the family, then changes the focus to Spielberg himself as he become a young adult. Even then the steps he took to succeed in the film industry take a backdrop to his awkwardness in social situations. Having gone through this myself, I understand how stifling this is to a person's potential. It is important to stand up to the bully. I know I am a better person when I did so myself.

So I enjoyed this film. The only real misstep is how the film addresses the central conflict in the plot.

MINOR SPOILER

It is made clear in the first act the mother is in love with the husband's best friend. When the father announces their move to Phoenix, the she insists his friend comes along. Most audience members got the cue there was something between them.

END MINOR SPOILER

This conflict slowly grows, culminating in an unnecessarily extended sequence where the Mother's secret is discovered when Spielberg is editing a family camping trip he filmed. The confrontation with this revelation is also a little clunky. But in truth, that is probably how Spielberg remembers it, and was very specific in how it was shown. What was also just little disappointing was the more conventional shooting style. Framing and movement was not very adventurous. The Spielberg touch on his own autobiography was absent, but the story was interesting enough to enjoy it on that level. Great performances by the entire cast also displays Spielbergs gift with working with actors-. He also defies convention by effectively working with the three no-nos: Crowds, Children, and Animals.

There is a huge amount story to tell in this very large scope world of Wakanda. Lots of characters with lots of goals to obtain. All the major characters are quite emotionally driven I must say. With so much to accomplish, the audience has a lot to digest in one long sitting. This type of ensemble setting with kingdoms and leaders and betrayals works better as a "Game of Thrones" type of series. It would also give the audience more time to appreciate the production design and costumes. The appealing look of the film helped to give the character performances more impact. The story rightly avoids being about the missing main character, the now deceased Black Panther. His absence draws the movie's attention to the supporting characters, and they are given a lot to do.

The large story justifies the long running time, sure. But the storylines could have been given more attention to the audiences' benefit. So good filmmaking all around. Angela Bassett commands the screen in Chad Boseman's place with great success. As usual there are big action scenes with lots of CGI. They are perfunctory as usual.

This is the type of film that deliberately drags out a revelation. What happened on the set of the comedy show? The camera slowly tracks to reveal a detail. That deliberate kind of loitering was very common in M. Knight Shyalaman films. The other element that resembles a Shyamalan film are the quirky characters. Then there are the oddball deaths. David Lynch films feature oddball deaths as well. Reviews harkened Spielberg and his approach to showing aliens. It could be Shyamalan was influenced by Spielberg, and Peele took his notes from Shyamalan's interpretation of Spielberg.

Nonetheless, the approach to making this science fiction thriller had potential, but also takes too much time for some of the reveals. I was a little shocked that this slowly paced film clocked in over two hours. There is a rhythm that audiences are used to, including thrillers. They want the story resolved in a timely manner. The third act in this film drags way too long to reach the ultimate resolution.

What both Spielberg and Shyamalan used as a device was the depiction of an everyday situation being subverted in some way. A horse suddenly runs away. A woman lies dead on a TV set. A tourist amusement park is strewn with debris. The movie opens with a tease of "something's not right", and tries to maintain that type of suspense for most of the long running time. For the most part it succeeds, but doesn't stick the landing. If the pacing was tightened up a bit, and some of the repetition in the third act eliminated, you could have had yourself a real tense movie.

So, comparing this to something like "Signs" or "The Happening", there is about the same amount of intrigue combined with moments of "huh?". Sometimes those "huh?" moments don't work. Nevertheless the acting and story succeed, keeping my interest for the most part.

6 out of 10.

From the beginning, we are given a perspective of Bowie and his philosophy of life. Then for the next two plus hours we see examples of this philosophy. It is well edited, but I must protest yet again about exceeding the two hour goalpost. When some of the imagery was repeated, I felt there could be trims to the film without losing any of it's cohesiveness. Thankfully this rock doc knew that the audience wanted to immerse themselves in the Bowie environment, with many abbreviated live performances. Nice to see and hear on the big screen.

Also we are witness to his private art, such as video experiments and very intense paintings. There are examples of his acting and dancing performances too. The strength of this film is allowing Bowie's personal introspection to be the thread that connects to his art and his fans. Many Bowie fans I'm sure would attest that they were inspired to pursue their personal dreams seeing what he had done. It skips over the standard rockumentary, not even a mention of the songs "Fame" and "Fashion". So look for a portrait of Bowie more than a chronology.

I saw this movie knowing what to expect, and will say it was a mostly positive experience. I like writing reviews and have been posting them on IMDB since 2001. I am brutally honest about movies when I review them, and have to say in general that rarely does a movie rate a perfect 10. I have some appreciation for movies that are Oscar bound and are genuinely pieces of art. No one, ever, would rate this rehash of a sequel like this a 10. Tom Cruise will never win an Oscar.

Like I said, I was satisfied with this movie because I expected thrilling action scenes, nothing else. But I still only give this movie a 6 out of 10 because there were moments where the script could have soared, but only to use the old fallback tropes. This is one of the most dumbed-down scripts I've ever scene. All the predictable exposition is spelled out so on-the-nose you think the intended audience is in the 4-6 year old age range.

However, I'd like to take time in this review to comment about the obvious planted user reviews that all give this film a 10. This film is nowhere near a 10. To the movie industry people who are guilty of taking over a user review like this: When I am looking to find out if I want to see a particular movie or not. I will NEVER bother reading a review that gives it 10 stars. Each "review" is a short paragraph of nothing but fluffy praise.

Which is too bad. This film was intended to be a summer "feel good" time at the movies. Many crowd pleasing tropes are featured. Written like a bad TV show, a conflict was created by including the son of a pilot that died while flying with Maverick. To make sure the audience gets it on the nose, the son is literally dressed up identically like his father, complete with moustache and flowery shirt. He even sits down at a piano to recreate a scene from the first film, with even the same song. Even with that telegraphing the conflict, it is mentioned over and over by the other characters throughout the movie.

The dialogue and characters have no real gravitas, which I blame the director on. I have seen two of his previous films; Tron Legacy and Oblivion. Both of those films could not really connect emotionally with an audience. Same here. When we are introduced to the young squad of pilots, nothing feels real about them. That lack of emotional connection with the characters contrasts with the single scene with Val Kilmer. Much is made of his appearance and the stronger emotions involved, precisely because this is missing from the rest of the movie.

So what makes this movie a pleasure for the most part? The superficiality of the script is what audiences (in our country at least) are looking for right now, having suffered the Covid restrictions longer than most could tolerate. There also are great fissures politically, along with the depressing events in Ukraine. Time for that good ole' American shoot-from-the-hip mentality.

What will bring audiences to the theatres is the promise of a feel good ending in a world of worsening crises. Top Gun 2 delivers. But there is a lot of dull filler when it comes to watching what our main characters do outside training. This of course includes Maverick being confronted by the dead pilot's son. Then there are the run-ins with the higher-ups for Maverick's shenanigans. Eyes will roll at how flimsy these run-ins are, with Maverick usually getting promoted instead of getting reprimanded. Who cares, right? Let's get to the actions scenes.

The action scenes deliver as promised. Sprinkled throughout in the first and beginning of the second act, the flying sequences are adrenaline pumping. Use of GoPro style photography, showing the landscaping whipping by, makes the flying sequences very immersive. The big climax involves a video game-like scenario, laid out to the audience using video game-like animation. As before, any implausibilities are glossed over. It is assumed the audience is not looking for a great amount of military tech talk, and just want the good guys to win.

MINOR SPOILER AHEAD

The climax delivers the goods, a foregone conclusion since the audience was telegraphed the expected results since the first act. Maverick's character demands it. Even the younger pilots all survive.

END MINOR SPOILER

So there is your summer picnic. Corny plot. Cheesy dialogue and characters. And Tom Cruise hamming it up as Tom Cruise. "This is the only look I have" says the movie star. Go ahead and see it on the big screen anyway. Try to stay awake through the second act for the exciting action finale. But don't pretend this movie is anything close to a 10. I give it a six. I never cared for this machismo type of moviemaking, and Tony Scott's original film looked and felt like an extended TV commercial (which was his background). With the advantage of thirty years of improvements in moviemaking, the sequel, with it's hefty price tag, has earned it's merits to attract a large box office. But be realistic, this is no different than one of those dumb Fast and Furious movies.

This review contains a minor spoiler that does not reveal any major plot points.

The first big action scene in this movie, brings back the good old Smith gang. In this day and age, it is too obvious how wildly off target everybody is when firing their guns. It was a bad sign that this movie was not going to contribute to the franchise. A lot of this felt like Terminator: Genesys. There was a mix of new characters and old characters. A rehash of many of the staples that made the previous movie such a good film. In this case, there was the whole bullet effect shot. There is a callback to that in this film. In fact the entire opening of the first film is recreated in this film.

Also like the bad Terminator sequel, it felt like they threw in the movie as many ideas as possible. (What if Neo forgot how to fly, kind of a Peter Pan thing?). The first half of the film explores the idea of Thomas Anderson still being a computer programmer and Neo actually being a fictional character in a video game called the Matrix. Enter the new kids from the 'real world' to wake him up (again). There is a lot of on-the-nose callbacks to the original film, making deliberate comparisons of new characters to old characters. For instance, there is the partner at the gaming company that resembles Mr. Smith, repeating some of the exact lines. There is the 'new' Morpheus that is there to give Keanu the red and blue pill choice, again. There was a question that still has not really been answered as to why Laurence Fishburne wasn't asked back along with the rest of the gang. Personal vendetta? Asked for too much money? Discrimination against age? I think it is the latter, wanting a younger and more nimble Morpheus for the fight scenes. Ultimately I think the morphed reincarnation of Morpheus was not handled well.

The second half of the movie is where the studio checklist takes over. I agree with others that the fight scenes are not as good as the original movie, along with the visceral fight scenes we are used to in the better blockbuster movies out there. Including the John Wick series (what gives?) There is also one particular moment of horror that I thought went too far and was in poor taste.

MINOR SPOILER

Our protagonists are chased by other people (yes we are supposed to understand they are really programs but they are still perceived as real people). The "Smiths" invade their programming and have them jump toward their deaths (trying to land on our heroes). The sights and especially sounds of the bodies crashing into cars and smacking on pavement was too real. The sequence went on for several seconds. I had to look away in shock of the realism of the bodies smashing with such violence. I realise it was supposed to be a ripoff of "World War Z", but even that movie didn't force me to watch unpleasant reminders of 9/11.

END MINOR SPOILER

You also get the obligatory CGI of the machines. I enjoy the performances of some side characters, and the idea of a Psychoanalyst as the Architect. In general, the only original aspect of this revisit of the first movie is the idea of Keanu hallucinating that he is in the Matrix, and successfully messing with the audience's mind about what is really up with the Thomas Anderson character. But then it fails to be clever and provides more fan service than I care for (including playing actual clips of the first movie throughout). The movie then goes through the checklist of scenes that you see in every action movie. Including going into extra innings where the audience was ready to wrap things up 20 minutes ago. Since it is available for streaming, you don't have to wait for the DVD. Otherwise, wait to rent it on whatever platform is convenient. The movie was shot on video (which was obvious in some places), so I didn't see much advantage to seeing it on the big screen.