jljacobi

Right off the bat you can tell that KP4 is not up to snuff. They should have left well enough alone with the enjoyable third installment.

The dialog and pace are amateurish, and the initial premise is yet another male hero must pass on his power to a female under the guise of succession. Another not particularly charismatic female character, as per the norm.

And where are the fantastic five? Geez Louise. The villain isn't particularly worrisome, and in general the movie lacks the heart that made previous efforts memorable.

The kids will likely love it, and stop thinking about it the minute they get finished.

Holly wood is in trouble. They're continually destroying or diminishing their popular characters. I can only assume that this is the work of mediocre artists who want to represent their mediocrity on screen.

A money-grab nothing-burger.

I enjoyed this film, but doesn't come close to recapturing the "magic", or whatever you call what the original had that has made it a classic.

Specifics:

Jake Gyllenhaal is very good, especially considering the dialog he's given, which is generally pretty bland when not copying the original.

Connor McGregor is suitably intimidating, which is partially due to the fact that you know he's an accomplished MMA fighter. He does have that over the top swagger. Not much when talking, but...

Beyond that, only a couple of the bad guys are up to the task, with the main guy and one humorous dude that's worth a laugh or two excepted.

In general the supporting cast is mediocre and forgettable. I only saw this last night, and I have a hard time conjuring up a face beyond Jake and Connor.

As to the babes... I don't know what's up with casting these days, and no disrespect to the actresses, but why are they using 5's and 6's when Hollywood is full of 8's and 9's. Call me shallow, but come on... It's Road House!!

In short this is a decent action flick that has its moments but is held back by typical modern Hollywood nonsense.

I enjoyed this movie. But to be honest, I had to watch it in two sittings--it's that long. What is it with Hollywood these days? I know the theater owners can't be happy with the length of movies because they can run as many showings.

That aside, Cruise is his usual charismatic self, as are the supporting actors.

The plot is easy to understand as it's explained via exposition. Several times in fact, as it's that convoluted. The script isn't subtle or clever enough to convey it otherwise. Hollywood apparently thinks their audience are all morons.

Of course, the action is top-notch, and there are some nice comedic moments which provide respite don't detract from the overall gravitas.

At times the drama and pathos seemed forced, but the movie never really stops long enough for it to be more than a temporary issue.

So it's not Gone with the Wind. It's certainly entertaining thanks to the cast and action, which these days is hardly a given for a Hollywood blockbuster.

This movie is generally satisfying, but it's long, it takes quite a while to get going and parts of it seem forced. In short, IMHO it's by far the weakest of the three though still better than anything Marvel has put out since the last Spiderman (which was actually a Sony movie).

The first portion of the movie seemed forced and didn't flow very well. The dialog was pretty weak, the jokes didn't land particularly well, and it jumps all over the place. I was bored and wondered what all the fuss was about. After that, the pace picks up and I started enjoying it.

Good news. Disney's woke BS is minimal, and very subtle when it does rear its head. The acting is first rate across the board, though I think Gunn could've been a bit more convincing than he was. The antagonist nails it.

The bad news--it's definitely longer than it needs to be. Standard for today's Hollywood which seems to have forgotten the beauty of brevity. And it didn't know when to end, which should've been right after the final confrontation. But of course, the MCU has to try and set up characters for spin-offs. Stupid mouse.

In the end, it's definitely far more somber in tone than the previous two, and if you're easily upset by animal cruelty, you might want to skip it.

That said, I enjoyed it and might watch it again in the future. Not in the near future however. I'd rather watch the first one again.

Take the soul, ruin the hero, add a girl boss. Disney has never done it better.

The first part of the move, oddly enough feels somewhat like a real Indiana Jones movie. Fade to black.

Now Indy is a sad, pathetic shell of himself wallowing in alcohol and self-pity. Just what I wanted to see.

This movie is almost vindictive in tone, trying to bury the past for a future of Phoebe Waller Bridge--one of the most unlikeable characters ever to hit the screen.

Indeed, the only thing that passes for a character arc is that she's not as big an ass at the end as she is in the beginning.

How on earth could anyone enjoy this who saw the first three? I'm sorry I wasted my time and there's no way to unsee it. I desperately wish there were.

This movie was just what the doctor ordered after the half-hearted, too cool for school crap I've seen out of Hollywood recently.

Sisu requires a major suspension of disbelief, but the spirit, imagery, and the grizzled but still vital protagonist make it something you'll want to do.

Think of it as kind of a Finnish John Wick with Nazis and gold, and you've got the essence of it.

The acting is generally top notch, and all the characters are believable within Sisu's little universe. The plot moves along and the movie knows when to stop. A good thing when Hollywood these days is stretching every movie well past the point the story requires.

Is it really a nine in terms of craft? No, but I felt like a nine was by the end of the movie. Good job.

Yes, it's formulaic. Yes, it's too long. Yes, the ultimate ending is trite. BUT. I did find it largely entertaining and the messages are pretty much ones that everyone can agree on. Not those of insecure egoists trying to excuse their own crappy lifestyles.

The main characters are personable and well-acted, and while I get a bit tired of the main character's perpetual crisis of worthiness, in the end it all works out.

The CGI is decent, the scenes tight even if there are too many of them, and overall, it's one of the better DC efforts in my book.

AND, it's not full of the garbage that Disney is selling these days. Yup. Merely good is now the new entertaining because of the Mouse House. That's the 7th star.

As with many movies these days, I think it would've been much better with a half hour of pointlessness removed.

First off, while obviously dramatized, this is basically a true story. Cold Harbor, the climactic battle of the film was the slaughter that finally convinced U. S. Grant that frontal assaults were worse than useless. Never again did the Union try to storm fortified positions. On purpose at any rate.

The story of the first black combat units in the Union army is done well, though as usual with Hollywood it's an amalgam of events that happened to numerous units. It never overplays its hand though. Okay, maybe occasionally... Hence the 9.

The portrayal of the conflict is generally first-rate and historically accurate for the most part. More than anything, you'll find yourself rooting for the protagonists and moved by the ultimate outcome.

Well-acted, well-directed, well-written and miles better than most of the garbage you get from Hollywood these days.

As my father was a USMC aviator who flew in Korea, I've been aware of this story since I was little. It's a great story of true friendship.

I must say that I loved the accurate portrayal of the aircraft involved and for the most part, the physics. Hardly any of that "speed it up to make it more exciting" crap. The action isn't 100% accurate, but artistic license. I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think either was involved in the minimal downing of Migs by Corsairs. I loved the ADs which is what my father flew.

The biggest problems with the movie are the length and the color. There's a lot of needless domestic interaction. For some reason they were trying to hammer home that Jessie Brown was a good man. Of course he was, but we don't need so many scenes to prove it.

I'll give them credit though. The film handles the race thing with understated elegance for the most part, though it would've been more effective with less of the personal battle.

And what is it these days with Hollywood? Do they think Krakatoa had erupted at the time and that people lived in the dark in their own homes in the 50's??? The world sported the same bright palette back then as it does now. Midway chose the same thing. Somber without need.

I suppose they figure serious subject matter requires a dark palette. No it doesn't. Use the story and stop with the post-production trickery.

If you look at pictures of the battle of the Chosin reservoir, you'll notice that it's not nearly as dark as portrayed.

Regardless, you'd have to be devoid of feeling not to feel the story's impact.

A good film, but suffering from Hollywood's current addictions to length and dark palettes.

This movie is a farce and the main character is rendered as a buffoon. I had heard bad things about this but I didn't think it could possibly be this bad.

Christian Bale is great and most of the acting is fine. But what they're being asked to do is just complete nonsense. The plot makes almost no sense, and even when it starts to, another stupid or tasteless joke pops up to ruin the mood and flow.

About the only redeeming factor could be some of the visuals. But Thor's costume is ridiculous and the CGI for Natalie Portman is weird.

I could go on, but just ready yourself for disappointment if you're looking for any sort of depth or intelligent design. Truly a bad film.

I liked this movie, which I actually first saw long before I saw the TV series. I distinctly remember that feeling of not quite having the whole picture as far as the characters are concerned.

There are relationships that fans of the TV show would know all about, but are merely implied or jumped into for much of the movie. I would say this was Whedon's biggest challenge, balancing the movie between the needs of first time viewers and long time fans. I'll give him maybe a B minus on that.

A couple of characters change personalities as well, not necessarily for the better in my book. A couple also kick the bucket. I wasn't invested the first time I saw the movie, but after seeing the TV show I have to wonder why and I can also see why fans were so consternated.

Just as a movie, without the TV show as reference, it holds together and makes sense. It's also pretty lively, nicely paced, and the Jos Whedon humor (which I truly like) shows through.

Lawrence of Arabia it ain't, but it's a good time with memorable characters.

When all is said and done, however, I like the TV show (Firefly - one season only) far better.

I enjoyed to the first couple of episodes, but then things started to get convoluted, repetitive, and laden with lots of unnecessary digressive and unnecessary exposition.

After a while, the world-wise banter, know-it-all banter from each and every protagonist started to wear on me. Speaking of which, just how many protagonists do you need? Big hint: Not this many. Try one and a sidekick who doesn't have to be "equal".

The acting is generally strong, and the action well done, so I'll blame the writing and the fact that it's eight or so hours long. It should've been four hours max. Less is more.

Not a bad watch in the grand scheme, but not nearly as good as it might've been. Or as I'd hoped it would be.

I quite enjoyed this film. Especially as it tackles a little discussed but fascinating period of history, and a segment of the age of fighting sail that's rarely discussed.

De Ruyter was a fascinating character and this film seems to get most of the stuff right, though they ignore the fact that he had two wives over the period on question. Dramatic license. This is evident in other areas as well.

What it also brings to life is just how brutal and bloody the struggle for power can become, even in "civilized" countries. Something we should all keep in mind these days with political polarization blossoming.

This series is the best look at WWII in Europe I've found. And by a goodly margin.

I've studied WWII all my life and much of the film footage is new to me.

The information is overwhelmingly accurate according to the latest research, the approach as even-handed as possible given the sensitivity of the subject matter and both civilian and military matters are covered.

It's hard to find much else to say. Everyone should watch this. And I mean everyone. Even if you have no interest in WWII, it shows just how badly things can spiral out of control.

This movie is surprisingly gritty for a '50's western. Infidelity, drunkenness, questioning the meaning...

And Victor Mature. There are just some people who grab your attention on screen, and while he hams it up a bit, he's charismatic.

In fact the entire cast is top-notch. James Whitmore, a barely recognizable Anne Bancroft, etc. Before I knew it was Robert Preston, I was saying "That kind of looks like Robert Preston". Not the kind of role he became famous for.

The scenery is eye-catching, the plot moves along and it's just a generally interesting movie of the kind they used to make. Much better than I was expecting.

I go back and forth with Adam Sandler. He's personable as all get out, but his taste level varies wildly. I also get the feeling that he does movies about certain subjects just so I can hang out with the people that fit. In this case that would be a bunch of NBA legends, etc.

But this movie is largely a forth. It's tightly done, humorous without being dumb, dramatic without being morose, and generally just a nice, rewarding way to spend a couple of hours.

All the actors are great, the Philly references are right on, and it's touching in spots.

Good job Adam! I might've gone 8 stars, but for a couple of little PG jokes that make the movie a tad less suitable for kids.

This movie has a distinct "shot on an iPhone" look, so it took a few minutes to get past that. But Butler is an interesting actor to watch, and after a few minutes he earns his keep by lifting you out of that.

Somewhat unpredictable (not always), generally well-acted, and a little off-kilter. Makes for a more interesting couple of hours than you might expect given the slow start.

A couple of awkward scenes, but better overall than a lot of big budget stuff. Reminded me slightly of the Cohen brothers. Yes, I just said that.

Kudos to all involved. A very pleasant surprise.

Love seeing the interviews with old-timers, as well as the new footage of a Lancaster flying in various historical locations. I also liked that the film highlights some of the less famous exploits along with those that caught the public eye.

There's not a ton of technical detail about the bomber, though they do cover its Manchester progenitor and how it came about.

The film covers the controversial aspects of the bombing campaign without losing sight of the realities of the time, or failing to honor the men who risked life and limb to fly the missions.

Only roughly 4 out of 10 survived the experience unscathed, making it one the most dangerous things you could do during the war.

Extremely well done. A must for any one with the slightest interest and it would benefit just about anyone.

I very much liked the first movie, and while I had some issues with the second movie, it was infinitely better than this convoluted, dark, overly serious, slow-paced, illogical mess.

Firstly there are the two elephants in the room. The lack of Johnny Depp and Dumbledore and Grindelwald having been lovers. I didn't like either.

Depp had established the look and feel, and while the new actor was plausible, it was a jolt and a disappointment. The lover plot simply gave the film a bit of tawdriness it didn't need. Not to mention forcing countless parents to explain the situation.

Indeed, the entire film was written like it was more concerned with virtue signaling rather than developing or continuing a good story.

The new characters are forgettable at best, and water down both the plot and the action.

The whole fantastic chemistry between Queenie and Jacob is nowhere to be found until it surfaces (barely) at the very end, and Newt is almost like a secondary character in this one.

The fantastic beasts are few and far between and the one in the jail is simply ridiculous. What? Dragons weren't good enough? And where was Katherine Waterson? Cameos????

The dialogue is subpar, lifeless, and amateurish. It's hard to tell about the actors because they were basically given nothing to work with. Too busy adding new characters that weren't needed.

The beginning was lousy, it was too long, and the endings were lousy. Even the one I should've felt good about.

I didn't read all the credits, but this hardly seems like the same crew that did what I consider a very good job with the first two movies. Even James Newton Howard (score) seemed off his game.

WTF did they think they were doing? If this doesn't kill the franchise, I'd be shocked. I'm no longer interested.

There's a lot of silliness in this movie. I'm sure kids will like it, but the same way they like bubblegum. It's sweet but not particularly memorable. If you're looking for depth, look elsewhere.

Jim Carrey, pardon the pun, carries the film acting-wise, but craziness works best juxtaposed against normality, which this film generally fails to provide. Some of his best moments are minimized because of this.

The movie kind of meanders its way to the action. There are several subplots that all take time to ramp up. The second half saves the day.

In short, it's generally fun, but could've been a better with a little less plot. Jim Carrey excepted. I'm glad for his renaissance.

It's too long, it's over serious, the plot is questionable (if currently somewhat relevant), but the action is well-done and I like Chris Pine and the rest of the cast. They basically rescue the film. I enjoyed it, but it could've been done better.

As is usual these days in a Hollywood that takes itself far too seriously, the scenes plod on far too long, there are duplicate scenes (motorcycle rides), and there's too much side plot. Even at 103 minutes, the movie drags in spots.

There's a perfect length for every movie and one deserved 85 minutes, 90 minutes tops. Less is more. Still, I think it's far more deserving than the sub-6 rating it's currently sporting.

This movie isn't completely without merit, I watched it all the way through. It's entertaining at times, but as history, or even an accurate portrayal of the humanity it's mostly rubbish.

Why filmmakers feel the need to overly darken the color palette of films to impart a sense of importance, I have no idea. How about just letting nature reign?

Also, I shouldn't have to point this out, but even in medieval times people were people. They sometimes had fun, joked, and weren't dour or overwhelmed with a sense of foreboding or historical fate 100% of the time.

Raised on graphic novels? Dime store philosophy?

Then there's the "history". Thomas was killed in France well after Agincourt, not Wales, and after campaigning with Henry. Where the whole adolescent rivalry thing, Henry being passed over, and single combat thing come from I have no idea.

There is some evidence however, that Henry was fond of the usurped Richard and not so much his real father.

The movie completely skips over Henry's fascinating recovery from what would normally be a fatal arrow wound in the face/skull. He got this campaigning with his father in Wales. Not doubt a formative experience.

So there you have it. As long as you're aware that a lot of the history is horse puckie, have at it.

I enjoyed this movie, and laughed out loud several times. But I also found the pace a bit slow at times.

I might also say it was familiar. There's not a lot here that hasn't been done in a Marvel movie before. If I'm noticing that, I'm obviously not fully invested in the experience.

I'm also found myself wondering just how long the teen angst and immaturity stuff was going to last. You find out in the end, but still.

I particularly enjoyed the reunion portion, though that was a bit over done as well. What ever happened to the tight 100 minute movie? Is it in the contracts that each actor must get a certain amount of screen time? Yes, I know the answer.

In short, I thought Far from Home was the better flick. I think this one is just getting higher marks because it's not woke garbage we've been seeing recently.

A good time, not a great time.

Okay, this isn't the best movie technically I've ever seen, but it's a good story that needed to be told and I enjoyed it.

The moral conclusions will be obvious once you watch the movie, so I'll just skip over those. And unless you're a diehard cynic, you should.

Yes, it's sentimental, but it's not maudlin (much) and the story is largely factual. If it bothers you, you've got issues. How someone could rate this four stars, I have no idea. The acting is not mediocre, it's quite good. Dead on for the lead characters if you've ever seen the real folk interviewed live.

The overall flow of the movie is reasonable sprightly, though a tad clunky in places.

A good, fun, watch that doesn't go overboard with the emotion... Okay, maybe just a tad, but mainly the movie lets the story speak for itself.

I was expecting something with Cyd Charisse to be a bit lighter. You know, the typical dance thing. But it's a surprisingly serious and well-acted.

Of course, you get to see Cyd do a couple of her numbers, and she's well... Very attractive doing it. Robert Taylor's great, so are the others. A lot, and I mean a lot more enjoyable than I was expecting.

Good stuff.