DrZom-77-388656

The first few episodes of Rings of Power were not much to my liking. Manufactured story lines. Manufactured characters. The events of the Second Age and its characters as told by Tolkien (even though not fully fleshed out) are far richer than the contrived mess in this show.

About half way through the season it began to grow on me a bit and I started to think maybe when it gets around to telling the proper story all will be well. I was wrong. Instead of telling Tolkien's story of how the rings were created these Prime folks plucked a few pieces from him and just rewrote the history. They rewrote Tolkien! I hope his estate sues Amazon but I suspect the money has already changed hands.

Disgraceful.

Does nobody find it incongruous that people of color are singing and dancing for liberty and equality in 1776? Yes, it is very well written. Yes, it is very well staged. Yes, it is very well performed. But all those things only make the bourgeois nature of it even worse. Those performers on stage would not be singing and dancing in 1776.

Sorry. Let's just ignore the genocide, the ethnic cleansing, the chattel slavery of people of color in the time period being celebrated. Let's all just pretend like talented people of color today can ignore the truth and cash in, and it is all good. Close your eyes if you can. While the performers are getting paid, who is making the real money?

I am stunned. This is the best bit of cinematography I have ever seen. The entire movie filmed in a single shot!! Amazing!

The story is not particularly new: two men sent to stop a charge into a trap, running into obstacles and situations. "Gallipoli" comes to mind at once. But the urgent message took up only a few minutes of "Gallipoli"; here virtually the entire movie carries that sense of urgency... in a single take!

I am not sure whether "1917" is the best movie of the year, but it certainly makes a case. Without doubt it makes a strong case for best director and best everything-to-do-with-making-a-bloody-movie-award. Yeah, I highly recommend it.

It took me three sittings to finish this movie. Yes the visuals are great, but who cares? The story is just a new recycling of Conrad's "Heart of Darkness", and not a very good one at that. Brad Pitt is at his Brad Pitt moodiest; if that is a good thing for you, then maybe you will like the movie more than I did.

There was one part I really did like: the Killer Space Monkeys. OK, I know they are not really monkeys; oops, spoiler alert? After you see that part, you can turn it off. It really goes downhill.

Three stars out of ten, only because of the visuals.

Netflix sunk a lot of money into its version of Henry IV(2) and Henry V. It did not spend it well or wisely. What we are presented is a small kernel of truth with a vast coconut husk of fancy. They got the names right, at least.

Yes, the small details of early 15th century life and so on were good. The first half of the movie focusing on the fictitious "young Hal and Falstaff" story line is acceptable for its well recognized mythology. But when the movie plays fast and loose with clear history such as the campaign against Percy Hotspur I should have known nothing good was in the offing. But I still held out hopes because the production values were so good. Yes the acting is good, particularly if you like brooding young men. It truly is a lovely, gritty tale. 75% fiction, but a lovely tale.

The Battle of Agincourt is soooo wrong. Yes, there were archers. Yes there was mud. Yes there were French knights and men at arms on horse. Netflix had the opportunity to make a truly epic presentation of one of the most epic battles in military history. What a disappointment.

Presented like a kids' movie, this is a good time travel paradox film.

Two high school nerds, boy and girl, invent time machines worn as backpacks. When the girl's brother is shot and killed by police, she determines to change the past. The boy tries to warn her about unintended consequences, but she does not listen, of course. They go back and change nothing. They go back further and everything changes, but not good changes. What will happen with repeated trips back in time, attempting to change the unintended consequences of previous jumps?

Get past the kids' movie perception and it is a thoughtful work that explores feelings and relationships tested by time, as it tests time itself.

Not the best movie ever but worth a look. Definitely NOT just a kids' movie.

I stopped watching after about 30 minutes. But when I had nothing better to watch, I went back and finished. It is OK for a mad scientist movie.

Keanu Reeves has a car accident with his family. All die except for him. Luckily he is the sole mad scientist who commands the magic... cutting edge biotech... to copy their souls... neural pathways... into a computer and then implant them into clones. And of course he decides that instead of reporting the accident and burying his family he will pursue the course of a mad scientist. Too bad that the corporation he works for is making demands on his time, making more difficult his mad scientist home experiment.

Nice to see playing as Keanu's mad scientist assistant the guy who sells cell phones on TV, the one who likes free stuff and seems so smug all the time. He gets his... oops spoiler alert. Anyways, all does not go according to plan. Small details get in the way of the mad plan, like the school wanting to know where the kids are, and oh yeah, the boss wanting to know where his expensive biotech stuff went.

There are one or two nice twists in the final act, which make me say the movie is OK. Otherwise, Keanu is his usual Keanu self; the budget was not cheap when it could have been. Not great. Just OK.

This one almost sneaked under my radar. Tom Holland plays an Irish monk, who is tasked among others to transport a holy relic to the Pope. It takes place during the darkest of medieval days, of wild Irish tribes and scant Xians to be found except among the Normans sent to escort the pilgrims. Richard Armitage plays the leader of the Normans, but his agenda is not exactly clear.

The marriage of superstition and violence are on full display. The story could almost be the subject of a role playing game run by a DM who enjoys twists, turns, and betrayals. Slow developing, but very satisfying when the gloves come off and all is revealed. Gritty, could have been bloodier but we don't really need to swim in the blood, do we?

I suspect this movie is obscure and might be hard to find. It is clearly not for everyone, but perhaps is just right for your enjoyment. If you like that sort of thing.

This is not your father's Spiderman, nor your father's Peter Parker. This is not Stan Lee's or Steve Ditko's Spiderman either, although Stan does make his expected cameo... and I expect will be cashing a fat royalty check any day now.

And this sure as hell is not anyone's Aunt May. (Can I just say how great it is to see Marisa Tomei, whom I have always had a crush on... but not as Aunt May. Come on already.)

I cannot accept a Peter Parker who is not capable of making his own suit. I cannot accept a Peter Parker who is so in awe of any other super hero as this one is in awe of Tony Stark. I cannot accept a Peter Parker who has a pudgy side kick. No Jonah Jameson? No Daily Bugle?

Why did Marvel Studios feel like it had to remake so many of the basic elements of Peter's story? The Lee/Ditko creation was pretty successful, don't you think?

Yes, the screenplay otherwise was well written. Yes, Tom Holland plays an excellent Peter/Spidey. Yes, Michael Keaton was great as the Vulture. And the effects were as they should be. So I give four stars out of ten for the four things that were right about this picture.

Too many things wrong with the overall vision of Marvel Studio's Spiderman. Sony and Sam Raimi got it right, especially in the second film with Doc Ock. Now THAT was the Peter/Spidey Stan and Steve created.

How could Marvel Studios fail so badly with Marvel Comics' number one property?

I don't know exactly why I watched. I knew it was going to be bad. I guess I just wanted to see how bad it could be.

I couldn't finish it. But in fairness, I did get much farther in it than I did in that Egyptian Gods stinker.

I am speaking of the newest "Mummy" with Tom Cruise. I liked the twist that this mummy was female and was chasing down her reincarnated male lover. There, I found something good to say. Oh, and the special effects were... modern. CG is now at the point where great effects should be a given, no longer worthy of praise. So I guess I still only found one good thing to say.

The plot was constrained by the formula, so it had to rely on two twists to be fresh. One twist, mentioned, was good. The other was horrible. Russel Crowe is in the movie as... Dr. Henry Jekyll. He is the leader of the good guys trying to imprison the mummy, who is evil incarnate. Can you guess who Jekyll becomes if he does not get his regular shot?

One funny thing that made me really laugh hard. This Dr. Jekyll has one hand in a glove, like Peter Sellers in Dr. Strangelove. And it is that hand that starts to "go bad" when Mr. Hyde begins to appear. So of course, the shots go into the hand before Jekyll loses control of it. "Mein Fuhrer! I can walk!"

Sensing that this was likely to be the best part of the movie, I thought to stop there. But that morbid curiosity made me hang in there to watch the Hyde appearance (weak), and the inevitable escape of evil incarnate from its bounds (predictable).

I think I have about 20 minutes left to watch. Maybe I will finish it up before GoT tonight, sort of like a bad warm up band before the headliner.

So bad it is good? Almost, but not quite. A complete stinker? Also not quite... if you have a morbid sense of humor like I have. Otherwise you might think it is indeed complete.

Such touchy-feely pirates. Makes me want to puke my guts out.

Silver does not kill Flint, but being the great humanist and progressive pirate that he is Silver helps Flint to find his heaven on Earth. Flint can work in the sun with all the other sweaty Englishmen, live out his days, and disappear in Georgia. Oh yeah, I think that makes sense, don't you? Perhaps not?

What of the treasure? What of Ben Gunn? What of Billy Bones and how he comes by the map to Treasure Island? And what becomes of Silver? Did the writers/producers forget that some of us have actually read the book? Not to mention read the histories of the real pirates?

The one and only face saving moment is Jack taking on to his crew Mary Reed and adopting his historic flag. A bit late to make an interesting story, but at least a slight nod to history.

This series had so much going for it. Real pirates who lived real pirate lives and died real pirate deaths. All set as a prequel to perhaps the greatest pirate story of all time: Robert Louis Stevenson's "Treasure Island". I was so excited to see how the writers/producers would weave all the historic references with the fictional elements to create an intelligent and entertaining fusion.

Up until the series finale, the writers/producers had kept the anticipation on a razor's edge. But then came the epic fail. No resolution at all.

What a huge let down. Worst season finale I have ever seen.

Charles Vane died in vain.

Half way through the series. Feels a bit like DD, particularly with many of the DD characters making appearances. That is to be expected, since the plan for all four series (DD, Cage, Jones, and Fist) is for them to culminate in The Defenders. That probably needs to be soon, story wise, as the menace facing young Master Fist is way too much for a single hero to beat... at least a B List hero. Hulk would smash them.

The mean lady atty Hogarth shows up. Nurse Claire of course returns to patch up folks. A familiar villain returns. An interesting new character is a female ass kicker, played by one of the Sand Snakes from GoT. She becomes a side kick (ouch, pun) to Kwai Chang Fist... but only sometimes. Like DD, Fist has to go it alone. Destiny and all that stuff. There is one scene that is particularly grating to me, where Snake, Fist, and Nurse are talking about the huge menace. Nurse and Snake are telling Fist that he needs help, blah, blah, blah... a perfect opportunity for Nurse to mention that she knows a few people, and thereby to get The Defenders rolling. But no, it does not occur to her. She is supposed to be a smart character, and she does not think to even bring up the subject of her other super powered friends? Sorry, I cannot suspend my disbelief to overlook such an obvious writing error.

Overall an entertaining story. There are parallel good vs evil themes, one featuring an heartless corporation and the other featuring an evil organization of another kind. (Not Hydra; B List bad guys for B List heroes.) Plenty of martial arts action. So far not as brutally violent as DD. I doubt we will see Fist rip out a beating human heart, but I keep hoping. Six more episodes to go, so it could happen.

A time travel story is judged by how well it lives within its own created paradox. If you want to see that done well, choose "Predestination" over "Synchronisity".

There are two ways a story can deal with the paradox: one is to allow it to exist and the other is to threaten destruction, of the subject, of the universe, or both. This movie sadly chose the latter course and that is very hard to get out of.

If you travel back in time, say five days, you will have a five day long paradox. But that paradox both begins and ends when your primary self takes the trip back; a temporal loop has been formed where only for that five day period do you find yourself and your secondary self sharing the world. At the moment the primary makes the jump, at that instant the secondary becomes the one and only in the present, and the paradox ends. Almost a Hegelian Dialectic in its elegance.

The clever writer can create loop over loop over loop with still a satisfying explanation and ending. Then there is the writer who paints himself into that corner of destruction and must find a way out. Some Deus ex Machina.

I cannot detail how the god appears to rescue the character/universe from destruction in "Synchronisity" without spoiling the end. I do hate spoilers, but I walked away thinking I had my choice of endings.

My advice to you is to first watch "Predestination" and then go to this movie.

Oh, and some likable characters might have helped just a bit. I might have given a 3 out of 10.

This movie is pure fantasy, with very little connection to history.

Yes, there was a Ninth Legion that was stationed in Britain. It disappeared from Roman records, but there is no evidence that it suffered the fate depicted in this move. There is no evidence that the makers of this movie cared about history at all.

The equipment was wrong. The Roman legionary on the march carried his kit suspended by a forked wooden pole over the shoulder, not a spear. He did carry one or two pilum, throwing javelins made of soft metal and a wooden haft, so that when thrown it would deform and not be thrown back by the enemy.

The tactics were wrong. The legionary fought with shield and gladius, a short sword used for stabbing, not slashing. What made the legions so effective was that the soldiers fought in close order, highly disciplined. The barbarians fought as individuals, slashing and flailing, not legionaries... except in this movie.

The premise of the plot is a total flight of fancy. It is chock full of predictable elements seen in countless movies. I highly recommend that you instead watch "Northwest Passage" (1940) for a gripping drama of a military expedition that faces disaster. Then watch "Centurion".

I give the movie a 2 instead of only a 1 because at least technically it is well made.

As a young boy in the 50s or early 60s, I discovered in the local library a version of the Robin Hood story written in very odd English... not so old that I could not understand it, but clearly not modern American English. So much of it was familiar, but much of it was new to me... despite Errol Flynn and Richard Greene.

The book ended so differently than I expected. Marian poisoned Robin and herself. Robin shot an arrow out the window of the abbey, and told John to bury them where it fell.

The ending of this movie is not something concocted in the 70s. This is the traditional end of the story of Robin and Marian. The end of the story that most of us never knew. The ending of a great love story.

Such a wonderful, bittersweet telling of the end of the story. When someone asks me my favorite Sean Connery movie, I never hesitate.

Now after all these years, I find myself finally rating this timeless love story, one that few even know. I cannot give a ten, as nothing is perfect. Although this telling comes close.

I cannot recommend this movie highly enough.

I think the script writers were confused. Either they don't know the difference between Cleveland, Ohio and Cleveland, Mississippi, or they don't care, which would be even worse.

There was no discrimination in public accommodations in Cleveland, Ohio in the 1930s. African Americans did not have to sit in the back of the bus. When the script called for Jessie Owens to sit in the back of a bus in Cleveland, Ohio, it was in complete disregard for the truth. I checked with my mother, who went to the same high school with Jessie Owens. She went everywhere on the bus or the street car. Everyone did. And they all sat together, black and white.

Another problem with the script was the blatant racism in the locker room at Ohio State University. The Buckeye football team was already integrated by the time Jessie Owens arrived. William "Big Bill" Bell was an All American for the Buckeyes, and played from 1929 to 1931. I guess there could have been some racists who gave Jessie Owens some grief in the locker room, but it certainly would not have been so institutionalized as depicted in the film.

As much as those blatant misportrayals bother me, the thing that bothered me most was when Jessie was agonizing over whether to go to Berlin, his wife told him that he was never much good at thinking, so he should not do it. How much more racially condescending could the script writer be?

What a shame that this movie that could have been a rich source for teaching a moral lesson instead was turned into a source of misinformation and condescension.

The movie had some good moments, so I give it 4 out of 10 stars. Do not accept it as a reflection of reality, as it is not.

I have seen them all now. I saved "Room" for last because quite frankly I was afraid of the subject matter. I almost did not watch it.

I was afraid to see some sort of exploitation of the ordeals suffered by the three Cleveland girls. Their stories touched me very personally, as for so long when I would stop at the gas station or the 7-11 to buy smokes (so long ago now) I would see their "missing" posters. And as time went by, those 8x11 paper posters began to fray at the edges, to become ripped at the tape holding them up, and then to disappear; just like the girls on them. I do not recall noticing when the posters disappeared... and that makes me feel guilty. Especially after they were freed, and I remembered that I had forgotten them.

So I put off "Room" for last. I didn't want to feel guilty all over again. (No escaping Catholic upbringing.)

I am pleased to report that after 10 minutes I felt no guilt watching "Room". I am even more pleased to report that I felt many other emotions: fear, revulsion, despair, hope, patience (is that an emotion?), sympathy, and empathy. That last is surprising, since nothing in my life could prepare me to empathize with a 5 year old boy who only knows the inside of a back yard shed, then suddenly must deal with the world. The real world.

Most of all, I felt astonishment. At this late date it is hard for me to imagine discovering the world. But it was so easy to share Jack's astonishment. I felt like a five year old who knew nothing but the inside of a small room then suddenly must deal with the world. I felt what Jack was feeling. And for me, that makes it the best movie of the year.

A tender, thoughtful movie. The one that touched me, instead of just entertaining me.

My choice for Best Movie. I know it will not win. But what do the voters know?

"In the Heart of the Sea" is artfully crafted, which one would expect in a Ron Howard film. We are all aware that Melville's work was based loosely on the experience of The Essex. I confess I do not know exactly what the historical account is, but it really doesn't matter. Even if this film is not completely accurate, it is completely gripping.

Ron Howard knows how to tell a story. He knows how to make the audience invest in the characters. He knows how to give the audience peaks of tension and valleys of normalcy that inspire a false sense of confidence. He knows how to jerk a tear when the time for it is right. And most of all, Ron Howard knows how to make us examine our own humanity, to examine our motives and our place in the environment.

The tale of The Essex is one of the great stories of man vs the elements. Now I need to find a DVD of Gregory Peck as Ahab, for one of the great stories about man vs his own nature.

A solid eight out of ten.

Without doubt, the best Quentin Tarantino movie since "Pulp Fiction." Possibly his best movie ever.

Set in "wild west" Wyoming, bounty hunter Kurt Russell is taking a rather course female to a hanging, her own. But bad weather and the intentions of others conspire to make his own simple plan very, very difficult to fulfill.

Great characters. Great script. Great pacing. Great twists and turns. And of course, more than enough Tarantino gore to satisfy even the most vile among you, served up with a healthy serving of wry humor.

I usually hesitate to give a movie ten stars, but not this time.

I guess there is just no new way of telling this story. A boxer on top of his world loses everything in the blink of an eye, then battles his way back. Every trite plot wrinkle is there. Every sympathy trigger is there. The writing is not bad. The story is as well told as it can be, but the story just does not need to be told again.

Jake was great. His transformation from the pale, ghoulish "Nightcrawler" to a ripped pro boxer is startling. His portrayal of the punchy, brutal fighter on a journey of redemption is every bit as good as one could expect. Top marks for Jake. And the boxing scenes are as bloody as you could ask.

So there are some good things in a very predictable movie. Overall, go ahead and watch it and enjoy it for what it is. Just don't expect anything new.

Good Sci-Fi stories about time travel and potential paradoxes explain themselves. This film does not explain anything. There is no honest time line. One loop is laid upon another, with nothing common between them.

The events related in the first two films never happened. The two movies that made Terminator what it is never happened. Instead a totally new narrative is bootstrapped with zero foundation in its own alternate reality. Kyle Reese goes back to save Sarah Conner, but this time Sarah has a T-800 protecting her and she knows the future. Where did this protector come from? A more distant future than the one from which Reese was sent? Who sent the T-800? None of this is explained. It clearly could not have been sent by John Conner.

John Conner this time is the villain. He comes back from the future to invent SkyNet. (Also not adequately explained.) So why not just not mate Kyle and Sarah? Why doesn't Kyle kill himself when the "truth" becomes clear? Why doesn't the T-800 kill him? Then there would be no excuse for the movie.

This film is nothing more than a very poorly written excuse to use familiar movie memes and CG.

If you want to see a thoughtful movie about time travel paradox, pick up "Predestination" starring Ethan Hawke. Do not waste your money on this Terminator.

This first episode is very disappointing. Too many characters introduced right off the mark with too many back stories. Only in the final moment do we even come to the crime.

Look at the REAL "True Detective", the one from last year and see how it is done. Start with the crime, catch us with the crime. Make the crime the focus to start. Then slowly develop the characters over time as the crime story develops.

Last year's drama started with a creepy feeling, some kind of weird, ritual sex killer. This year's offering starts with Family Court.

Last year's drama hid for weeks any kind of background on the killing; that was part of the drama. We didn't have any idea who or why. This offering in the first episode gives us the identity of the victim and a potential explanation for his death. Maybe a red hearing, but something.

This is not rocket science. The formula for the success of last year's "True Detective" was weirdness of the crime, confounded by weirdness of the background. It immediately grabbed us.

This one starts out as an LA murder with weird cops. Sorry, it does not grab me.

I knew it was going to be bad from the very opening when they made middle aged Sam Adams into a 20 something Batman, single-handedly fighting off a squad of redcoats, acrobatically fleeing over rooftops. Then they place Alexander Hamilton in Boston, as a smuggler in league with Boston's governor, when instead he was in fact either a young clerk at an export firm in the Indies, or was at university in New York.

And from there, the historical accuracy heads downhill. Too many to list.

The History Channel really should be ashamed calling itself that any longer. It has become the Alternate Reality Channel.

Far better you watch HBO's "John Adams".

Did I tell you I hate Woody Allen? I used to love Woody Allen, back when he was young and I was a bit younger. But over the years, my love turned to indifference, and now I hate him. I hate him because he can so skillfully create and destroy a vulnerable creature.

I should hate Cate Blanchett, too. Without her, could Woody have brought to life such a complex character? But I marvel at Cate's craft. In a single role she combines haughty snobbery with base need, seamlessly. She presents us with a character of so many layers that we move from bemusement to sorrow, sympathy to disdain, and finally to deep regret and despair.

Can you ever see a woman on the street staring off in the distance talking to nobody and everybody again and not wonder how she came to such a state?

Cate Blanchett put in the best performance by an actress I have seen yet this year, and perhaps several years. Please do see this movie... but it is OK if you hate Woody, too.

For anyone who longs for realistic movies depicting the age of Rome, keep looking. While the film is shot in the gritty format of today, it is far from historically accurate. Within the first ten minutes of the movie, the lack of accuracy becomes glaring apparent. Roman legionnaires form the Testudo formation, the Turtle, to attack irregular infantry. This is of course absurd. The Testudo was used as a defensive formation against missile weapons, but never against irregular infantry.

From here, the movie goes downhill. Blue painted Mohawks make for good visual, but poor accuracy. Enjoy it if you can.