doveed

Some things about this movie I loved a lot. Other things I didn't really know how to process. There was about 45 minutes that could have been cut out. All of QT's movies are self-indulging, but this was a little different. It was unique, but not very clever. Some things happened a little too easily. Surprise ending? I saw it coming. Even when I don't completely connect with a QT movie, I usually respect that he hits the mark he was going for. But this one might have been a little left of the bull's eye. As I mentioned, there's a lot to appreciate and it was a fun ride. With another viewing, I might kick it up to 8 stars, or possibly down to 6. I'm not completely sure how I feel about this one.

The question is this: Who was dumb enough to give these amateurs the money to make this horrible movie? To call this a cliche boxing movie would be an insult to all of the cliche boxing movies out there. It's hard to identify all of the individual areas where this movie suffers, because everything about it was bad. If you are an aspiring filmmaker, you'll draw inspiration from this. Because if these filmmakers are capable of making a movie that is prominently featured on Netflix, so can you. To give you an idea of how bad this movie is - one of the actors portrays Sylvester Stallone. This particular actor was a very overweight man with pock marked skin and a heavy east coast accent. I don't mean to be insulting, but he looked nothing like Stallone and it was preposterous to watch. I'm genuinely embarrassed for everyone attached to this project. This movie is about Chuck Wepner, "the underdog who went the distance with Muhammad Ali." The only problem with this point is that Ali TKO'd Wepner in the final round of their 1975 fight. Do your homework, fellas.

When I rate a movie less than 6 out of 10, it's usually because there's bad filmmaking involved. I'm not so sure bad filmmaking was the issue here, but I was so turned off that 5 out of 10 was as generous as I could be. And maybe this movie doesn't deserve my generosity. What were the filmmakers involved trying to accomplish with this dumb experiment? I don't remember the last time I disliked a movie so much that I felt angry. I'm not a fan at all of potty mouth humor, and I was worried that this movie was going to be rated something like 8.1 by the viewers who appreciate stuff like this. Bravo to the reviewers on imdb for giving this piece of garbage an accumulated rating of 4.3 of 10.

This was a good movie, but I don't think it was intended to be a fine piece of cinema. I suspect the target audience is people with a short attention span. That's unfortunate because if this movie was just a little more exquisite, it could have been great. The story, the production design, and the acting were all excellent. It had a classic feel that was cheapened by a modern day approach. What I disliked about this movie, as well as some other modern movies, is that we, the viewers, were subjected to an overdose of coverage. Constant cutting throughout. The actors can't say one line of dialogue without the editor cutting to a different angle. It was like a neck jerk. I suppose this is to hold a viewer's interest, but it's purposeless filmmaking and it doesn't allow us time to appreciate the performances or the cinematography. While the story was great, the writing was a little preachy at times which gave it the feel of a made for TV movie. That being said, this is a good one, and if nothing else, it will hold your interest.

This movie, which runs 2 hours and 23 minutes, consists of 20 minutes of story, and 2 hours of action and special effects. I find that to be out of balance. By the time it was over, I felt exhausted and unfulfilled. I can't rate it lower than a 6, because it's not bad filmmaking. It's just not my cup of tea.

Great story, great acting, great execution. What else can you ask for in a movie? I can't really identify anything I didn't like about it. Rarely do I give a movie a 9 or a 10. I have to really connect with the people and subject matter for a rating like that. I'm not that in to media and cover ups and stuff like that, but this was just fantastic. 8 out of 10 is a very high rating in my book. If you missed this understated powerhouse drama in 2015, do yourself a favor and check it out. You'll be glad you did.

The original Pet Sematary is looked at as such a classic that people forget it's a bad movie. On a positive note, it's one of the best of the bad Stephen King adaptations. That would lead one to believe that if it was done right, it has potential. I can't say that the Pet Sematary remake was poorly done in the traditional sense. Like the first one, it starts off okay but then it becomes so tragic and cheesy. Because I'm a Stephen King fan and a fan of the horror genre, I had to see it. But let's face it - King's books are much better than the movie adaptations based on them. As I was leaving the theater, I turned to someone and said, "Wasn't that dumb?" He paused for a moment, then said, "Yep." That pretty much sums it up. Children of the Corn 2020 anyone?

I love small movies like Wakefield. I watched it in the theater and really liked it a lot. However, I just saw it on Netflix for the second time and it did nothing for me. It's a great premise and a beautiful story. The problem is that there was WAY too much voice-over. I normally don't have a problem with narration, but this was just excessive. It gives the viewer no room to experience what's happening. I felt like this should have been the kind of movie where you can watch it multiple times and discover something new each time, but there was nothing to be gained from a second viewing. It's worth seeing, but like I said, once is enough.

Movies about famous artists who start from humble beginnings, make it big, party too hard, then put the pieces together always make for solid entertainment. It wasn't executed with true mastery and the performances were just as contrived as you would expect them to be, but it was worth the watch. Check it out!

I usually don't enjoy spy movies, because I can't relate to the world that they're in. However, I love the Indiana Jones movies. Why is that? Because the Indiana Jones movies have personality. Like a lot of spy movies, Red Sparrow is very monotone. It's as if the director told all the actors, "I want every line in the movie delivered like this." The effect was flat and kind of depressing. For me, it takes more than violence, nudity, and risky sexual content to hold my interest. I need to be able to connect. This movie started out on a very positive note, but then it became boring. It's a solid production, well shot, and had a strong grasp on itself, but it just wasn't my cup of tea.

To put my review into perspective, it took me 3 viewings of Get Out before I really started to appreciate it. I can't say that I love it, but I think I get it, and I recognize that there's a lot of intelligence behind it. Of course, I wanted to like Us, but I can't say that I did. Like Get Out, the premise is a little too random and high concept. I would probably get more out of it if I see it again, which I wouldn't object to at some point. Without a doubt, Jordan Peele is a very talented filmmaker but I just didn't connect with this one. Nevertheless, I give it 6 out of 10, because it was well executed. As I was leaving the theater, I asked a woman what she thought and she said, "It was lame." That might be a bit harsh, but I understood her dissatisfaction.

Because I'm from the city of St. Louis where we have our share of race issues, particularly issues that involve police, I really connected with the subject matter. It's a story worth telling, though I felt it was a bit over-written and more complex than it needed to be. But my biggest problem was that the presentation was too heavy-handed. Even though this movie unbiasedly explored the perspectives of everyone involved, it left no room for the viewers to form their own opinions. We were spoon fed, and at times it had the feel of an after school special. From the writing, to the performances, to the music, everything was very literal. There was no subtext or anything to read into. Maybe the filmmakers accomplished exactly what they were going for. The overall style was consistent throughout and it seemed that the artists behind this mostly hit their mark. For my money, however, I prefer an approach that is more challenging. But 6 out of 10 is still a passing grade. This is a subject that needed to be acknowledged on screen and I do feel that it was handled with respect and fairness.

Just saw this movie on DVD. It was packaged with the Robert Redford classic Jeremiah Johnson, so why not give it a shot? I'm only writing a review, because I saw some other reviews that were positive, and I wanted to set the record straight (not that anybody cares what I have to say, nor do they care about this forgotten film which should stay forgotten). This movie is very dumb, even for its time. The first 5 minutes were interesting. Then it became weak, but classic. Then it became just plain weak. At first, I thought it was a poor man's Romancing the Stone, but it's worse than that. When I rate a movie 1-10, I would say that a 10 is a movie like The Godfather, while a 1 is a scratchy student film that shouldn't leave the classroom. Anything 5 or below is bad filmmaking. Maybe I'm being generous with this 5 out of 10 rating.

This was a very well made movie. Very impressive production design/art direction. Definitely one of Robert Rodriguez's best directorial efforts. Christoph Waltz seems incapable of giving anything less than a great performance. I'm not a graphic novel guy, but the story was pretty interesting. This movie started out as 8 out of 10 stars, but after a while, it all got to be a bit too much - a little too long, a little too exhausting, and a little too high concept. But I'm glad I saw it. And if you're a fan of Rodriguez, Waltz, and producer James Cameron, you'll probably be glad too.

M Night started off strong in his career, but he had been on a downward spiral for awhile. The Visit was a step in the right direction. Split was his best film since Unbreakable. Combining Unbreakable and Split was a very interesting idea, but I'm not sure if it worked well. I liked some things a lot. Great performances from the three main actors, but something was missing. For some reason, I'm slightly dissatisfied. But this wasn't one of M Night's bombs. 6 out of 10 isn't horrible at all. I'm still a fan and would be eager to see what he does next.

I rank BEALE STREET as my #1 favorite movie of 2018. This is not the kind of movie you watch for pure entertainment. This is a movie that inspires emotion and makes you appreciate life. This story (which I would describe as adequately incomplete) may have been told before, but the movie itself is completely unique. It was an artful presentation that reached my core. Themes like love and injustice can take a movie to great heights when done right. This movie was done right.

I must say that I am often critical of the state of the motion picture industry today, believing that it lacks in greatness. But then I see movies like VICE that show how movies today can not only meet the standard of what we call greatness, but take things to a whole new level. Evolution is a beautiful thing. Movies like CASABLANCA and THE GODFATHER were the best of their time. But movie fans of 2019 have a lot to appreciate and look forward to in that the quality of some movies seem to be getting better and better. And it's not because of technology. It's because of cleverness, creativity, and good old fashioned story telling. VICE might not be THE GODFATHER of its time, but its a great movie that raises the bar once again. The subject of politics doesn't particularly interest me, otherwise I probably would have ranked this movie higher.

To me, a lot of the Netflix original movies feel churned out. They're well produced and it's not bad filmmaking at all, but something is missing. Maybe the Netflix executives discourage the filmmakers they work with from taking risks? Whatever the case may be, their movies don't feel very passionate. Bird Box fits into this mold. The best way I can describe this movie is "decent." With all the good ingredients they had to work with (top actors, strong production value, etc), it's disappointing that the filmmakers behind this made something with such a flat affect. Unfortunately, I think we're going to see a lot of 6 out 10 movies from Netflix in 2019.

This movie captured my interest from the start. It had a dark look and moved right along. The villains as well as the protagonists were very unique and believable. But as the movie progressed, it lost its pace and dragged on. It became less interesting, hard to understand at times, and also very gross. As I mentioned, this movie has a dark look - so dark that it was sometimes hard to see the characters's faces. There was no contrast to this darkness and it became a bit too much. The story ended decently and it definitely fits in with modern day thrillers/horror movies. I'm almost surprised that Blumhouse didn't produce it - that's the kind of picture it was. If you like those kinds of movies, you'll like this. From my perspective, this was a movie that had so much potential early on that I was disappointed that it didn't turn out better.

Over 4 years after it's release, I just discovered this outstanding film that I rank in my personal top 10 of movies viewed in 2018. Those who rank it less than 7 out of 10 are just plain cynical.

This was an interesting approach to making a boxing documentary, as it follows three different boxers who are at three different stages in their careers. The problem was that the emphasis of the storytelling seemed to be more about the sport of boxing itself, opposed to the three people we were following. Because of that, it was difficult to be emotionally invested. Even the writer/director, who narrates the documentary (with inconsistency), could have elaborated on his own boxing story just a little bit more. He introduces himself at the beginning and sets the stage pretty well, but not long after the documentary begins, we forget that he's our storyteller. There's lots of interesting information in this piece, perhaps a bit too much for a 90-minute sitting, and it overshadows the human stories which are underdeveloped. The sport of boxing is an underdog in of itself, so it's nice to see a well-produced piece like this featured on Netflix. Boxing fans should like this, and it might have been more than just a "boxing documentary" if it had a stronger narrative theme. But I'm a boxing guy, so much respect to the people involved.

I always find episodes of BLACK MIRROR to be hit and miss. This was a miss in my book. It was an experiment worth trying, but the end result was pretty weak. What I learned is that I don't like movies where I have to physically participate. Aside from this technological breakthrough in movie watching, the story was pretty uninteresting. The repeating of scenes was annoying and it seemed like the movie was trying to make a thought-provoking point that went right past me. It's a worth a watch because of the uniqueness of it, but hopefully this was the first and last of its kind.

Very interesting story and great acting. The movie starts with a certain flow and a certain energy, but loses it on occasion. The use of voice-over throughout was a bit excessive. I normally don't mind a voice-over, but with this movie it was used strictly to give information. It had kind of a flat effect and there was very little personality in it. This was a very nice directorial debut for Aaron Sorkin who is a highly accomplished screenwriter. Clearly, he has studied the craft of directing and he knows what he is doing, but he doesn't have that special touch that great directors have. This movie had a lot going for it, so much that I was disappointed that it wasn't better. That said, 7 out of 10 ain't bad. It's a good movie and worth seeing.

When you've been watching movies for a long time and you consider every movie that has ever been made, it's amazing when something comes out that breaks the mold. Biopics are tough to make, and any other group of filmmakers could have told this story in a flatter and more straight forward way. But the artists behind this gem brought so much humor and originality, showing that you don't need sophisticated technology to give audiences something they've never seen before. Great acting, great writing, great directing, great everything. I applauded when it was over. Bravo!

Stanley Kubrick is perhaps the most mysterious director in history, and this documentary sheds some light on the mystery. If you're a Kubrick fan and you want to learn more about him, this is a must see. It's certainly better than the documentary Room 237, which tries too hard to read into the mind of Kubrick. Filmworker offers a lot of reliable insight into Kubrick, told by his right hand man Leon Vitali, who is perhaps just as interesting, or at least obsessive, as Kubrick himself. Thus far, I've seen five movies this week and this is my favorite. Check it out!