sunraider

Confused as to why we aren't following the story of the little son, John, from 1883. Why are we being introduced to a new Dutton from Ireland? I don't care about any of the characters. Too many and none are distinct. The setting makes such a strong impact in Yellowstone but is forgettable here. Painfully dull with three competing narratives with no connection between the storylines. As others have noted, this is strongly reminiscent of Legends of the Fall, a movie which I never cared for. Two episodes in and I don't have any idea what the main storyline is or who we're supposed to care about. I'll stick to Tulsa King.

Update 2/19/23. God-awful. The depravity of most of the characters is beyond belief. When it's not violence porn it's boring. Is TS such a golden boy that nobody is speaking up and telling him this is terrible?

I discovered this show on Paramount+ as I cut the cord years ago as network TV just didn't offer me anything that I actually wanted to watch. I still can't believe this show is/was a network TV show. I have binged watch up to Season 5 and I sure hope this is renewed. Unlike some past fare such as "The Unit" and the short-lived "Over There" the focus of this show remains squarely on the team and we're not bogged down with "homefront" concerns unless the team members are experiencing them. I'm impressed with the story lines and exploration of real world issues such as PTSD, rivalries within special forces community, officer/enlisted divide, changes to the political landscape and even how to handle (or not handle) aging out and moving on. The operators here are portrayed as real people with strengths and weaknesses, and I appreciate that some missions are failures, and that the characters themselves, even if all are operators, can disagree about tactics. The cast is superb, the action looks realistic to my untrained eye, and the writing is top notch. Love how the episodes don't necessarily end with the bow tied neatly but leave you with questions and looking forward to the next episode.

The most over-hyped movie of the year. Now, I'm not a comic book fan, nor an MCU fan although I've enjoyed a few, especially "Spider-Man Homecoming," which I loved as I'm a sucker for those teenage, coming of age tales. The animation style was lovely in this movie but, the plot was humdrum and there was little character development and none of the witty repartee that is such a hallmark of the best animated films that appeal to both children and adults. This should have focused on Miles Morales getting a disillusioned Peter Parker to train him and get his mojo back. THe other iterations of Spider-Man were unnecessary. This was truly little more than a mediocre kids' animated movie. The small audience in my Friday morning theater was exclusively adult and there was little reaction from the audience throughout. Sitting in the Dolby theater, with the recliner in use, I actually thought about taking a snooze at least a couple of times during the movie.

Although there were elements within the movie that I enjoyed, particularly those concerning Rey/Ren/Luke, I disliked this movie. The problems for me had nothing to do with how a beloved character was treated or how the force was presented. This movie had basic filmmaking flaws: pacing, plot, structure, character development. I was bored for most of the film, even though I was watching characters that I love. It wasn't until the final act that the pacing picked up as the plot lines merged. I'm genuinely shocked that this was the film that Lucasfilm loved so much that they didn't demand re-shoots or edits and gave the director his own trilogy.

As a WWII buff (listening to "The Longest Day: Music From The Classic War Films" as I type), I had expected to be first in line when this film came out but I hesitated after reading initial reviews. While extremely positive, many reviews commented on aspects of the film, from the non-linear narrative structure to the choice of characters focused on, that left me feeling that I would not enjoy the movie. I finally broke down and saw it because of its continued box office performance but found it as lackluster as I'd feared.

Present-day WWII movies just don't hold a candle to the classics (All Quiet on the Western Front, The Longest Day, Bridge on the River Kwai, Patton, and my all-time favorite film, The Great Escape), nor even big-budget mediocre fare from relatively recent times like A Bridge Too Far or The Battle of Britain. There's way too much pretentious nonsense in modern war movies. Every filmmaker these days has to make a "statement" about the horrors of war, as if intelligent viewers weren't already aware of that fact. Therefore, instead of a good story with appealing and memorable characters we get one that focuses on "the coward," because in the modern-day mindset, anyone who acts in war with dignity and courage and self-sacrifice is seen as unrealistic and somehow a dupe of the evil powers that be.

None of those characters was remotely interesting or appealing and the time shifts were totally unnecessary. In addition, the omnipresent music was a total turn-off. There was never any chance to actually hear the real sounds of war, which includes silence and the banter of soldiers trying to make the best of a bad situation. All told, this is the most-overrated movie I've seen in years. Thank God I have the classics on VHS and DVD.

Unfortunately, I came out of the theater underwhelmed as the final act was such a let down compared to the kick-ass 1st act. The 1st act of the film, which mostly takes place on the Amazon's island, was the best part of the entire movie. The backstory of the Amazons was interestingly depicted through Renaissance-type paintings coming to life and the Amazon women were so charismatic , particularly Robin Wright, who steals every scene she's in. The battle between the Amazons and a small invasion force of WWI-era German marines was visually stunning and exciting. The use of slo-mo worked here because of the contrast between the modern weaponry of the sailors and the bows, arrows, and spears used by the Amazons.

The wonderful chemistry between the leads carries over into the 2nd act, which takes place in London, where WW is a fish-out-of-water and Chris Pine's Steve Trevor has to show her the ropes. But, this is where things start to go downhill. Instead of the amazing Amazons, WW is saddled with a new posse that fails to make much of an impression save for the character of "Sameer," a fez-wearing, flirtatious charmer. The baddies, a German General and a scarred female scientist known as "Dr. Poison," are underdeveloped and remain little more than comic-book clichéd characters.

The final act is, ultimately, a mishmash of comic book and good vs. evil tropes, elevated by the convincing and winning performances by the two leads. Because I genuinely liked them as individual characters and as a pairing, the lame finale is bearable. It's almost unbelievable that they killed off Robin Wright's character so early in the film. The 3rd act could have been elevated by the appearance of Robin Wright to help WW bring down Ares. If you're going to kill off such a bad-ass character, why not do it in the final act when the stakes are most high. Also, the 3rd Act wasted an opportunity to give us baddies that had some depth. Dr. Poison could have been a more nuanced character whose outward disfigurement mirrored an even more broken soul. The scene where she seemed to be giving in to Steve Tevor's flirtations but once again became embittered when she saw that he was distracted by the arrival of WW, was so promising but, ultimately, the character remained woefully underdeveloped.

A terrific cast with undeniable chemistry elevated this movie but it could have been better.

Patriot's Day is a a fairly routine by-the-numbers drama about the Boston Marathon bombings and the hunt for the two brothers. Unfortunately, instead of a docudrama giving us an inside look at the important political and LE players and the decisions made, the film focuses on Whalberg's fictional, composite character and he drags the movie down. Whalberg's "Tommy Saunders" is a fairly unlikable character. He's facing suspension, has a bad attitude, and hobbles around on an injured leg. Every time he came on screen the film lost momentum as it took the focus away from the really important decision makers.

The film's run-time definitely seems padded with unnecessary scenes showing us the victims' mundane lives before the bombings and the domestic bliss and/or squabbles of the fictional Tommy Saunders and other law enforcement. There were only two sequences in the film that I found gripping. One was the carjacking/kidnapping and eventual escape by the Chinese man. I didn't recall that part of the event and I was genuinely concerned for and cared about the young man. The other sequence that stood out was the interrogation of the wife. It was dramatically underplayed and the tension was palpable. The film would have been better served had it concentrated on these types of realistic scenes and simply cast top-quality character actors instead of a top star that required extensive time in front of the camera. Love Mark Whalberg but he was totally unnecessary and actually a hindrance in this movie.

I saw this with my 80-something godmother and we both had surprisingly similar reactions. We both agreed that the film gets off to a slow start. It was downright boring in the early scenes, so much so that my godmother admitted she almost fell asleep. The film picks up some much-needed steam when it concentrates on the relationship between Mia (Emma Stone) and Sebastian (Ryan Gosling) and particularly comes alive whenever jazz takes center stage.

I found many of the early scenes a bit pretentious. Mia and her glamorous friends are struggling to make it but they live in a really well-decorated apartment, have fabulous clothes, and get invited to so many pool-parties in the Hollywood Hills that you wonder when she manages to get enough hours at the coffee bar to put food on her table.

I also found the film lacking in terms of signing quality. I have excellent hearing but had trouble understanding the lyrics to some of the numbers because everybody seemed to be whispering, which is what unskilled people do when they try to sing. None of the actors could belt out a tune, save for real-life singer John Legend.

Finally, I have to say the awful ending was a letdown. Why make a love letter to old Hollywood musicals if you're not going to give us the ending that Hollywood would have given us if this had been made in the 1950s? This plot has been done many times before and much better: girl and guy are fake and phony; girl becomes star and leaves for Hollywood; guy gets left behind; girl secretly pines for her regular guy; guy finally gets up courage to seek her out and they live happily ever after. Would it have been so terrible to have Mia become a success in Hollywood and Seb simultaneously realize his dream of opening a jazz club but have them both realize they were missing something in their lives (like the love of their life) and then meet cute again and go off into the sunset?

Only one tune was memorable in this movie, mostly due to its frequent repetition. Otherwise, this was only an OK film.

I'd heard so much about this film, that it was depressing but good and featured fine performances. I agree that it was depressing and the acting was of high quality but I don't think the film was particularly good. The lead character is too emotionally closed-off from everyone. He's almost catatonic in that he reacts the same to just about every stimuli, which makes it difficult to really get to know or care about him. Similarly, the son's reactions don't seem very believable. He's a lothario juggling two girlfriends and is more concerned with getting in the pants of the girls than honoring his father's memory.

There's a scene where the son, his girlfriend and two pals are sitting around, ostensibly to help the boy cope. But, they start talking nonsense about Star Trek and the entire conversation feels pretentious and forced. In reality, that type of situation would feature more silence and awkward moments, not the bravado on display. There's also a strange, somewhat creepy scene involving the boy's estranged mother, a recovering alcoholic, and the new man in her life, described as "very Christian." Their home is eerily spartan, with just a picture of Christ above the fireplace, and the dinner table discussion feels more like a mind-probe by some vaguely sinister agent. It's almost as if that was a not-so-subtle way of making the boy's lascivious behavior seem more normal.

Some good acting by Casey Affleck but, ultimately, this is fairly mundane fare.

Make sure you bring a box of Kleenex to this one! You will shed heartfelt tears or spend an inordinate amount of energy trying to hold them off. But, while I truly enjoyed the movie, I don't think the movie was structured as well as it could have been. Basically, the first half of the film follows a young Indian boy lost in a strange city and then transitions to Australia 20 years later where the boy was raised by an adopted family. Instead, I would have preferred starting with Dev Patel (the lead character as an adult), seeing him struggle with his identity and gradually show us through multiple flashbacks his experiences as a lost child in India. His growing awakening and recollections about his past would have been a journey both character and audience were making together and would have given the film more heft. Still, this was an uplifting and, at times, bittersweet movie held together by charming leads.

I enjoyed this slice of life movie that showed us the rhythms and rhymes in an ordinary man's life. As long as the film follows Adam Driver's Paterson character, it's charming. It was interesting to see how his interactions with co-workers, bus patrons, and random people he meets at bars or in a park influence him and give him ideas for poetry. I loved how the poems came to life, with Paterson repeating lines and then building on them in a way that I would imagine a real author would create a poem.

But, I was less engaged with the film whenever Paterson went home to his wife, a stereotypical spicy and exotic immigrant with a sexy accent but no job and no real passions. She's a dilettante whose interests change on a whim. One minute she's a committed baker jazzed about cupcakes, at least until she moves on to professing a newfound love for country music and playing the guitar. Not sure if this was supposed to be some sort of fantasy for ordinary guys to make them think they, too, can get a hot chick by being a bus driver who's into poetry, but I didn't believe their relationship at all. I would have preferred seeing Paterson paired with a more believable wife or simply made him a bachelor making his way through life.

Saw this on Christmas Day at a sold-out theater in Hollywood. This movie was a terrific crowd-pleaser. The audience laughed, shook their heads at times, and clapped when the protagonists stood up for themselves or someone else stood up for them. The main story concerns the small victories that the three leads have working at NASA as black females but its told within the context of the race to get a man in space, which is gripping and genuinely entertaining in its own right. There's humor, a little bit of romance, and feel- good moments that should speak to any person who's ever been overlooked or under-appreciated, especially within a massive organization.

I have no idea how much of this is true and what has been padded for dramatic purposes. But, I don't agree with the naysayers who accuse this movie of re-writing history. Of the three leads, one's victory is getting a judge to let her attend a segregated school so she can get the classes she needs to be an engineer; another remains in the clerical pool for the most part but sees the value in learning FORTRAN to avoid redundancy and is finally promoted to supervisor and earns the right to be respected (shown by being addressed as Mrs. Vaughn and not by her first name); the main lead performs calculations that are critical to one aspect of a space flight. The ladies are shown as contributing to a broad, scientific endeavor, which in no way lessens the contributions of other players.

5 seems harsh, but on a scale of 1 to 10, it really does, or should, mean take it or leave it. This movie was bland and boring, and this is coming from someone who watches Collider Jedi Council and has read most of the new canon novels, including "Catalyst," the book that sets up this story. The characters in this movie are very forgettable save for Donnie Yen's blind monk or guardian of the whills character. He at least shows varied emotions. Everyone else is one-note. Story-wise, this movie is very choppy as we're dragged from one locale to the other. I wish they'd stayed on Jedda and perhaps used that planet as a base for recruiting old Force worshipers/believers and training them to be a fighting force a la "The Dirty Dozen" or "The Magnificent Seven." TFA had its problems, but at least the first act was great and most of the new characters were likable and memorable. There's fan service galore in this movie, but all that did was remind me of how rich and fulfilling the OT is. I honestly can't imagine anyone but a SW nerd liking this movie.

I decided to see this movie after reading a synopsis and review of the best-selling novel on which it's based. Unfortunately, what may work in a novel doesn't always translate well to screen, which seems to be the case here as this film was incredibly dull. Because the movie progresses chronologically, there's nothing that grabs you at the onset. It isn't until 45 minutes into the film that the main plot point is finally introduced. The movie opened with a dull, uninteresting scene of the main character being interviewed for a job as lighthouse keeper on a remote, desolate island, and ends pretty much the same way.

The director could have generated more interest if he'd opened with a more powerful and intriguing scene and used flashbacks to fill in some of the backstory. The real mother reading the letter telling her the baby is alive, the sailor keying in on the unique baby rattle, or even the wife discovering the dinghy while on a lonely walk along the beach all would have been more interesting ways to open this film. The first 45 minutes could have been cut and you really wouldn't have missed anything. Sadly, the wind-swept island is the most interesting character in this otherwise plodding movie.

I finally rented this film because of the good reviews that it had gotten. Lots of praise for the chemistry between the leads and it being a throwback to the good ol' buddy cop/PI movies of past. Wow! What a disappointment. One of the worst movies I've seen in a long time. Painfully unfunny, the film's plot is barely discernible and the story is just plain boring. Russell Crowe is still an actor I love (extra pounds and all) and he's the best thing about this movie because he basically plays the straight man and isn't trying to be a clown like Gossling is. I didn't care about anybody in this film. And, I'm tired of Hollywood glamorizing sexually precocious youngsters. Here, the 13 year-old daughter or Gossling's character is made out to be more mature than her idiot father. He's anti-porn and wonders what's happening with young people but the daughter is cool and has frank discussions about sex with porn actresses. Awful movie.

Even though I've never heard of this story/novella, I enjoy Jane Austen's most famous novels and loved some of the film versions so I figured this would be worthwhile. Unfortunately, despite beautiful costumes and set decoration, this film was incredibly dull. None of the characters was particularly engaging and the endless snarky dialog delivered in a civilized manner became tiresome after a while. Small crowd in my theater with a group of women who laughed hysterically at every put-down delivered by the leading ladies but I was bored silly and, despite a meager run time, found myself checking my watch on too many occasions. There was not one character that was likable or anyone that I rooted for. I was happy when the film ended but also surprised as everything just sort of shut down. I wondered what the point of the entire film had been.

I have seen TFA twice now. Both times I came away very impressed with the visuals. TFA is a gorgeous movie to watch. The practical effects mixed with CGI where necessary created a beautiful and believable backdrop for the movie. The fault with the movie lies in the somewhat muddled story that tries to combine the old with the new and doesn't always succeed.

The story is rightly criticized for being a rehash of ANH. Once again, the good guys are out-gunned and out-manned by a tyrannical regime and the savior will be a force-sensitive youth who unwittingly gets caught up in the action. I wish the writers had looked more toward real- world historical events as a guide for writing a story about the aftermath of the downfall of a powerful empire. As history tells us, winning the battle is the easy part; the hard part is winning the peace. When empires fall, there's usually a power vacuum that various entities try to fill: good- intentioned people trying to establish democracy; warlords of various persuasions; dead-enders that refuse to accept the old order's destruction; roving bands of unemployed ex-soldiers with deadly skills that can be put to use by criminal elements, etc. TFA should have been the original trilogy in reverse.

By that I mean that the trilogy should have been about a fragile "New Republic" that after, after 30+ years, is now threatened by a growing movement called the First Order, led by a mysterious agent of the Dark Side and his henchmen, the Knights of Ren. Instead, we see Han Solo, once a respected General and hero of the Rebel Alliance, reduced to being a haggard, down-on-his-luck small-time smuggler; Leia is still leading the rebels and Luke is a hermit hiding from the world and all its problems. I enjoyed the first act of this movie the best as it set up the new characters. The entrance of Han Solo actually slowed the pace and seemed forced and his character didn't really add anything to the overall story. His death should have been the climax of the movie but instead was almost instantly forgotten because the big light saber duel between Kylo, Rey, and Finn ensued immediately afterward and nobody even referred to Solo's death when the battle was successfully concluded.

I actually did like Kylo Ren's emo tantrums and I wanna by bad like my grandpa demeanor. Darth Vader was a late-middle aged man when we saw him in the OT; Kylo is still young and petulant. It will be interesting to see how his and Rey's story progresses in future chapters of this saga.

This was a solid drama elevated by superior acting from a top-notch cast but I left the theater somewhat underwhelmed. The movie lacked the sort of drama that makes you wonder how the story will end even when you know how the story will end. The main problem is that the Catholic Church just doesn't come across as a particularly forceful adversary. We're told that the Church is so powerful and has kept the abuse hidden for decades, but when a group of reporters actually goes digging they encounter some roadblocks but nothing that gives you the sense that the Church was something to be feared. While I didn't necessarily need Cardinal Law to dispatch some Opus Dei goons to discourage the reporters and the victims, the movie would have been more rewarding if they'd encountered much stronger resistance from the Church, public officials, and their own family and friends.

I've seen all the "Rocky" films and found them enjoyable but I would not call myself a big fan of the franchise. I wanted to see this film because of the high praise it was receiving. While I agree it's a good movie, I don't think it's a great movie. Sly Stallone is excellent as is Jordan in the title role. But, I didn't find the movie as memorable as I would have wanted and that's mostly because the motivations of the lead character, Adonis Johnson (Creed) aren't all that clear or believable.

At the onset we're introduced to a hardscrabble young Adonis, bastard son of late, great Apollo Creed, who's been in and out of foster homes but is whisked away by Apollo's wife to live a life of luxury. He's well-educated and has a white-collar job in the financial services industry. Why he decides to up and leave all that behind and pursue a life as a professional boxer is inexplicable. He says it's because he's been fighting his whole life but that assertion rings hollow when we see him pulling into the driveway of the huge gated estate that he shares with his "mom." When Adonis first meets up with Rocky Balboa, a scene that should be charged with emotion and nostalgia falls flat because Adonis already knows all the stories, having been told them by Apollo's wife. He knows more than Rocky does and the reveal that he's Apollo's son just isn't that dramatic. The romantic story line also falls a bit flat at Adonis is paired up with a clichéd character: hot and alluring singer. One of the aspects of "Rocky" that was so wonderful was the atypical romantic story line, where Rocky is paired with a mousy, decidedly unglamorous woman who slowly emerges from her shell. Rocky and Adrian's relationship felt real and the famous "Adrian!!!" cry packed an emotional wallop. Finally, the main event lacked emotional punch because I actually felt for the opponent, a working-class Briton who was facing the probability of a lengthy prison sentence and having to leave his young children behind.

The story would have been much more interesting and emotionally engaging if Adonis had been raised by his working-class mother and perhaps only learned who his real father was upon her deathbed. That would have been a believable impetus for Adonis to seek out Rocky Balboa, to learn about his father and connect with him through Rocky, and train to become a champion like him. The scene in the restaurant and in the various gyms would have worked so much better if Adonis was hearing and learning about his biological father for the first time. And , I would have been more emotionally vested in the outcome of the main event if I'd truly seen Adonis overcome major hurdles. But, despite the flaws in the story, this was a well-made and well-acted film and I did enjoy it for what it was.

To start off I'll say that I have not seen "Identity Thief" or "Tammy," which were Melissa McCarthy's two previous films that I gather did not do so well at the box office. I did see "Bridesmaids" on a transatlantic flight and recall laughing so hard at times that other passengers turned to look at me. That said, "Bridesmaids" was a bit too raunchy for my taste and was missing that certain something that made me really care about the characters. I did see "The Heat" and found it serviceable and fun for the moment but, once again, lacking that certain something to make a film truly enjoyable.

McCarthy's new film has that missing something. It's funny, poignant at times, and full of action. I cared about McCarthy's "Susan Cooper" character and wanted to see her complete her mission. The potty mouth comes out, but it comes out in service of the character and the plot as the story unfolds, not just as a cheap device to get some chuckles. In previous movies, McCarthy's characters seems to be rude, cantankerous and foul-mouthed to the core, but here I always felt "Susan Cooper" was in firm control of her emotions and brought out that side only when it was needed. McCarthy is also aided by a superb supporting cast, particularly Jason Statham as her hilariously over the top rival.

This may be a spoof of spy movies, but it can also be viewed simply as a spy movie that happens to have a female lead. Many of the same plot devices are used. But, as with any movie, what matters are the characters and whether or not we care about what happens to them. This movie basically ends with the lead and two other supporting characters walking off into the sunset. I wanted those three to return for a sequel because they were that funny and that good.

Although I was a teen in the '80s, I somehow missed the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles craze. Maybe it was because I was a girl but, for whatever reason, I had little knowledge of this franchise. Having seen this film I can see why the Turtles were popular back in their hey day. The turtles are the only thing good about this film. They're adorable and it's fun to watch their camaraderie, brotherly infighting, and goofy antics. But there's not enough of them on screen. The movie's main character is April O'Neil, the reporter, and not the turtles. As others have said, there wasn't enough downtime in this movie where we get to enjoy the brothers being silly teenagers.

Out of curiosity I picked up the 1990 movie at a local B&N afterwards; it was in the bargain section for $4.99. Have to admit that I enjoyed that movie more because the turtles were the main characters and acted more like real teenagers instead of massive hulking indestructible superheroes. In the current film, the sheer size and strength of the turtles made them seem more like adults. I kept waiting for the Megan Fox character to say something motherly or sisterly like "Gosh, you're just kids!" and be protective of them. But, considering that they had superhero size and strength that wouldn't really have made much sense. It's a shame this new movie didn't build upon the best elements of original, which would be the enduring filial bond between the turtles, their relationship with their father-figure, Splinter, and the introduction of a human sister/mother figure, April, who could watch over them in a different way.

I was in the mood for a fun movie with a little humor and action and that's exactly what I got. I checked out the "professional reviews" on mrqe.com before heading out to the theater and most were very negative. This movie was supposedly trite and cliché ridden and the two stars had only "passable chemistry." But, there was one 3/4 stars review coming out of Milwaukee that sold me and proved to be right on point. Sure, the movie had every cliché in the cop buddy action movie genre. But, the two leads had great chemistry, there were some genuinely funny moments and, most importantly, I cared about the characters. Both were good, decent people. I'm glad the film was PG-13 and devoid of the really filthy language and excessive violence that pervades so many R-rated films. I saw a Sunday morning 10:40 am show that was about 3/4 full. The entire theater laughed and seemed to be having a good time, just like me.

I ran out to see this film because the reviews have been so enthusiastic here in the US. I loved Casino Royale, the only Bond film that I truly liked, but QOS was so bad that I wasn't sure what to expect here. Sadly, this film did not live up to expectations, and I can point to the exact moment this film went downhill: the introduction of Javier Bardem's clownish, cartoonish, over-the-top villain, Silva. Casino Royale gave us a baddie, Le Chifre, who was smooth and deadly but also grounded in reality. The Silva character is unwatchable. He whines about M having betrayed him, makes a pass at Bond, puts in motion a silly cat-and-mouse game that makes no sense, and comes across as someone so out of touch with reality that it's hard to see him as a criminal mastermind with a cadre of capable men working for him. You would think some of them would start to notice that the boss had a few too many screws loose and would cut and run.

The plot takes a nosedive with Silva's introduction and even the action sequences loose luster. No cool parqour (sp?)sequences or tension- filled poker game of wits. I was surprised how bored I became as the film dragged on. Even the climatic sequence, which is set in Bond's abandoned family estate in remote Scotland, is tedious, unoriginal, and flat-out boring. Rarely has a Bond film ending been so anti-climatic and ho-hum. Although there are some nice elements in this film that give one hope for future installments, such as the introduction of a younger, tech savvy Quartermaster or "Q" and Ralph Fiennes as a bureaucrat initially at odds with M., overall this is a mediocre film, which saddens me as Craig's version of Bond is still my favorite.

Although I chuckled at some of its cheap sexual jokes and innuendo, this film bothered me quite a bit because of its ready acceptance and even celebration of infidelity and home wreaking. Meryl Streep and Alec Baldwin are a divorced couple who engage in an affair after a drunken night of revelry rekindles old feelings. It's an "affair" because Baldwin is married to a hot young trophy wife, has a 5-year old stepson, and is visiting the fertility clinic every other day so that he and his wife can have a baby together.

Although it's Baldwin's character who first encourages continuing the relationship after the drunken orgy, Streep readily gives in, egged on by Rita Wilson and other assorted gal pals who think it's great and even her shrink, who marvels at Streep's new-found openness. At no time in this movie is there any thought about the harm being done to the wife and the innocent child, both of whom are portrayed as rather unlikable characters (the woman is a bitch and the boy is annoying) so as to make the affair more palatable. In addition to the illicit sex and Baldwin abandoning his family, we have Streep and Steve Martin smokin' the weed and getting high.

There's chemistry between Streep and third-billed Baldwin. If the film had had Baldwin being a swingin' bachelor regretting his divorce and attempting to rekindle a romance with his ex-wife, then it might have been worth something. As it is, it's Hollyweird values on display and very shallow.

War of the Arrows is a story about a young man in hot pursuit of a marauding Manchurian army that has captured and enslaved his sister and her groom on their wedding day in 15th century Korea. Wayward though the young man may be, he's a savant with the bow and arrow and he puts his deadly skills to use as he relentlessly pursues the attackers.

Although it doesn't involve the gun battles typically associated with the genre, this film is really more war movie than action flick. The film rarely deviates from the harried cat-and-mouse game between the marauders and the ostensible hero and could mistakenly be seen as taking place in real time. Therein lies one of the film's problems. The chase sequences and flurry of arrows piercing the air are relentless and absorb nearly all the film's running time, leaving little room for plot or character development. This film is all style over substance: it's barbarian Manchurians (the baddies) vs. salt-of-the-earth Koreans (the goodies).

We know the Manchurians are the baddies not just because they throw Korean babies down wells but because they're the cool ones, with their brass-studded leather coats, shaved heads or razor-edged mohawks, and general exhibition of badassery. They are lead by a playboy prince who prefers to spend his time ravishing newly captured women in a garish mobile bordello; he leaves the details and actual fighting to his uber-macho uncles and the elite squad of warriors they personally command. But little else is known about them. Is their attack part of an all-out invasion of the Korean peninsula or a quick raid across the border for booty? Why is the pampered prince, who appears to have no military role, even there? Certain early scenes suggest the possibility of a strained relationship between the young prince and his all-warrior business uncles, but it's never explored. There are no strategy sessions between the prince and his commanders or among the uncles and their elite warriors that might flesh out the characters.

As for the Koreans, little time is spent preparing us for the mayhem that ensues. At the onset, the hero is a teenager who barely escapes his family's destruction with only his little sister and his father's prized bow and arrows in tow. Flash forward thirteen years and the hero is a wayward fellow with mean archery skills who reluctantly allows his sister's marriage to their benefactor's son to proceed. The relationship between and among these characters is barely explored. There are no tender scenes between brother and sister or the betrothed that make us yearn for reunification after separation and much bloodshed. Ironically, one of the film's best sequences involves the pampered prince attempting to have his way with the pretty sister. Her feistiness and the fact that she speaks his language intrigue him. He likens seducing her to tanning a tiger's hide, as her roughness will become supple under his handiwork. The brief battle of wills between these two characters, and the mild sexual tension elicited, provide a much-needed break from the pure action-oriented sequences that predominate. Unfortunately, the prince is killed-off far too soon and the rescue of the girl half-way through the film leaves the finale somewhat anti-climatic. The final confrontation may be dramatic by virtue of the manner in which the arrow battle is executed but, emotionally, it falls flat.

The failure to adequately develop the plot isn't the only flaw with this movie. While the cast is for the most part good, the lead male is woefully miscast. Aside from possessing superior archery skills, there's little to distinguish the hero from the other household staff who are caught up in the mayhem. Quite simply, he lacks the charisma and screen presence to carry this film, which is propelled almost exclusively by the baddies. They possess the macho physicality and exhibit the serious badass 'tude required for their roles. Although the story compels me to feel something for the hero, I found myself far more interested in the invaders. I enjoyed the film for what it was, but was left emotionally flat-lined at the end because of its flaws.