Med-Jasta

The movie looks great, the acting is great and the story was a good idea but this could have been a really good movie but it drops the ball in several places.

First, it didn't know what movie it wanted to be. A lot of themes are thrown in there, even to the point of having scenes just for them. MBJ's shoot out with the KKK guys? The musical numbers? Why show the future? And for so long. The Irish jig? That was so weird and didn't work at that point in the movie.

Second, "One Day Earlier." That ruins the movie right there for every movie that does it. This has plagued Hollywood for a number of years. The opening is so far removed from the rest of the movie and it takes so long to even hint at it that at some point I'm distracted wondering when we're going to get there. You see that resonator guitar and know it's gonna get broken every time you see it. Instead of taking in that his cousin just gave him Charley Patton's guitar I keep thinking of it being broken and bloody and wonder how it's going to happen.

Third, there were a lot of dumb little things. The vampires have to be invited? I know that's a troupe but I think we can all agree that it's stupid and was only used so our good guys weren't attacked right away. Then when they do charge in, they just open the door and don't invite them, they just charge in! And they know they just have to wait until sunrise, so why don't they do it!? Because having a big battle with the vampires was cooler than the practicalities of the story? Then in the fight in the puddle, MBJ walks past all of the vampires to kill the main one and none of the others stop him? They get the juke joint going in one day? They buy it, get the cook, the music and everything that day? Why did it have to be one day? And the KKK let them have it so they could go kill them the next morning? And MBJ was ready with his weird Punisher trap? That was insane. And unnecessary for the movie. Wouldn't the KKK just come at night with the chances of people being there were much higher? I get the symbolism or the message or whatever but it wasn't handled very well at all. It was either crammed in last minute or was just written by someone lacking the talent to do it effectively.

I am a Blues nut so that was a nice surprise. Seeing Buddy Guy was jarring, not because that scene was weird as hell but because Buddy has a very high voice and the actor had a very deep voice. But if I didn't know Buddy so well I wouldn't have known that. And since he is the last of the authentic Blues it's nice to see him.

First of all, I didn't like this movie and I went into it to laugh at. Turns out, it wasn't really laughable, a few parts sure. But it was a solid movie that is good for teenagers. This is the kind of movie I would have loved at that age. There are much worse and much better. But if this movie speaks to girls then I think they're mission was accomplished. A lot of things work but are dumb if you think about them for one second.

I thought this was going to take Air Force One's, Die Hard rip off back into a building. Well, I was wrong. There are things for sure, but it isn't the lone President against the terrorists. And when the President does fight, it's only a couple times and is believable off the skill set that was established. The poster and basic plot make it seem like she becomes Rambo. That's not the case.

Of course Viola Davis helps sell this movie. She is so good and real that it helps sell the crazy story that's going on. The cast is very good. Except for the bad guy. He is very over the top and annoying. He doesn't fit in with the rest of the great cast.

Not required viewing but it's not as bad as you think. It's fine. And perfect for the age group it was made for.

Would have been a very fitting title. This is hard to explain but this isn't a movie that's about story. Not in the traditional sense anyway. It's really about life and how we all go through the same things in different or not different ways. You don't really follow along with this movie with the plot going from A to B to C you just kind of feel this movie. Many things are happening that trigger an emotional response and you may not register why.

I suspect that different age groups will get something different out of this. My dad is getting older. Not bad but he's getting to that point where I have to keep an eye on him. The part about the dad getting old and living with them struck a chord with me. Also after the dad dies and he says, "I'm glad we got to spend all that time together at the end," is just what I said when my Grandpa died and I spent a few weeks with him.

This movie really depends on how you can relate to it. I think everybody can, they just have to either have access to those to feelings or be old enough to have had these experiences. It's not about story, it's about themes. No matter what time, or how it happens, we are all doing the same things. Love, life, family, death, birth, all of that.

So much of what happened I didn't really get what it meant in the big picture but knew that it did and could feel it. Then talking about it with my wife afterwards we put a lot of pieces together. Hanks never went for it. But the guy who made the couch did. I guess what this movie is really about is living life. Being yourself and following your dreams or at least trying to be your best self.

At first I was a little jarred when we went to the dinosaurs. I thought we were in another Tree of Life situation. And I kept waiting for the opening shot to be over. I kept saying, "Okay, I get it." Then after a few minutes I was like, "I think this is the movie." And then I let go of my expectations of what a movie "should be" and just experienced the magic on screen.

I get why people have a hard time with this. When something is so new and unique it can be hard for your brain to process it. And sometimes, and allow your brain to open up to process it. And many times our first reaction of to reject what's new.

Innovative story telling. You thought Forest Gump broke the rules. Well this movie breaks those rules. It's nice that Zemeckis has never lost the drive to innovate. Not only technically but in terms of story telling as well. Welcome to Marwin did this as well. He doesn't use CG to create worlds and creatures that don't exist by he uses it to find new ways to tell stories and push the boundaries of movies. A lot of people like to think that there aren't any new ideas. There are. You just have to try. Zemeckis will always try to find new ways to utilize movies to tell a story. Unfortunately, his type is a dying breed. I hope movies like this inspire movie makers to be without limits.

Such a rip off of the Scorsese style. Why in the hell did this movie open with, "This movie was inspired by a picture?" Do movies either have to be superheros or based on a true story, so they had to bend it? That was so dumb.

Austin Butler needs to go back in whatever hold they found him in. I don't know what it is about this guy but he gives me the creeps. Mark my words, one day this guy will make Kevin Spacey look like Tom Hanks. In grossness, not talent.

I had my suspicions that this was going to be a try hard of good movies with the poster but that was just the poster. Can you judge a movie off the poster? Well in this case you can.

If you are like me and saw the first movie in the theater, you've also heard that this movie has been talked about ever since then. To which your response was probably, "Yeah right." How to make a sequel when the main character died is always tricky. I thought it would never happen. To the point, that when the first preview came out I was like, "Oh yeah, that is coming out." I guess I just kinda didn't believe it.

Normally when these 20 later sequels get made its not very good. But Ridley was involved so it had much more potential. Well, I am glad to say that it delivers. Comparing this to the first one is like having a woman run against Donald Trump. It's just not going to win. So why even try?

I will get the bad out of the way first. It is very much a sequel. I was hoping for more of the Prometheus or Blade Runner 2049 type of sequel, but this one has many callbacks. But they are all story driven and there for purpose and not just nostalgia.

But the movie never leaves the shadow of Maximus. By choice. If they just mentioned him a few times it would have been fine. But instead they bring him up whatever possible and it works against it instead of for it. But it's Lucius' journey to discovering his past and realizing who his dad is. So it makes sense, but there's a lot of them. He also has dreams of the afterlife and is waiting for the army to come to the rescue and many more.

Even the story is very familiar. They are trying to save Rome in pretty much the same way they did the first time. Making it so everything they did in the first movie was for nothing. And the story follows pretty much the same beats. But hey, it's a sequel. If that's what Ridley had to do to make the movie then I'm okay with it. Calling it 2 is very fitting.

Okay, everything is awesome. The fights! They are so cool! Full of things you've never seen before. So bloody and gory. The water fight in the beginning and in the colosseum are so cool. And all of the stuff with the animals was great. Ridley had to digitally composite the tiger in the last movie and this time could have full CG animals. And he does it a lot and very well. Ridley has never phoned in a fight scene. He always goes for it and finds new ways to destroy the human body. Give Ridley a story with swords and he'll take it to the next level and he does it here.

The actors and characters are all good. The two Emperors were interesting. They were crazy but not mad. I don't know if that makes sense, but they were crazy in a way I didn't expect. Of course Denzel is awesome. He doesn't know how to be anything else. But it was really cool to see him in a movie like this. In a sword fight? It was cool enough to see him as a cowboy in The Magnificent Seven, but this was even better. He was a really cool character. You never really knew what he was up to. Or that he would go that far. And when he ends up being THE bad guy I was surprised. Very cool when he got his arm cut off. I didn't see that coming and yelled in the theater. I thought we were going to get a huge ground battle at the end too, but we didn't. Lucius was a good character. What happened to him between movies was kind of vague. Which I kind of liked. But it wasn't really explained how Maximus didn't save the day. But whatever, here we are. The fights alone make this worth the watch.

Will I watch this a bunch of times? Probably not. I'll watch it again later this year for sure. The things that I didn't like might seem less important later. Ridley really did make a movie that was right on the line of a studio sequel and an original movie. Could it have been better? Absolutely. Was it bad? Not at all.

I'll never quite get Depalma's need to basically remake Hitchcock movies. Taking things from them is one thing. You see elements of Hitch in The Untouchables, Scarface, Snake Eyes, Blow Out, Mission Impossible and Carrie. Techniques of suspense or types of shots. But sometimes he just goes too far. This is one of them.

It's frustrating because DePalma is so talented but his need to feel like Hitch brings him down. Dressed To Kill works the best. It's very Psycho but also very much it's own. If he could have done that more, movies like Obsession would work. But it's so familiar that you know where it's going. Almost like the audience is supposed to be in on it.

I was totally down with this movie at first but then the twist happened and it lost me. The fact that she was his daughter was very cool. I didn't see it coming and it made a lot more sense and was different. But having Lithgow be behind it was dumb and way too unbelievable. And made it more like Vertigo because he was set up.

Using the obsession plot isn't the rip off, it's the plot points that make it one. The set up was very good but it seems like DePalma couldn't help himself to try to put himself into Hitchcock's shoes.

Of course the score is great, it's Bernard Herrman. And the acting is great. Cliff Roberts is fantastic. I had heard about what a nightmare he was to work with so I unfortunately couldn't stop thinking about that.

I really did enjoy the ride and was only let down by the end. It was enjoyable for so many things but ultimately is a victim of the creators own obsession.

Well look what happens when Todd Phillips doesn't directly rip off a movie and creates something on his own.

I hope this exposes him for the hack that he is and all of you realize just how bad the first movie really was.

Phillips doesn't actually have anything to say and these jokers movies were only created so he could "turn the superhero genre on it's head." He thinks he's capable of much more talent and didn't create these movies for any other reason than to be a contrarian. And that's not how real art or good art is made.

This was obvious when this "anti superhero movie" not only set itself up for a sequel but then made one. And a musical? You know the thinking was, "What's the last thing that anyone would do in a superhero movie?" Phillips sucks.

I really hate writing reviews based off of other reviews but here I am. The horror crowd is a very hard one to satisfy. And this movie isn't a horror and shouldn't be judged on that scale. This isn't about the scares and the gore or any of that stuff. It's a psychological thriller that's about the characters. It reminded me a lot of Stephen King actually.

I was drawn into every part of this, almost every twist and turn got me. A few I saw coming by whatever. I really liked that it wasn't going for the spectacle. And the use of CG was really good to switch to the tricks that we've gotten used to over the years. The writing was really good and confident. The way the information unfolded was very natural.

Obviously the acting is good. Kevin Bacon and Amanda Seyfried were great. Seyfried is really good. She's very natural and makes good career choices. And the little girl was really good. Those can go either way. Sometimes they're very grown up and don't act like kids or they act like kids and are annoying as kids usually tend to be. But she was able to act like a cute kid without being annoying.

Very funny but as much as I belly laughed I was also in awe of the precise comedic timing. Every word and moment is so controlled that I was impressed with her skill.

Ellen is one of those that I grew up with. I loved her show, she came out as gay, I didn't understand the hate, because I was young and then she had her talk show, which I don't think I've ever actually seen and I watched her last two specials. I'm a fan of her, but I don't know her stuff that well. But she's just someone I've always liked.

I don't know what the new hate is of her. I haven't read much. It really sounds like normal celebrity things but the bar is set so high for her because she comes across as the nicest person so if she's short it's really bad. But if David Letterman was mean to someone you wouldn't be shocked. When Will Smith slaps someone it's shocking, because we think he's a nice guy. But when Sean Penn hits someone, we're not shocked. See what I mean?

Anyway, I'm not defending Ellen, I wasn't there and neither were you. But this special is funny as hell. Make up your own mind and don't let the internet do it for you.

Okay, I just went back and read the accusations again. Now I have to defend Ellen. So if you are sensitive to hearing opinions that you don't share, please go back into your echo chamber. Man, that's it? The people all say that it wasn't Ellen it was the producers. I don't need to repeat that sentence again. I know most people think that the face you see is responsible for making what you are watching but that's not how it works. Harrison Ford didn't make Star Wars. Jennifer Aniston didn't make Friends. And when you are the star/talent it is the job of the producers to keep you away from the day to day handing of the show and keep you focused on what you see on screen and yourself. Do you know what your boss is up to at work? Or the other way around?

Johnny Carson was accused of being cold and standoffish, that sounds worse than what Ellen is being accused of. And again, people love Ellen, she's known for being nice, so they think that she should have known about these things more than Conan or Letterman should. And done something about it. Because she's nice. These are really unfair expectations for her.

I really wish people would actually look into stuff for themselves and not read headlines. And you have to look into what people are saying. A lot of it sounds like, "They felt like." It could be real but a lot of the times people feel things that aren't really there, aren't as severe or they are just sensitive to those things. You know, people bring their baggage with them. Instead of looking at the facts we automatically go with the victim without question. I know none of us want to victim shame but maybe we went a little too far?

I hate to say it but I couldn't keep my mind on this one. After wanting to see it for so many years it was disappointing. And I like old movies too. I have earned the right to have an opinion of movies from this era. There is a certain amount of leeway given to a movie from long ago. Understanding what was happening or hadn't happened yet is very important to enjoying movies from long ago. But there's a point when enough is enough when you can't enjoy your time. Because after all, isn't they why they're there?

It's very hard to say something bad about a movie like this because it's so important and influential and I can see why. But, it's boring. So much that I couldn't tough it out for the visuals and to watch it for it's historical significance.

I think people have a hard time separating a movie's accomplishments from if it's an enjoyable watch or not. These don't always go hand in hand. I have many examples but let's just focus on one movie at a time.

I do find it very ironic that people always bring up the visuals as the reason why this movie is so good. They are amazing. But this is like saying that a movie is good because of the special effects. I hate to say it's a gimmick or gratuitous but the 70mm is even mentioned in the opening credits.... I get it for the time, this is when Hollywood was making epics. Big movies in cinemascope that weren't made on the back lot with rear projection. They went on location and did this stuff for real. It's all very impressive. But that doesn't make the movie watchable. You have to remember the this was an Oscars movie. And the Oscars are no different then as they are now. This movie was the Cold Mountain of 1962.

I'm not knocking the accomplishments of this movie but maybe this should be put in historical context more than it is. I think people that watch this movie these days feel like they have to say they like it so they don't lose their movie credit. But the point of a movie is to entertain. Whatever that means to you. I'm sure some people actually do like this movie. But the roaring acclaim makes me feel that a lot of people just don't want to be excluded from the club.

When I first heard that Seinfeld was going to direct a movie about pop tarts I was excited. As a life long fan I look forward to anything he does. But I figured it would not live up to my expectations. Sometimes when the on screen talent directs, it doesn't work out. Especially with someone so high up that no one will tell them no. Well, I'm glad to say that this went beyond my expectations and I probably didn't go a full minute without laughing.

This is a kind of movie they don't make these days. A goofy movie that doesn't have to make sense or be grounded in reality. It's crammed full of jokes and zany situations. To my surprise two things that normally don't work, worked very well: nostalgia and "predictions" of the future. I don't know why but they did. The cast was full of familiar faces. And I loved how everything from the time was included.

I also love it when there are made up things that don't exist. The sugar guy being like a drug lord, the milk man thing, the whole cereal culture/rivalry. That kind of stuff is so funny because it's so unrealistic and random.

This movie was so full of jokes the it's hard to remember any. This movie will actually work for kids as well. I will be watching this one again.

Seinfeld did a great job directing. Keeping the acting and tone consistent for a movie as zany as this isn't an easy thing and he did it. Even Hugh Grant's serious character was goofy serious.

This movie is awesome! I went into it being dragged by my friend for his birthday as has become our tradition with this franchise. I haven't enjoyed a single movie in this franchise, until now. Now, let me get this out in the open, this movie only works if you don't think about it. I hate it when people say that and I never do, but here I think it's warranted.

The main characters are saying their guesses on the current situation that turn out to be the exact explanation constantly. They basically just exist to explain the insane sci-fi/fantasy that's happening. Hieroglyphics are interpreted, not only in great detail, but also without a single misread. The robot hand they made for Kong (for some reason) just happens to be stored in hollow Earth (for some reason) right where they crashed (for some reason) and it has the medicine for frostbite in it, (for some reason) etc...

But that's not really what this movie is about is it? Look at the title. And that's where this movie shines and delivers on their intent. I want Kong to have a robot hand, I don't want him to lose his hand, I want the plot to move along and for all these crazy/cool things to exist, so who cares? For whatever reason it works. The bread and butter of this is great and that's all that matter.

The dumb stuff wasn't even all that dumb. I only rolled my eyes a few times and the rest was tolerable enough. It really did feel like a kids/preteens movie or big budget B movie. And there's nothing wrong with that. Because if you make a movie like this that knows what it is and tries to be nothing more, that's just fine. There is a bad way to do this and a right way. This could have been much better of course and it could have been a lot worse. But I'll take it. The little boy in me was satisfied. And kids need movies like this. I loved "Con Air" when I was a kid, I don't now. I didn't love "The Insider" as a kid, but I do now.

The monster stuff was well done and there was a lot of it. I was actually surprised at how many scenes without dialogue there were and how well the story and characters came across. I found myself hooked into all of the thrills and chills which made me think, "Am I actually enjoying this?" The crazy world that they created with hollow Earth and the ice lizard and all that mythology was very cool and reminded me of being a kid playing with my toys. Especially, the Scar King. When that name was first said I was game. His spine whip was very cool. The creature designs was also very cool.

They did very well at letting this be a monster movie. Normally it's crammed with human stuff that you really just don't care about. I think they finally figured out how to make an American monster movie. Dan Stevens was really good. I thought his character was going to be really annoying at first but he's a good actor and his naturalistic stuff was a good addition to the team. And he did comedy very well. He wasn't a badass but he knew what was going on. A big laugh came out of me when Kong laughed after knocking out the Scar King's tooth.

I kept thinking that this was the movie I wanted to see as a kid. I loved Godzilla and King Kong as a kid, maybe without ever actually seeing a movie about them. I just loved the idea. The only movies I had growing up in the 90's were the originals, which were boring for a little kid, great now and the Japanese movies, which were either too cheesy or hard to find. So I'm glad that kids from now on will have this to satisfy their love of monsters.

We all know why this movie is great, but I have a problem with it, the last hour. It's all done, written and acted very well, but it's just too darn long. So long that about half way through I was no longer caught up in the drama but was just waiting for it to end. And what makes this even worse is that up until this point the movie had such a great flow and then it comes to a dead stop and drags for a very long time. It doesn't help that the shots go on for a very long time before cutting and that there's no music.

The director and writer knew that the scene was going to feel like this and did it anyway. Many things could have been done to assuage this but they didn't do that. I get the temptation to show off the writing and the acting, but for me it ended up working against the movie and not for it. And a director could have done many things to get the same effect in much less time.

Again, nothing bad, just too long at the end. Even the ambiguous ending was good. At first I didn't like it but then the more I thought about it the more I guessed what could likely happen..

Okay, here we go! Much better than the last episode. That one felt very forced with not so funny story lines. This one had really funny/wacky situations that you normally get from Curb. Not one of the all time great ones, but it felt natural and didn't feel forced. I am totally okay with these episodes.

I hope this was just a rough start and not what the whole season is going to be like. I get what Larry is trying to do, he's trying to recreate the last episode of Seinfeld. I wonder how he'll do it. Like him, I think the ending was genius, so we'll see how he does it here.

The Bruce Springsteen cameo was very funny by the way.

I think what really makes a movie like this, a movie like this is it's ambiguities. The plot is clearly laid out and you follow it just fine but little or big decisions the characters make don't have a clear answer and in fact have many. This is a testament to the director. He knows why and has the confidence to put it out there without defining every little thing. And the characters are so well developed that we can draw multiple conclusions that all make sense. Which is very true of humans in general and very hard for filmmakers to put on screen. You want everything to have a clear correlation or pay off but life isn't that way and only the best filmmakers can put that on screen genuinely.

I don't need to go off about the genius of Leone or this movie, we all know and that's why we're here but I want to throw in my two cents about the ending. There's the dream theory and all that other crap that teenagers like to come up with but theories like that put more thought into it than the actual movie. And this movie already gives you enough to think about.

I think the ending, the last scene, the scene right after Noodles thinks he just sent his friends to jail could mean one of these things: He's either happy that he saved them from death. Is just high. The only way he can actually be happy is when he's high/forgotten about his life. Or is happy he isn't going to jail again. The reason it's the last scene of the movie can be that they didn't have a good ending and thought this would be a nice scene. Or it could be that Max is actually dead now and the last time this happened this is what Noodles did and he's grown from that.

I don't know for sure but those are my two cents.

I was very into this, it was dark, moody, well shot, rich and layered. Then when the third to the last episode came in I feared that we might be blue balled. When the mom was revealed to be the killer it wasn't really a surprise, I didn't know it was her, but it seemed so obvious that it couldn't have been her. Then the ending... Wow. All that time and work put into a twist ending like a slasher movie? There was so much ground work laid. And they didn't treat us like idiots. Everything was really subtle. And then they went for the shock ending.

It seemed like a story about Camille but then around episode 6 that went away. Then it ended and all that work that had been put into her background didn't pay off or go anywhere. I don't know what happened. Then I read up on the book and it was so much better! They explain things! It's paid off! I wish I had read that first. It actually pays off what it sets up. And it's about Camille. The show seemed like they had to make it longer. The hunting shed and the rape and the porn and her friend in the rehab clinic were all basically red herrings, they had nothing to do with anything. The struggle of Camille goes out the window and that was what the show was all about. Then at the end everything is just better for some reason? Going out and getting high with her sister and cheating on her boyfriend didn't feel right.

You can't keep the mystery for too long. You hold onto it for long enough and it can't possibly live up to the hype in your mind. There's a fine line. Twin Peaks tells the audience before the characters know and they kind of surprise you with telling you at that point.

Too bad, everything was great. Good actors and everything else. Really good use of music. They just dropped the ball because... Actually on a side note I don't like it when movies use source music to score their movies. Using, "In the Evening," by Zeppelin was weird and cheap.

This is a masterpiece and a perfect movie for me. There's only a couple movies I'd call perfect and this makes the list. It's kind of sad that this is kind of a forgotten movie. It's one that I've always loved and never forgotten and most people I ask about it have either never heard of it or haven't seen it since the 90s.

The story is very good and complex without being confusing. Even as the 7th grader that I was, I got the story. I had never seen this era dirty before, in my teenage mind, depravity started during the 60s, this of course isn't true. So it opened my eyes to that and made me think, "Duh." I like that it doesn't feel nostalgic to a bygone era. The decade isn't glorified and it isn't demeaned, it feels real, like it's a contemporary movie.

Obviously this is because of the director, Curtis Hanson. It's funny because he had never done a movie like this and he never did one after it. He made a lot of good movies but he never came close to this. He didn't even try actually, he just did what he did. Maybe that's what makes this movie so good. There are a million movies like this, it would be easy to follow many of the genre tropes or how the greats would do it. But Hanson doesn't do that.

There were a lot of little things he did that I either didn't notice as a kid or have an even greater appreciation for. I noticed that there's a few random hand held shots. Not shaky, but hand held. This isn't a give away that something is about to happen. It seems like a subconscious way to build tension? When Bud is listening to the interrogation of the Nite Owl suspects and he leans on the chair is an example. Also when Bud picks up Exley after the shoot out and you see Smith step in before they see him. No music or anything to give him away.

The casting is perfect. This isn't exclusive to the leads but every part. Every actor does a great job but it's more than that, they look the part. You take one look and you know who they are. I'm actually surprised that 25 years later, with all the other movies that I've seen that so many of these faces are still unfamiliar. There are a lot of dumb looking brutes at the police station. Kim Basinger and Danny DeVito were the biggest stars going into it and they are supporting. James Cromwell is so good that I was surprised to learn that he wasn't actually Irish. To me he just looks so Irish.

Of course the careers of the main three were launched. Kevin Spacey was already a familiar face but he wasn't a household name. He does such a good job in this. He is so cool. But he plays the coolness as a veneer, it's not who he is, it's who he likes to be and Spacey plays that on his face. On the making of they said that he was based off of Dean Martin and I can totally see that. And in his scenes there is usually a Dino song playing.

Guy Pierce was a new face, who obviously became very familiar after this. This was the reason I saw Memento in the theaters. My mom asked me if I wanted to see it and I said, "Oh yeah, it's got the guy from LA Confidential in it." It's funny that he's the goody two shoes because he's just not corrupt and does things by the book. I like that he has to get a little dirty at the end. He has a good reason for it of course. Smith would have gotten away with it, hell, he still does. It seems that the reason he shoots him in the back is because he is mad by Dudley's smugness that he knows he's going to get away with it and he doesn't even sweat it. I guess if he didn't shoot him then Exley would have no choice but to be his golden boy.

Russel Crowe launched the biggest from here. I remember seeing Gladiator and also saying, "The guy from LA Confidential is in it." He plays a dumb brute that isn't a dumb brute and he plays it very well. He looks like he has other things going on behind his eyes. When he is playing the muscle he is acting the part, it isn't who he is. And he also doesn't play it where he looks pissed all the time. He is just quick to go there. And he isn't a huge bulky guy, he's solid but he doesn't look like He-Man, but when he gets set it's his rage that gives him his power.

The three leads are in a transitional place, Vincennes has lost his way and doesn't really know why he's doing it anymore, White wants to be more than what he's been and Exley is a rising star that is hitting a wall of what his superiors will allow him to be. A good little thing that I thought was a good way to show White and Exley working together was when Exley throws White the keys and White throws him the clip.

I like that at the end everything doesn't perfectly wrap up. They stop the plot by the bad guys but the corruption in the department is still there and Exley has to go along with it while also winning. When Dudley shoots Jack I was blown away. I don't know if I was young but I do think that this would be a surprise. Because many times in these movies the guy who turns out to be bad never shows a glimpse of it beforehand but Smith is shown to beat people and all of that but he isn't any worse than the others. If he was all good it would have been a dead give away. This movie moves, there's never a dull moment in it. It moves very fast. There is humor but it's subtle and not forced. The music is great, it's also played sparingly.

Of course the shoot out is so good. It's cool that it's from the hero's POV, making the bad guys faceless adds to the tension. You don't know how many there are, where they are and who they are. When it first starts all you see is headlights. And it kind of comes out of nowhere, you don't go into this scene knowing that this is the big showdown. Everything is moving so fast and coming together that when they realize it you realize it and it's too late. They are mostly just shooting at the windows and the couple times you see who they're hitting they light them up in a very satisfying way. Of course Bud shooting the guys feet is the coolest.

I first saw this in the summer of '98. I of course knew of it. I remember which clips were used during the Oscars since that was the first glimpse I saw of it. The first time I saw it was when we had a free HBO weekend, (remember those?) and I knew this movie had something to do with porn so we thought that there was going to be a lot of boobs in it, Kim Basinger's perhaps? Maybe, the poster was pretty close. We didn't have the internet to tell us otherwise so what did we do back then? We had to see for ourselves. Well we didn't get very much nudity but we did get one hell of a movie. One that not only has stayed in my mind since then but one that my group of friends also love and reference a lot and is one of my favorites. A movie that I reference as what to do and what not to do.

This of course came from a book and boy oh boy, it's quite a bit different. Hanson and Brian Helgeland did an amazing job. The book is a thousand pages and takes place over ten years. Somehow they were able to take the basic story, even changing a few things to make it a two hour movie. But the three main characters are the same. They preserved them perfectly. And they adapted this with love and respect for the book. A lot of scenes get repurposed in the movie, the main scenes stay in and big characters find small parts just so they make it in. Reading the book I have no idea how they found the movie that they did. They did a very good job, masterful as Dudley would say.

The big problem here is the opening. It shows you everything that's going to happen. I reached to shut it off right there but I wasn't sure what the style was going to be. Then the narration went away and I knew that this wasn't part of the structure of the movie but just a fancy, "Two weeks earlier."

I pushed through, but as the movie went on and I didn't see what happened in the opening I kept thinking of it. Nothing indicated violence or blood and what had happened so far was so far removed from the opening that I kept wondering how things were going to get there and how the story was going to make that turn. The director ruined her own movie. I was no longer pulled into the drama on screen but was preoccupied at what I was shown in the intro. This is like showing the preview before the movie. Then I was only reminded of things from the intro when we saw them. I'm afraid the movie was ruined for me.

I wanted to give this a chance as the movie seemed like it could be something different. I had no idea what this movie was. I saw it on Prime and clicked on it. I had no clue what the story was, who was in it, nothing.

The first thing I let go, that the plot description wasn't the plot but the themes of the movie. They want you to know what it's about going into it so you like it? Okay. I guess Gen Z wants to know that the movie is going to be commentary on current issues that they care about? And they don't want to figure it out for themselves?

The second, before the movie started I said to myself and my pork rinds, "It's going to start with classical music and an old school title card." Somehow I was right. I couldn't believe it. Could I have really guessed this movie by the themes stated and the year it came out?

The third, the opening shot, after the spoiler opening, a very long shot that went on for so long that it's coolness wore off quickly. The credits rolled out unevenly to last the entirety of the shot. I don't know why newer directors are in love with long takes. It's very cool to do this, you know when you don't notice it and it adds to the story. Ask DePalma, Hitchcock and Lynch how and why to do a long take.

Fourth, full frame. Why? This is like recording in mono. Why do newer directors think that less screen is a good idea? I'm all for doing whatever but many times and I'm afraid this time is one, it just feels contrived and different just to be different.

I hate to judge a movie off of it's technical things but this comes from the director who approves the script and everything else and can be indicative of the entire movie.

I did eventually go to Wikipedia to read about what happened and yep, I was right about the eventual outcome. Well not so much as I was right but what they advertised at the start was exactly what it looked like... So I don't know why they did that? Are they afraid that Gen Z won't want to watch a movie if they don't know where it's going? Do you really have to tell people what they're going to see so they'll stay around? If that's true then even artsy movies are in trouble.

I've been hearing rumors of a director's cut all week and now I know why. Not only is Ridley Scott the father of the Director's cut but this was one of the few movies where I walked out saying, "That should have been longer." And that's really the only problem with the movie. Everything is great. The problem is that the movie just powers through everything like a dinner with the in-laws. There's never a pause for drama or tension or build up to the next big moment.

So the only probably this movie has is that there isn't enough of it. That's a good thing. Now if we get more is another question. Kingdom of Heaven was saved by the Director's cut and this will just make it more than an enjoyable movie.

One thing Ridley can do better than anyone is fight scenes and they only seem to be getting better with age. From Gladiator to Kingdom of Heaven to The Last Duel, Ridley can give you something new and do it with a lot of blood. This movie is no different. The Waterloo fight lives up to it's reputation. The fight in the snow is very cool. Lots a cool atmosphere with the snow mist.

The acting is of course great. Phoenix does a great job at playing Napoleon as a sociopath that is excited by nothing and dead in the eyes. The only things he cares about are winning and when people betray him. And he makes absolutely no effort of any kind to do an accent. Nobody does. Which I actually kind of like. Instead of putting energy into it or not doing it right and giving critics a target, just don't even try.

Rupert Everett does a fantastic job with his small role. I don't know if I've ever seen him like this before. Vanessa Kirby was of course great as everyone was.

The music I found to be a little annoying at times. Which is a rare criticism for me but it was. It was period correct but I found it irritating at times.

If you don't see connections to modern day politicians than there's no hope for you. And you know exactly who I'm talking about.

Obviously this isn't bad. It's from an amazing director with an interesting story. Now that that's out of the way... This was the worst way to tell this story! It should have been from the POV of the FBI! That's when things got interesting. Telling the story in chronological order wasn't interesting. It would have been better to hear it all and investigate it because then all the info is waiting there to be discovered. In order, random things happen along with a story that didn't deserve that much time.

Following Leo wasn't interesting enough to hold two hours by itself. Was it supposed to be heart breaking? Sad? I don't know. But there wasn't enough going on to fill up the plot. The FBI gets in and that team looked so cool. It would have been much more shocking for them to hear about the murders all at once and really driven the point home instead of kinda experiencing it.

It was so slow! Too slow! I was worried about 3 1/2 hours, I didn't realize that was going to feel like 6 1/2. The Irishman is a slow movie but it isn't boring. And this movie is boring. It's not just slow, it's boring. I kept waiting for it to get going and it never did. The slow pacing was a disadvantage to the movie because it made me lose interest. And it made me much more aware of the length because I kept thinking about how much longer it was going to be. I think they just kept shooting until they ran out of film.

This movie was fast, fun and exciting. And very well done. This delivers on the promise that Fallen Kingdom made of having dinosaurs in the real world. I didn't think Fallen Kingdom was great but I was glad that this movie made something good out of that idea. Because dinos off island has been a tease for a long time. From the T-Rex in San Diego, the last shot of The Lost World, hell even a major part of the plot of the first book. And of course it changes everything on Earth and all the issues it brings up, which have been themes from day one of dinosaur rights.

Dodgson coming back was also very smart because not only did he set this whole thing up in the very first place but also in The Lost World book he is still trying to do what he did in the first one. I really like that he wasn't trying to do anything evil like take over the world with dinosaurs, but his villainy comes from him thinking that he can control the uncontrollable. Basically, he's a bad Hammond. And the plot that gets this whole story going with the giant bugs is a good thing he was trying to do that's gone wrong. He's doing bad things to try and fix his mistake. That's very realistic and again goes with the themes of JP.

Bringing back the old cast was done very well. These things are either a cameo or they take over. Here they are integral characters in the story and half of it is theirs. And I must say that it's good to see them again. Grant is the guy where things don't go how he wants. They all feel like the same characters, it's not forced or unnatural. When they find Malcom working for Dodgson I thought, "He would never do that," and he wasn't, he was working undercover to expose what's going on there. Which is something Malcom would absolutely do. And it makes sense that someone working there would bring him in because we all know Malcom wouldn't seek it out. I like Mamoudou Athie, he looks like a black Adam Driver. He kind of looks like him and sounds like him. It was very Malcom to not wear his bracelet and to keep it in his pocket.

Ellie and Grant getting together was very satisfying. It wasn't hinted at or foreshadowed which was nice. But ever since 3 when we found out that they weren't together it was disappointing but also kind of made sense. We didn't know much about their relationship and that they were still friends was good enough. In this when they both equally make the move it was very touching.

The only kind of dumb thing is the clone girl. But at least it's used and isn't just arbitrarily thrown in there like in the last one. So at least the story line was used and maybe it's not dumb but I could have done without it. But it's used so I'm fine with it. I do like that Dr. Henry gets to redeem himself. Because making him the bad guy was kind of weird, but also worked, so I like that he saw the error of his ways and could fix it.

There were a few call backs, fan service, whatever you want to call them and I usually hate this but luckily in this they are usually subtle or so fast that they don't slow anything down so ultimately they don't matter. Dodgson with the shaving cream can at the end isn't just a reference because he is the one that gave it to Nedry, so it brings that full circle and reminds you of where it all started. And he gets the death that Nerdy got for justice. The one that I really liked was the T-Rex walking by the water fixture to recreate the logo. One, it's a cool little thing and two, we've only ever seen this as a skeleton.

The dinosaurs look really good and I liked seeing all the different kinds. The feathery one on the ice was cool. Very scary looking. I like that scene because you think that when the Dino falls in the ice that they've beaten him but then it swims! Also DeWanda Wise had a really cool character. Pratt is great as always as well as Bryce.

The dinosaur with the claws was really cool. I liked the fight at the end with the T-Rex. I don't know why in these movies the T-Rex is kind of the good guy but he is. I guess we all love the T-Rex. I actually thought he had died at the end! He surprised me when he woke up. I think this fight kind of corrected the one at the end of JW1. Because while cool, it goes overboard. But this was quick, short, cool and gave us a good send off to the first JP dinosaur. And the way the two dinosaurs "worked together" was accidental. I really do feel like Colin Trevorrow was trying to do the fight from the first one but right.

The cave scene was really good with the fin dinos. I don't know why I'm pointing out individual action scenes, they were all good! I like that the dinosaurs get their own sanctuary on the planet. So we can all be happy. I liked it when the guy at the black market was getting both arms eaten at the same time. One line that I keep laughing about is when the burning bug falls on the car and Malcom says, "That's bananas." It fit him very well.

The acting on Blue was really well done. When Owen brings his baby back Blue looks back at Owen but doesn't do anything but looking back is enough. It's a dinosaur way to say thanks. It seemed realistic is what I'm trying to say. It wasn't sappy or out of character.

Something this movie did that rarely happens in my older age is that it made me excited. It was good, big, exciting, fun, touching and well done. Colin Trevorrow seems to get it. He makes big movies like this and takes them seriously. He doesn't make them jokes of themselves or dark. I hope he gets the chance to keep making big movies.

It's not black and white, good and evil, basically this movie is realistic. The characters are contradictory and nuanced. The themes are presented but not proven, leaving us to decide what they mean and how they apply to the story. This is a very 70s movie. I know it's a remake of a 70s movie, which I haven't seen (yet) so I have no idea how similar it is.

One thing this movie does is actually talk about gambling as a mental addiction. I know other movies deal with it but this really seemed to hit that hard. Jim Bennett seems to have it all, money and a good job, but he is unfulfilled and it seems that in the movie world if you have money then you're happy, this is of course not true. Rich people cant be sympathetic in movies, which they have all the same problems as the we poor people. I'd rather have Hollywood write about problems that they can actually draw inspiration from instead of trying to pretend that they're one of us. Which they usually don't do well.

With the emptiness that Jim has in his life he gambles and this is how he deals with his problems. This is what kicks the story off, his grandpa dies and to process this event he goes gambling and hits it hard. He wins several times in a row and then can't stop himself while he's ahead and loses it all. Twice.

Is he suicidal or not? Well, he is and he isn't, which I think is how a lot of suicidal people are. He doesn't care but he kinda does. He doesn't really try to fix his situation until it starts to threaten the people he cares about, which I think is what stops people from taking their life. And with the human connection he makes to Amy he finally opens up and admits that he isn't happy and what he actually wants. By having this realization he realizes that he does want to live. He is surrounded by young people that have their future ahead of them, just like he was when he wrote his book.

It makes sense that he would want to change his life after seeing himself though their eyes. Also the sharks he gets money from are all happy that he declines to go further into their life. Because they were all where he was at one point and are where they are now because they had to get out of debt and now it's too late.

And how does he get out of debt? The same way he got there. But since he has something to live for he stops himself when he wins. Which is how we get over our problems, by having something to live for.

This movie is full of great dialogue and ideas. Classic William Monahan. Criminally under rated in my book. He wrote Kingdom of Heaven, The Departed and directed the very overlooked Mojave, which also deals with many of the themes in The Gambler.

Mark Wahlberg does a very good job in this. He typically makes the same kind of action movies so it was good to see him showing what he can do. He's got something behind his eyes that I've never seen before with him. He has a distain for life in every move he makes. It feels like a put on to protect himself from people getting too close.

This movie is about being happy. What does it mean and how do you actually get there? Honesty. Jim was honest with everyone but himself.

I'm going to see every Nolan movie the first chance I get, no questions asked. Not only is he the best current director but he's one of the best of all time. He's rivaling Spielberg at this point with his consistency and originality. I've loved all of his movies except Dunkirk. His movies are either action or thriller or both so I was wondering what this one was going to be like. I thought this may be his "serious drama," like his Schindler's List or something, but I had no idea.

Nolan is as Nolan as ever and only expands on his style. This movie is made like an action movie. It's fast, with quick cuts and pounding music. I read that with Dunkirk he wanted to maintain the same tension throughout the entire movie, I think he failed but he succeeds here. And at three hours, it's all the more impressive.

The movie is jumping back and forth from many different timelines so there is never a dull moment. Nolan has done this before but never for the whole movie. The story isn't linear, and you are shown what's important for the subject at hand. Thinking about it now, I guess it does basically go in order, but there are a lot of sidetracks along the way. I wasn't sure exactly where we were in the chronology all the time, but it didn't matter because I understood what was happening.

Nolan has an amazing ability to know what the audience is going to pick up on. He doesn't over explain and he doesn't under explain. Tenet put this to the test. With so much information that the human mind can't take it in in one viewing. Sorry Nolan we're just not on your level. This movie gives you a lot of info really quickly and never lets up for a second and it all makes sense. I never felt lost.

The black and white was a very simple and effective way to let you know that you are in a different POV. I figured it out like half way though. Maybe a little too long but the movie doesn't give you any time to think.

Of course the acting is great. And a great cast as well. A lot of familiar faces with a lot of unfamiliar. And a lot of people cast in roles you wouldn't think of them for. And a lot of people that I really like but don't even know their names. Robert Downey Jr was really good. It was good to see him in something substantial. His usual Iron Man thing he does really well, but I've soured on it. Cillian Murphy was great and it was good to see him front and center. Alden Ehrenreich is someone that I think should be better known. I've seen him in very little but this guy's got it.

One of the coolest things was the delayed sound of the explosions. Realistic and scarier actually. When the nuke goes off and they're watching the fire, it's obviously a big moment, the only time the movie kind of stops, there wasn't an explosion sound. I kept waiting and waiting and it didn't come. It made me think, "Oh, I guess they're not going to do it for dramatic effect." Then a voice over of Oppenheimer saying, "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds," and then the explosion sound comes in was very cool.

The opening quote, "Prometheus stole fire from the gods and gave it to man. For this he was chained to a rock and tortured for eternity." Was very good and set up the direction of the movie. Usually quotes happen and you don't know what the hell their relevance is.

The part that really sticks out is the end. The close up of Oppenheimer as Einstein is talking to him is very cool. And he says something like, they'll forgive you but it won't be for you, it'll be for them was kinda scary and an ah-ha moment. This scene is built up very well because it's in the movie a few times and you don't know what was said and you want to know, so when you finally get to hear it, it's not what you thought and it's very true. And it's true to what happened to Oppenheimer.

This was a very important story about a very important man. I'm 37 years old and I didn't know much about him. People I talk to don't either. So I'm assuming that most people are in the same boat. I knew he made the A bomb and that he might have regretted it. The complexity of his character and his thoughts about making the bomb feel very realistic.

For generations like mine and a few others who grew up in a nuclear world, I found it interesting to see how much this changed the world and the fear of the intellectuals of what this would create. And the nativity of the politicians and military is scary. I don't know if the scene with Truman is accurate but if it is, it's scary. But then of course their thinking to end the war makes sense. And it did work, it did end the war.

Who knows what Oppenheimer could have accomplished if Lewis Strauss didn't screw him over because of a personal vendetta? He could have advocated for responsible use of weapons of mass destruction or who knows? A man of this intelligence wasn't allowed to rise to his full potential and cash in on his accomplishments because of a petty individual.

It was strange to see a three hour, drama as a summer blockbuster. That alone was a blast from the past. I can't wait to see it again.

I hate this new trend of movies where they don't take themselves seriously and are a joke of themselves while not being a comedy or spoof? It's the Guardians of the Galaxy/Marvel method. It's a self deprecating defense mechanism to avoid criticism. They beat us to the punch of calling out their lazy writing by saying, "We know it's stupid, look we made a joke about it and because of that we can still do it." It's lazy, stupid, unoriginal and dumb. It's the reason these movies have no lasting power.

This movie has an opening of Chris Pine explaining how they got there. You think the movie would have just shown how they got there. But then you wouldn't have had his narration where he makes jokes about the timeline and all that crap.

I love the Pinester but he was really annoying in this. He did what he did in Star Trek and Wonder Women times 1000. Also the creatures looked so stupid and cheap.

When I first heard the concept of this movie I was in. Getting humans to interact with dinosaurs has about two options: Jurassic Park or time travel. This had a new idea which was creative. But, I was 99% sure they were going to screw it up. First of all it's a movie from 2023 and the last ten years or so doesn't have the best track record. And it was called 65. 65. As in 65 million years ago? That is an immensely stupid and uncreative title. But you never know. It's just a title. But in this case it's dead on.

The movie opens on some alien planet with very human like people, talking very human and not acting like anything from another planet. Okay, they don't want to spend much time on something that doesn't take up that much screen time? But I did think that since these aliens were so human that they would be what made us on Earth. Adam Driver stays on Earth and leaves behind the makings of our existence or survives somehow? No. He just leaves at the end. While the dinosaurs are going extinct and astroids are raining from space and the big one crashes.

The credits are done over dying dinosaurs. What? What was the point of this? It was so stupid. Maybe if they used this more, like he was here studying them, or wanted to make a colony but then it was going to be destroyed and he had to leave? I don't know, something.

He crash lands, of course, and everybody dies, of course, so what follows is your basic survival movie. Then the title comes in after about 20 minutes. That's too long of a pre credit scene. It didn't feel like an intro either. Scorsese pulls it off in The Departed but this movie didn't. They waited to say the title until you saw a dinosaur so 65 could pop up on the screen followed with "Million years ago. Earth." Yeah, no s**t, we saw the preview, read the synopsis, we know what this movie is about. Was that supposed to be a surprise?

The dinosaurs are hardly in it, they look great by the way, all the CG is top drawer. But unfortunately every scene with them is the most cliched thing ever. They hear a noise and look intently at it, but then it sneaks up behind them. It's full of that crap.

There is a little girl that survives, of course mirroring the little girl he left behind, of course and for some reason there are these two goofy scenes with her in a row? Like the movie was either too serious or too short and they went back and added these. They didn't fit in at all.

Adam Driver is very good in this. He was wasted. He could have phoned it in and I don't think anyone would have blamed him. But he does a great job selling it and being believable. He does a great job and doing something in his face while he's looking and waiting for the dinosaurs to show up behind him. I don't know what it is, but it was very good. Anyway, another wasted effort from Hollywood. This makes me wonder, are movies going extinct?