fredricwilliams

This highly improbable story might have been fun, but apparently the lack of a solid plot led the director to find a carnival of unlikely distractions intended to keep us from noticing.

So, we have a major CIA site underground. Hanna escapes to find herself in an endless desert, but after a presumably long walk, she happens upon a couple of American kids.

Despite the vast desert and lack of water, she rejects a ride and is able to walk to a convenient city and get a hotel room. Soon, so we won't be bored with the Moroccan market, we find Hanna transported by stowing away on the same van she had turned down in the desert.

Next we are in Spain, where she bumps into a girl from the middle of the desert and goes for a motorcycle ride with two young men.

A good plot is essential to a good action film. Here we have little to work with, and while we might tolerate the improbability that goes with nearly all action films, a travel film relying on improbability is far too much.

First of all, if this is based on the life of Walter O'Brien, it is best to understand that he has a B. S. from a rather ordinary college. His claim of a high IQ comes from a primary school -- and he has no proof. Although Mensa offers an IQ test, he hasn't taken it. He has a long record of making fanciful claims, usually unprovable, in some case, improbable.

I have a relatively high IQ (158) which I can prove. First of all, high IQ people usually do not make ridiculous claims that often proof fake. Little in this show strikes me as intelligent -- nearly all seems fantasy, including a pudgy Irishman involved in derring-do of all sorts. So much that is done by characters in the show is the opposite of what an intelligent person would do.

So, for me, it was difficult to watch. I kept thinking "are these people idiots?" That led me to check up on the supposed "real-life" O'Brien. My guess is he has an average IQ and so has no real idea what a genius would do.

This work absolutely lives or dies by captioning. Unless you are fluent in both Korean and Japanese, you cannot know what is happening without reading the captions.

Captioning is not a rare skill. Yet for "Pachinko" captions were not professionally done.

In these episodes, captions sometimes appear for a tiny fraction of a second -- so fast that no one would be able to read even a word. In many other cases, they are kept on the screen so briefly that readers will miss parts of the dialogue.

This is.a fine story, but there is no excuse for poor captioning -- it is a skill found easily everywhere in the world.

I watched this because I have found both Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman consistently excellent. However, this film requires far too much suspension of disbelief.

We have a police captain who decides to call in a prominent lawyer with no known criminal record just before the beginning of a major charitable event at which the lawyer is to be the main speaker. No real police captain would be likely to do this -- there is nothing that could not wait until after the event.

Then we have an experienced attorney who is asked countless personal questions and never thinks to say this is none of your business. In fact, the questioning is so improbable that it appears the film has contrived them as a means of uncovering the personal life of the attorney -- not as a means of determining his guilt or innocence.

We soon discover that the "evidence" is that (1) he discovered the body of a murder victim, and (2) he was in the vicinity in which another victim was later found. This is hardly a case -- no judge would consider it probable cause.

So, we are expected to sit through a long and boring film -- no doubt an effort to imitate the French, who are famous for this sort of "art" -- to find out about an old man, his younger wife, her jealousy, and . . . . Well, that about covers it.

I would have quit this film much, much sooner, but I hoped that there might be a clever twist, a satisfying denouement. There is none. What is there? A highly improbable resolution to the criminal charge and a trailing off of the personal story that leaves one wondering what is to follow. The French love this vague ending -- "plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose." Most of the world wants to know what actually happens. A good movie has a beginning, a middle, and something more than a trailing off into oblivion.

This film is a terrific effort in conveying the experience of the Great War. It is exciting, tense, and keeps viewers fully engaged.

But, in the end, it is a very limited story. Character development, plot -- these are secondary to the portrayal of the unique experience of that time and place. To criticize its shortcomings does not diminish its power -- it did not seek to develop character or to have more than a simple plot.

The film won three Academy Awards, but all were in the technical categories: cinematography, sound editing, visual effects. In these it was outstanding.

So I would recommend the film with the caveat that it will not be for everyone and is more likely to survive as a history class docudrama than as a classic film for the ages. That said, it is a terrific immersive experience.

While I can understand why some viewers give this a high score, that does not being it is fun or pleasant to watch. It is fast-paced, nerve-wracking action that is about a character who lies, schemes, and takes insane risks with other people's money and, as a consequence is in a constant panic as he struggles to escape the consequences of his shtick. He is a classic schlemazel -- a born loser. Even when he wins, he loses.

I rely on IMDB ratings as the best way to choose movies to watch. They are usually quite reliable -- except where they reflect a political or cultural bias.

This is not a good film. It is not reliable as history, but not because it gives a false impression of Cheney. That seems pretty close to the mark. But it pretends to knowledge that the director clearly lacks, and it fills in the knowledge gaps with misinformation that has a strong political bias.

As entertainment, the film comes across as the sort of self-indulgent too-creative-by-half work of an amateur. The Cheney story is an interesting one, and giving it full force would make a lasting work of art. This is something frivolous.

Perhaps the most annoying example was a lengthy scene in which Dick and his wife speak in mock-Shakespearean language. Any competent editor would have cut this without a moment's hesitation. But then a competent editor would have cut many of what appear to be attempts at artistic flair. The director lacked the needed skills.

So the rating on this film is inflated -- something between 5 and 6 would have been achieved if those leaning to the left were able to refrain from upgrading the film for being laudably anti-right.

I think I may turn off one movie in a hundred, and I rarely am tempted to review a film, but seeing the extremely high rating for this film, I thought the least I might do is warn people -- though, since I usually rely on IMDb to give a trustworthy rating to a film, I guess not many people are going to read what I have to say.

The main problem with this film is the main character. He is arrogant, not very bright, and inconsiderate of others. Watching a film about a jerk -- especially a long film that seems aimed at lionizing him -- is difficult. I love nature, am a big fan of Thoreau, and about as anti-establishment as anyone can be. Nevertheless, this kid is a moron. He tells his parents he thinks his grades will get him into Harvard Law -- but it is graduation time. Applications to Harvard would have been decided long before. So if this has any truth to it, he is being gratuitously cruel to give his parents false hope.

I watched in the hope that he might prove to have some depth. He had none. If it is true that his father had a role in making him sufficiently famous to get Hollywood's attention, I pity the poor man. If I was his father, I would have sued the studio for defamation.

I decided to write this review after reading reviews which gave it one or two stars. Having watched the film -- and thousands of others, some of which perhaps deserve one or two stars -- I find the reviews were written, for the most part, by people who disliked the message. Before watching films these days, I usually look at the IMDb ratings. They are reliable, except when there is a political or social issue -- then people trot out their bias and vote accordingly.

As a film, this is no crowning achievement. Some Christians will love it, but the characters are a bit one-dimensional, the events a bit contrived, and the minor miracles probably not likely to convince most people. Atheists, of course -- and they are in great abundance in our age of scientism -- will hate the film. Count on them to vote it down.

Having said all that, I thought it was both entertaining and educational. My ten-year- old son chose it and after seeing the 5.0 IMDb score, I told him we could watch it, but if it wasn't good, we would do something else. We watched it to the end.

Some critics have criticized the treatment of one highly religious Muslim father for slapping his daughter for secretly becoming Christian and throwing her out of the house. It happens that today I watched a video of a mentally ill Afghan woman being beaten to death for setting fire to a Koran -- and a Muslim cleric saying this was proper if she had left Islam. The purpose of the film is not to condemn Muslims. It is to show that some people come to Jesus and stay, and some do not.

For those with open minds, it is worth watching.

My son has seen "Cars" perhaps 50 times or more, so when "Cars 2" appeared in Seoul in 3D yesterday, we went.

A sequel is made to capitalize on a great success. Here, with five years to deliver and an estimated $200 million and the opportunity to use 3D, the film fell short.

The 3-D is poor. During the promotional material before the show, LG showed what 3-D should look like -- feathers floating so close you feel you can reach them, a jet flying out of the screen. The Disney-version is 2D tricked out with 3D glasses. We could have saved about half the ticket price by seeing it in 2D.

The story is extremely weak. It begins like a repackaging of the standard spy film with all the usual gimmicks, then pastes in "alternative energy" and car racing for extra action. Seeing this, and watching American TV (medical shows, crime shows, and medical-crime shows) it appears that corporate media bureaucrats can no longer find creative talent. If you want action without a sensible story, it does have action.

The real weakness, however, is that what made the original great is gone. It was the brilliant characterization, the variety and the depth, that made "Cars" a film you could watch again and again (as adults are sometimes forced to). Here, the wonderful characters are just cameos -- they appear, speak a few lines to remind you of the original film, and they are gone.

Even McQueen has a relatively minor role.

I'd give it a "6" -- it is still a watchable work of art, and the graphics are spectacular (despite the total failure as 3-D). Better management would have demanded a better story and something that stretched the 3-D technology to its limits.