CaribbeanBlues

Let me begin by saying I have never read the book.

In this case, that was likely an advantage, keeping me from demanding consistency with it. So then...

More than a bit of a departure for Mr Eastwood, from biography or war or action to absolutely mental, some might even say character driven. The acting was essentially perfect, I cannot find a flaw. Spacey is always good. Kusack was understated and believable. Thompson made us believe him. "Lady Chablis" played her flamboyant self. Rather than address every role, let me just say this. "Minerva," Irma P Hall, was exceptional!

A late twist, and then another. Eastwood is always Eastwood, and he should be proud of this one. I cannot find a flaw. 9/10.

So much of the movie is reviewed elsewhere I will just say this. Too often, in education for example, we don't get what we are expecting. In politics, it seems, we never get what is promised. Open any product, open a bag of chips for example, and we find 70% of it is just air. It's everywhere. That's the world we live in. Well that doesn't happen here.

"With Bad Boys for Life," you know what to expect, you know why you bought your ticket, and you get exactly what you are expecting. A refreshing change. Silly humor, some "shoot 'em ups," a relationship that always feels like its about to go south but doesn't, if you're expecting it you get it.

Too bad these guys got older and can't give us a couple more "Bad Boys" movies!

A decent action film with a bit of a contrived plot. Even a reasonable twist. And then...

***SPOILERS***

A bad group of cops is able to bring in a helicopter and a half dozen more cops, all willing to turn on their own. Was the corruption across the whole department? You don't get a helicopter without clout. But it gets worse.

Next a vehicle about to escape avoids the clear path and instead runs into a mound launching the vehicle in the air and turning it over. No one would have done that. But it gets worse.

Then we see the secretary attacked by a bad cop and killing him, yet two minutes later she returns with good cops and even a fire crew. So how did she, without a vehicle and the city miles away, do that? I'm sure there was a way, but for me? The last 10 minutes ruined what would have been enjoyable escape.

I admit, I'm a writer. If something is so pitifully written, if it requires so much "suspension of disbelief" that superheroes are more believable, I am unhappy. I struggle to think of one good thing about this movie...

Okay, no, there is one good thing.

The title.

Wow. I don't even have the words. The acting is adequate. The locations are convincing. The names of the characters are accurate. After that, "I wish that you were either hot or cold." Why is it this happens again and again, Biblical stories written by those who either do not know scripture or bound by Satan to create a fantasy? Yes, the circumcision takes place, and the revenge of Simeon and Levi. But by then you are no longer paying attention, so far from Biblical is the script. Are we really to believe God's story isn't adquate? I suppose it doesn't matter, because no Jew or Christian should ever watch it, and no one else will even think of it. Horrible. Pathetic. And did I share this? The LORD is NEVER mentioned, NEVER. How can you tell the story of the promised patriarch Jacob without mentioning God? I will help you. You can't...

Perhaps the worst "horror movie" I have ever seen, and I've seen many decades of them. First, the premise was ridiculous. Second, the "monster" was an octopus on land. Third, people who saw strangers arrive bloodies and claiming "Something's out there!" were immediately forgotten by a main character who claimed his next-door-neighbor was simply trying to embarrass him. Fourth, well, no matter how many shrieks and bloodies bodies, it was laughable not scary. That, however, isn't the major sin of this 2 hr waste of time.

How is it people with no real knowledge of Christians always think they can portray them, and always do so in the worst light? No one has ever acted like the character in the movie, but if your goal is to influence those with no more knowledge than you have, just make stuff up with the confidence that you won't be found out. By the way, "Revelations" isn't a Bible book. We can begin there. Liberals run amok on this one and I have to wonder. Why don't they mock Muslims the same way?

Pitiful. Don't waste your time.

How does one fairly judge a movie I hated watching and yet loved that I had seen it? Let's start with the positive.

Though a drama and not a documentary, the story is as faithfully represented as is humanly possible, working directly from evidence gathered, trial testimony, and first person eyewitness accounts. Praise to the director (Nick Searcy), praise to the editor, the story is told without a single moment of feeling it was dragging or of a blur where the audience does not have time to process. And then, the acting.

If there was ever a movie where EVERY performance was stellar, it is Gosnell: The Trial of America's Biggest Serial Killer! Academy Award consideration must first go to Earl Billings (Gosnell). The sincerity of his belief that "I've done nothing wrong," the way he ignores the intrusion into his home, the constant snicker at the threat of a death sentence is maddening and authentic. I don't believe there is an actor on earth that could have done this role better...or as good!

Now double credit to Nick Searcy, who not only directed this masterpiece but himself put in an Academy Award worthy performance as Gosnell's attorney (Cohan). His look of arrogance, right to the manner in which he carried himself, the way he looked compassionately at the audience only a second later to cause trembles in the D.A.'s staff was remarkable.

I could write a thousand words, for of course Sarah Jane Morris (McGuire) was exceptional, moving flawlessly from rage to devastated to fearful as the moment required, Dean Cain (Det. Wood), and in a yet much lesser role but with equal skill Michael Beach (D.A.), Janine Turner (Dr. Wood), who goes from a compelling witness speaking out for truth, to a frightful child as she realizes the path Atty. Cohan has led her down, and so on. But don't focus only on the big roles.

Watch Dr. Gosnell's staff, patients, the jury's faces throughout when, without a spoke line, they tell the story perfectly, even Karnamaya Mongar's daughter, though I'm having trouble discovering her real name, was perfect. And a special shout out to Cyrina Fiallo (Molly), the intrepid "blogger" who played the thick-skinned relentless "reporter" who simply would not let go.

I'll stop, but not without this clarification. The movie is NOT about "abortion." It isn't. Is there a lot of difference between taking a live born child and cutting its spinal cord with scissors or taking a not-yet-born child and tearing its arms and legs from its body? The movie leaves that issue to you. It doesn't even mention it. So if you're staying away because you think this is somehow anti-abortion propaganda, you're wrong. If you're staying away because you don't want to see the truth, don't. If there is a must see movie this year, Gosnell: The Trial of America's Biggest Serial Killer is it.

With the history of the original Blade Runner, it is very hard not to go into the theater without at least a little concern that, "This movie will not measure up." In the end I would say, "It did and it didn't." The film contains a good mix of story and action, and plot twists continue throughout to keep you guessing. The biggest problem for me was the length. It seemed to go on and on just to have time for another twist. Remove a good half-hour and the film, I think, would have been better. Meanwhile, even at its current length, don't expect all your questions to be answered. They won't.

First, the acting in this movie was stellar. The direction was as well. The problem? There was no story. I see the reviews, even by "experts," and it is almost laughable. Are we that determined to praise a nation known for anything but its arts because of that? Watch, wait for "the moment," and when it ends, I challenge you not to say, "Ho hum, I already knew that."

My wife and I love Denzel, but his choice to do this script? Inexplicable.

The premise is this. Denzel, an ATF agent, is recruited to join a very special, experimental unit on their first case. Using unimaginable technology, this group is able to put together surveillance data from four satellites (and one would have to presume other sources as well) and, four days later, present it essentially as a movie. The preposterous (I know, I know, "Sci-Fi") part of it is they are able to swoop down to ground level and show video looking not only inside a building, but even a close-up of its occupants. Using the latest "heat technology," they can not only show the outline of a body, they can present how many hairs in an eyebrow, eye color, even expressions the person in view made that many days in the past. What's more, they can, even from space mind you, display non-heat producing objects like pictures on a wall! Yep, they can! But get this. With all this technology, they have no ability to record/save any of what they see! Fire the guy that forgot that element. So...

The current issue is a bombing that took 500+ lives and the determination to discover the "terrorist" responsible. "As luck would have it," a body washes up on shore appearing to be a victim of the bombing, but Denzel's character notices something that makes him dig deeper. Though intended to appear as just another victim, this person, we discover, was dead before the incident, but it is clear the bomber was in fact responsible for the woman's death. Denzel's take? Find the murderer, find the bomber.

Introduced now to this investigative team and their tools (even Denzel can't believe it, but of course the script told him to "suspend disbelief" so he does after only a few questions), he encourages turning the focus to this woman victim and track her life for those four days. Maybe, though the team is adamant "we can't change the past," they can see enough to track down the culprit. I will stop there.

Just, and spoilers begin right here, along with the omniscience necessary to go anywhere at any time from "four satellites," voices can be heard, notes can be read, and with heat sensor technology (?) even phone displays can be represented in 1080p. (I don't think 4k existed then. Maybe in the sequel.) The result of all this is indeed the capture of the bomber, not a Muslim of course, that would offend the PC's out there, but a fruit-loop "doing God's work." And then the fun really begins.

Afraid of exposing their technology, the investigative team leader calls everything off, but that doesn't stop Denzel. Instead he enters (you had to see this coming) a "time capsule" and goes back in time four days to try to stop the incident. (Anybody remember, "We can't change the past"?) But preposterous wouldn't be preposterous without, well, more "preposterosity"! (I just made that word up and I like it!)

Getting there "just in time" (after being revived in a hospital like a heart attack patient), Denzel rescues the girl but, himself is blown into little tiny pieces when the bomb, this time, goes off under water. No problem. Because somehow he was split in two and, in real time, though in real time he entered the capsule and went backward, he also didn't. That's right, up walks Denzel to investigate a different crime scene, only minutes after he was destroyed. Thank goodness there won't be big enough chunks of what was his other self to cause him to wonder, "Am I dead? Or am I really, really dead?"

I give. If you can suspend disbelief this much you're a better man, or woman, than I! I would give it 1 star, but there is Denzel, and face it. He is about as good as it gets at his profession. This was simply not the vehicle to prove it.

Great suspense, Goodman doing an excellent job portraying a man with compulsions, preparing the viewer all the way.

Was he as crazy as it appears? Was there a very different, unsavory purpose in bringing the pretty young Michelle to his bunker? His story itself seemed quite implausible. Still, there was the woman begging for help. There was the scratches on the window spelling out exactly that word. Could he have set all of that up? But what about his daughter, and what really happened to her? Lots of questions, and no answers.

And then the blunder.

***SPOILER***

Watch it first, or you won't understand, and even then you may disagree, but the movie was 5 minutes too long. The point of the story was simple. Howard claimed something terrible had happened on earth, Michelle didn't believe him. After several failed attempts, she succeeds in reaching the outdoors. Serene, peaceful, birds seen in their migratory formation. Ripping off her homemade gas mask, Michelle's thoughts can easily be read. "He lied to us! He lied to us!" And then in the distance a noise coming from the sky.

At first it is difficult to tell what we are seeing, but as it approaches, it is clearly not any craft we have ever seen before. Lines are dropped from it, and alien creatures descend, no more than a few feet from the terrified Michelle.

Cut to a closeup, Michelle screaming in horror. Cut to black. Roll the credits.

That is the way it should have ended. Minus 2 stars for certain for the writers' and director's failure to know when to stop, when enough is enough. What a shame.

Please do not read this until after you have watched the movie. I do not want to be responsible for affecting anyone's enjoyment.

Bottom line? I agree with parts of many reviews. Bateman and Edgerton put on excellent performances. Hall does not have the same opportunities due to the script, but still is convincing and enjoyable to watch. Direction, camera work, soundtrack, suspense up to the final moments, all for me were outstanding. Then the unfortunate.

The idea that "Robyn" would get pregnant precisely at the time of "Gordo's" entrance into the house is just too far fetched. Now, if he was only responding to the things "Simon" said, the suggestion that Gordo wanted to "nail her," and the pregnancy was a timely bonus? One line of dialogue could have explained that instead of leaving us feeling silly having to believe the improbable.

Then the issue of DNA, as we all know, would have resolved the "Did he or didn't he?" very easily. If he didn't, the issue is over. If he did, he spends most of the rest of his life in prison. Not exactly "getting even."

Last, I really expected to find out that Gordo was the one to send the emails, making it look like Simon had cheated to get the job. That would have been in line with the entire premise and made him far more devious and diabolical. Not writing that into the script (or including it in the final cut if it was in the script) was yet one more let down for me.

So, absolutely exciting to watch for 100 minutes, an abject failure after that. Not sure why I see so few tight scripts anymore, but Edgerton could have scored big in all three areas (writing, directing and acting) with a little more thought.

I'm probably just "out of step," but I don't see the high rating. The profanity is over the top throughout, and the only basis for a relationship between the two is sexual, apparently something not at all (SPOILER ALERT!!!) reserved for each other. What I saw was a woman constantly griping about everything, finding any way she could to turn every comment of her husband's into cause for an argument, and since the movie is little more than dialogue, this and the vulgarity made it difficult to endure. Having read Ms. Delpy's self-description, then seeing she was one of the primary writers, it all made sense. She simply played herself, no acting required. Now, I certainly can't tell anyone to forgo an 8.0 rated film, but if I could, I would. It really isn't worth spending 109 minutes hearing "f".

I am not a professional reviewer, but I am a writer and an avid film watcher. I do not understand the high ratings for this movie. As the synopsis suggests, an effort to eradicate feelings is the premise, so I can't see this as a spoiler. Those enforcing this new reality take a drug to ensure they have no feelings.

First, Christian Bale was miscast, though others may disagree. Watch him try to be stern in the first scenes of the movie and you will note immediately, it isn't working. From there, agree or not, the flaws in the script are too numerous to count. Over and over and over men who are not to demonstrate feelings do, from the earliest scenes to the last. Even the statements made or answers to questions ("I am glad" rather than "It is good") suggest feelings though they are not allowed.

This is what happens when the man who writes the script also directs. Had he collaborated, perhaps his ego would not have blinded him, as he gained assistance from someone who alerted him, "Boss, we need to change this." Not saying, "Don't bother to watch." I am saying, unless you simply seek to enjoy one more example of, I think the award was for "fight choreography," be prepared to be disappointed as again and again script errors are expressed.

***SPOILER ALERT***

Why, in a futuristic world, is a lie detector test required? Good grief, wouldn't a simple blood test have demonstrated whether or not the person in question really had been taking his "meds"???

What has happened to our tastes and sensibilities? A man who has determined himself to "know" every scent in the world? A man who kills in order to "distill" the scent of his murder victim? A man who, magically it seems, has the power to hypnotize his antagonists with just a glance when they get within a few feet of him? A man who creates a fragrance so evocative that a mere flourish of a handkerchief containing it can subdue an entire stinky mob of thousands, some hundreds of feet away? A man who creates a fragrance which compels everyone within a hundred yards into an orgy experience and to awake, apparently the next day, with a hangover? I had an easier time suspending disbelief for "My Super Ex-Girlfriend" or go down the list of thousands of others. As sci-fi it is untenable. As drama it is ludicrous. Any rating above 3 is absolutely laughable.

This movie is ridiculous and not worth one minute of your time...

Alas, another Costner movie that was an hour too long. Credible performances, but the script had no where to go and was in no hurry to get there. First we are offered an unrelated string of events few of which further the story. Will the script center on Randall and his wife? Randall and Fischer? How about Fischer and Thomas? In the end, no real front story ever develops and the characters themselves are artificially propped up by monologues from third parties. The singer explains Randall, Randall explains Fischer, on and on. Finally, long after you don't care anymore, you will learn something about the script meetings. Three endings were no doubt proffered and no one could make a decision. The end result? All three were used, one, after another, after another. If you can hang in past the 100th yawn, you'll be able to pick them out. Despite the transparent attempt to gain points with a dedication to the Coast Guard, this one should have washed out the very first day.

This is the worst "movie" ever made. Of course, calling it a movie is actually exaggerating its merits. No plot. No acting. No nothing. Two guys are silent for at least 45 minutes. One woman should have been. Sorry, but repeating "F___ you bitch!!!" fifty times does not constitute dialogue. Saying it with the same intonation fifty times makes you the anti-actress. Even the same gore was repeated over and over and over. (The "writer" couldn't come up with even a variation?)

Bottom line is there was nothing that you would define as a movie except that the videotape was transferred to DVD and sold in stores. Everyone involved should stay a long way from the business. You have not one iota of talent.