Reviews

The film went for Star Trek + Marvel. It could've used a little more Star Wars.

To me, the most impressive and entertaining aspect of the film was the interplay between J Lo and Smith, her AI companion. It kind of reminded me of the dynamic between the emotional Captain Kirk and rationale, but understanding and reasonable, Spock. If not for this element, I would have rated this film a 5 or even 4.

The story has an interesting premise, albeit one already explored. So, it includes a backstory that unfortunately falls a little flat.

The best movies have interesting bad guys. Star Wars excelled at this; maybe the best. The film could've developed some interesting bad guys to complete the story. But they're analytical and boring. The film could've used a boba fett/western man in black type character. There was a whole world to explore on the alien planet, but we barely saw it. Fortunately, J Lo did a great job playing off Smith, saving the film from disaster.

Atlas is worth a watch for sci fi fans. But it's not a movie you'll likely rewatch.

After watching First Class and Days of Future Past, I had high hopes for this. It's a let down. So many problems.

First, it barely spends any time Wolverine's origins. And we have no idea why he's immortal and his motivations. In first class, Erik's motivations and character are clearly explained. All we know about Logan is that he want from child to killing machine in 3 minutes of movie time.

The film then turns into a revenge film. I thought I was watching a Rambo film for much of this movie. And the worse, 2nd Rambo film at that.

Constantly shifting loyalties, random storyline and roller coaster plot twists make this film disjointed. Not a total disaster, but not great either.

Imagine taking a semi good (emphasis on semi) and turning it into a pile of crap? You get a corporatized, homogenized world where everyone attends an ivy league school or no college at all. Of course, in this world these people are nerdy and hard working. The reality is that Ivy League acceptance is based on wealth and connections, not hard work or intelligence. The rest of the story is really immaterial. This movie is a vehicle for connected types to break into Hollywood, with the established actors serving as props (Lawrence and Broderick). Save your time and money. Go for a walk. Read a book. Or lie on the floor and stare at the ceiling. You'll be better off.

I usually agree with film critics. But not here. This movie has some great set ups. The side characters steal the show: Dana Carvey, Rodney Dangerfield, Randy Quaid, and Morris Day, to name a few. If you're looking for the classic Richard Pryor you won't find him here. But he does a great job of capturing a typical suburban husband and father who eventually cracks.

If there is a problem with this film, it's that it can't decide what it wants to be. There are some kind of corny moments that were typical of the 80s. These are juxtaposed with the rather raunchy side characters maybe more typical of Dangerfield and Pryor. In the ending, Arlo Pear kind of goes off the rails and dons a personality inconsistent with the character. This works in the case of the Dana carvey character, but not always for the film as a whole.

I personally think these issues can be ignored in light of great character performances and funny story line. This film is an underrated gem, in my opinion.

I was inspired to watch this film after viewing the excellent PBS documentary, Visions of Freedom. I didn't know a lot about Tubman before the documentary.

Frankly, I was disappointed with this film. The characters are overly simplistic and it relies more on the myth of Tubman over the real person. It glosses over critical aspects of her character in favor of sentimentalism. That's a shame, because Tubman was a remarkable person who did remarkable things. Her life is a compelling story.

That said, the film isn't horrible. It's a decent production and the acting is good. It doesn't break any new ground in the genres it covers: biopic, civil war drama, etc.

I encourage viewers to watch Visions of Freedom. Again, I didn't know a lot about Tubman before...but wow. She was an incredibly brave person and belongs in the pantheon of American heroes.

This film tells a good, if not derivative and predictable, story. The cinematography and scenery is amazing (why I gave it an 8 over 7). At times I found myself pausing the film to look around. Well done.

Imagine this production meeting. "We have a great script, actors and story. Now all we need is a director who is incompetent and can really mess this up."

Based on that criteria, this film is a huge success. They found a director with a wealthy and privileged upbringing, one who leveraged his connections to get the job, and created a bloated, boring, pretentious mess.

Normally, this is when I say something like "despite, there are a few poignant or funny moments." But there isn't. Skip and move on.

David Lynch's Mulholland Drive is basically a remake of this film. A more darker, bizarre, and surreal remake, for sure.

As for this film, it's a decent story. So many people think just because a movie is in black and white and portrays reasonable people, it must be hokey. But those people tend to aspire to style over substance.

A tale as old as time...

This film conflates type 2 and type 1 diabetes, as clearly stated in the trailer. My child was diagnosed with type 1 several years ago. For millions of people like him, it does more harm than good. The film makers, to my knowledge, have not addressed this issue and delete individual comments that bring this health/science fact to their attention.

I made it through 7 or 8 episodes and just no longer cared. The storyline has all the usual cliches:

*The one dimensional bully.

*The astronaut who somehow has all the answers and knows everything; everyone against her is also one dimensional and "just doesn't understand." *The woman who presumably dropped out out of Harvard med school to care for her cheating husband and family (it's implied she's smart, but we all know she is just wealthy, which shields her from the consequences of all her bad decisions - dropping out of school, marrying a jerk, etc).

*The retiring officer's last day with just one more mystery to solve.

How many times have we seen all this?

I momentarily thought this show is a lampoon of all these cliches, but no. The producers and directors and writers are actually serious!

I only found two storylines interesting. First, the retiring sheriff and the deputy (which is only shown in the first episode and then inexplicably never again). Second, the storyline about the astronaut who lost her partner to an accident.

The producers think they can use boring, annoying, wealthy characters as a form of style over substance. Maybe they'll learn someday, but it's doubtful.

Oh, and somewhere there's aliens...I think? Don't waste your time.

This film just under covered what's been pretty clear for centuries: 1)highly selective institutions are significant engines of social inequality and 2) rich people will spare no expense on buying the best credentials for their kids. Some will say money doesn't matter in education - intelligence and hard work do. That's nonsense. The day rich people start spending less on the education of their children is the day I will believe that.

This movie focuses on the human context of the Colorado. As with a lot of challenging films, the average Jimmy Fallon or Adam Sandler fan will lack the patience. Or empathy to watch. The camera work, music, and human stories are great.

If you like formulaic Adam Sandler or Michael Bay files (like Transformers or Armageddon), then you won't like this film.

The three complaints about this film are that it's focused on the minutia of life, is slow, and the characters aren't likeable. Here's the reality about being an adult all the negative reviewers either don't understand or miss: most of our lives are spent dealing with minutia, things do get slow and monotonous, and we do things that make us unlikeable and bring out the worst in us (divorce, addiction, refusing to let go, etc.). It's not all goofy golf tournaments and exploding asteroids. A vast majority of our life is spent in steady habits.

So yes, there's sadness and slowness in the film. But there's also an uplifting message. There is hope in getting out and moving on. It's sad to leave the good parts behind, but the future can also be bright.

Movies like this force viewers to confront their own situation. That can make one uncomfortable, and likely led to the polarizing and negative reviews here. But if you're brave enough to confront your own hopes and fears, then I would recommend this film.

Excessive sugar consumption is a significant public health crisis. The filmmaker does reference actual doctors and scientists. That's good.

But then he parades a host of flat earthers and high school drop outs (like Davis Wolfe) for their expertise, as if their perspectives are somehow equivalent to medical professionals and scientists.

So, by all means listen to the message. Just be skeptical of the science and delivery presented in this film.