Reviews

I thought this was well done and provided something for everyone. It provided some sci-fi for the gear-heads - some romance for the romantic - and some drama and tragedy for those who need some drama and tragedy. I found it easy to get immersed in the dilemma, to understand the characters, and hope for the best for each one of them. The interaction between Cam and Jack was most interesting. This is a film that will make you think and it seems that many people commenting here thought about what they would do in such circumstances and the "morality" of the clone solution. But I came away with another thought - what defines us? Are we just the combination of our memories and a body that serves as a receptacle for those memories? If so - were Jack and Cam the same person? Cam did not think so - he screamed "You are not me" at Jack in one scene. The film Memento played with a similar theme - coming from a completely different angle.

I was surprised this film got so many bad reviews here. For me it was like being on the bridge - like being one of the crew there following orders and often wondering if the Captain knew what he was doing. Why turn to starboard when the enemy was off the port bow? Why turn toward an incoming torpedo? If Hanks was trying to show what it was like to be a destroyer escort captain in 1942 when the German submarines had the upper hand - he succeeded with me. If you were looking for the usual love story/martial arts action/car chase/fantasy film - I suppose you were disappointed.

This was a better than average Magnum episode - an easy 8 - but the scene with Leslie Uggams singing Here's That Rainy Day backed by Chuck Mangione added a full 2 points for a 10. The camera work with a close-up on Uggam's face with Mangione out of focus in the background was a nice touch.

Younger viewers (born after 1970) probably won't appreciate that two film & TV icons were guest stars - June Lockhart and Jose Ferrer. And their 40 years younger selves were played by their daughter and son - Anne Lockhart and Miguel Ferrer. On top of that it had a pretty good plot.

This episode was really funny - I enjoyed it. Come on people - lighten up - this is not brain surgery - or high drama - its comedy.

On the surface this film is pretty grim - tense situations - major characters who are presented as maniacal self-involved jerks - certainly NOT a romantic comedy. Although Fletcher is presented as an oppressive tyrant - we see in a couple of scenes that off-the job he can be kind and "human". Is the tyrant just a role he plays? - to achieve an objective? On the other hand Andrew does not show many signs of humanity - but is still likable since he is the victim of Fletcher's fury. I think the writer/director is trying to make a point - or a few points. The film has so many underlying themes I am not sure what point(s) the writer/director was trying to make. Certainly one point is that to be great or at the top in any endeavor or profession - dedication and sacrifice are required. I think many people will be willing to stop there. But lurking in the shadows is the big question - is it worth it? When you consider the sacrifices made by both major characters in pursuit of their goals- for most rational people the answer would be "NO". There was a similar theme in the film "La La Land" - which was by the same writer/director - Damien Chazelle. And both films featured some really good jazz. Although I knew who Buddy Rich was before I saw this film - I wonder how many other viewers did. Something to think about.

I was living in the Atlanta area when all of this happened and remember it well. The accusations of Jewell were front page and leading news - the proof of his innocence was hardly reported at all. This kind of injustice could happen to anyone - but especially people who fit certain profiles. Justice is NOT blind and news reporting is not about truth or fairness. I thought the film was very well done with a first rate cast. It had a theme very similar to the 1981 Paul Newman/Sally Fields film "Absence of Malice". I gave it a 9 - it was close to a 10.

This is an unusual film - like Mel Brooks, Walt Disney, and Stephen King got together and decided to make a film. There is slapstick humor, tender moments, and some horror. I would say it is good satire and well done. When I was younger - 40 years ago - I would have given this an 8 or 9 - but now its a 7.

If I had reviewed this film soon after I watched it - I would have rated it a 5 or 6. It was disjointed - and I thought the dabbling with physics and thermodynamics was "college kid stuff". But for the next couple of days I kept thinking about how little decisions and events had affected the course of my life. I am in my 70's - so the course is long and winding - with many possible side-roads. I don't know if this was what the film was trying to say - but that's what it said to me. So I gave it a 7 - maybe next week it would get an 8 - we will see.

After reading some of the negative reviews on IMDB, I almost did not take the time to watch this one. That would have been a mistake. I suspect that a major factor in the way people see this film depends on their age and how much they know about the history of Hollywood and the TV shows and films of the 60's. There was a certain swagger in those times - and this film captured it. Younger viewers may not see the point of many of the scenes - they may not "get it". I also enjoyed the way the film played with the main characters - Rick played tough guys on the screen - but Cliff really was the tough guy. The twist at the end was great - caught me completely by surprise. But after all - the title is: "Once upon a Time ... in Hollywood".

My first reaction to the idea of a TV series about a young Sheldon Cooper was "a really dumb idea". But then I watched an episode. Its funny - the story lines are well done - and the actors do a great job - all of them. Zoe Perry as the mother and Annie Potts as "Meemaw" are especially good. Its just good, light entertainment.

I watched this film because my wife put it in the queue. My thought was - oh well - another chick flick - with singing - this is going to hurt. And yes - it was a chick flick with singing - but I enjoyed this one. The stage performances by the character Sister probably helped - but I also thought the film was generally well done. Considering her age and experience - Jordin Sparks did a fantastic job. Her performance at the end was masterful. So I was surprised (again) when I came onto IMDb to see some details and saw that it was rated a lowly 4.9. After reading a few reviews I noticed that many of the people giving lower ratings were comparing this film with an earlier version. That almost always results in a low opinion of the later version. I am an "old white guy" so I did not see the earlier version. I thought this was good. I gave it a 7.

This film has a disjointed plot, no admirable characters, no ending plot twist, and no general theme - just a certain style. The acting of the two central characters is superb, and only that combined with a stylish presentation makes this watchable. But it is watchable - and has a rather unique style.

I suppose film is a form of art, and if this film were to be compared to a painting, it would probably be most comparable to some of the impressionist works. I did not really like it - but I appreciated how it was artistic in its own way.

And - beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

This is a film which is likely to appeal to a very wide audience, from kids to grandparents. That is why I watched it - it was the only movie on the list that my wife and I could agree on together. We both liked it and that says something very positive.

I enjoyed the subtle and not-so-subtle references to some great films of the past. For me, the early scenes based on The Great Escape were the best laugh in the film. I also detected winks at Braveheart, Stalag 17, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Flight of the Phoenix, Bridge on the River Kwai, and The Shawshank Redemption.

If you are looking for a film with deep social commentary or complicated plot twists, keep looking. But for an evening of light entertainment, Chicken Run delivers.

My wife loves horses, so it was inevitable this movie would eventually come home with her from the rental place. She insisted I watch it, and I am glad she did. The story is simple and predictable, but still fun and very entertaining. Kurt Russell does a great job of making horse trainer and father Ben Crane real and believable, and Dakota Fanning is incredible. The kid must have been born in a theater. Add Elizabeth Shue as the mom, Kris Kristofferson as the grand-dad, and David Morse as the bad guy and you have a pretty impressive cast for a family oriented film. If I have a grand-daughter some day, I will get this DVD and watch it again with her.

Perhaps I liked this film because of what it was not. Having heard that it was about racism, and had received some awards, I automatically expected the classic Hollywood treatment where the racists are easily identified by their southern accents, poor diction, use of politically incorrect terms, and obvious lack of education. This film took a broader view. Although many viewers seemed to think the film was dark and critical of humanity, I found it to be unrealistically optimistic because almost every character had some strong redeeming quality ... not true in "real life". If there was a general theme, it seemed to be that people don't really listen to each other ... because they don't need to ... by just looking at the person you know who and what they are ... and of course we know who and what we are ... so we already know everything. The tongue-in-cheek comedy sprinkled through the stories made it more digestible. I gave it an 8 out of 10.

Like other great sci-fi films based on a single concept, (Planet of the Apes, Alien) it is difficult to make a sequel that has the same impact as the original. In this case, they did not get close. Some of the effects were well done, but the fight scenes seemed a bit cartoonish, probably because I have seen it all before, in the first film. I gave it a six.

I had to scan about 30 comments before I found someone who saw the same film I did, Doug Ellice on June 19. I was surprised that so many comments focused on racism, when it seemed to be only a minor punctuation in the theme of the film. I would agree with Doug that Hank (Thornton) was not racist, he treated everyone with equal coldness. Only after a tragic event does he begin to examine his life and understand what is wrong. His job required him to be unemotional and unattached, so he quit and began a transformation. To me, the point of this film had nothing to do with race or economic class or regional stereotypes, that was just the setting. The point of the film is the lyric of an old Barbara Streisand song: "People ... people who need people ... are the luckiest people in the world." I think they made their point.

Clint Eastwood fits this role so well that the William Munny character becomes real on the screen, despite the seeming inconsistencies in the character. I detected an underlying theme that is familiar, and an interesting observation of people, both in the past, and in the present. Many people take up a vocation not because they enjoy it, or because they think it is good, useful, or important; but simply because they are good at it. Eastwood portrays William Munny as such a man, whose skills happen to be in the art of killing. This theme is punctuated in the closing comments. This is Clint Eastwood at his best.

This film seems to operate on three levels. The first level is the reverse order set of scenes used to present the story. The second level is the understanding which comes near the end (beginning?) of the film when all the missing facts are provided in one scene. I thought I detected a third level, but was not sure that was intended until the closing scene, when such intent was made clear by the lines: "I have to believe in a world outside my own mind. I have to believe that my actions still have meaning... even if I can't remember them. I have to believe that when my eyes are closed, the world's still there." I think there are a couple of other underlying themes. If you like movies which make you think, you will probably like this one.