Reviews

I like the post apocalyptic genre. A lot of decent movies out there, and a few great ones.

This isn't one of those.

The plot is pretty standard fare: A once good man has become (at best) morally ambiguous loner, for a reason the film hints at, but doesn't quite reveal. He has a chance at redemption when he encounters a young girl who needs help.

The script is choppy and hammy. Most of the film is spent trudging through the snow, which would be okay, if the story was more convincing and the trudging somehow lent gravitas to the moral journey. But neither the script nor the plot convey the lesson very well.

The acting is wooden, across the board. Silly accents. Stiff delivery of lines.

Action sequences are poorly executed. Implausible, with bad editing thrown in, to cement the poor and unrealistic feeling of the scenes.

In one scene, two bad women on confront the young girl and her mom. One of the bad women shoots the mom. A moment later, the protagonist, unseen, shoots one of the bad women. The other bad women continues walking to grab the young girl, as if a rifle shot never happened, and there is no threat to her life. A moment later, she is shot dead.

There are several sequences like that. It's disjointed and disconnected from any kind of plausible realism. People, even hardened people, react to gunshots; rifles are REALLY loud. Human fight or flight instinct doesn't allow for casually continuing what you are doing when it is readily apparent you are about to be killed or maimed. Without fail, reflex reaction is to run, or turn to face the threat.

In the film, every encounter between people in the wilderness is life or death, or implies that it could be. And yet the protagonist makes campfires at night. NOBODY walking around the outdoors in an environment where encounters with others are likely to be fatally violent would make a nighttime campfire. It's like a neon sign saying "I'm here. Come kill me and take my stuff."

The filmmaker wants to tell a redemption tale set in a rugged, survivalist environment, but doesn't seem to understand humans in that setting.

I have no doubt, budget limitations contributed to this mess. There were sequences of glaring omission, where another handful of seconds of film, with a different perspective edited in, would have made a scene flow correctly.

20 minutes in, wanted to bail on this movie. I forced myself to get through it, knowing I had to write a review, to counter the fluff reviews that convinced me to watch this in the first place.

Nothing in the remaining 60 minutes was redeeming. In fact, it got worse.

Can't recommend this movie at all.

An IMDB rating of 6 for a movie is roughly my divider for whether I'll watch. I make an exception for some genres, and apocalyptical sc-fi is one of them. This movie looked interesting, so I decided to take a chance, despite the 5.9 average rating

What surprised me was the profound mythology cleverly woven into the story. Vesper is a messiah figure. The tower built by the "pilgrims" (who don't speak) is an inverse of the Babel story from the Bible. The jugs represent the hubris of humans, for making beings in their own image, including a Mary or Eve-like figure with Camelia. Jonas is Judas. Or Lucifer. Or Cain, with Versper's father as Able.

At the end, to complete her journey, Vesper climbs the tower, which seems to have no other purpose than to allow her ascent (to heaven?), where she overlooks a fertile plain. Is she Moses; is the ragtag group that followed her the Israelites? Will she be allowed to reach that fertile land? She releases the unlocked seeds, like manna from heaven. That's a take on Noah's tale of God renewing the world after flooding it.

There's an obvious parallel to the Matrix trilogy, with Vesper as "The One," whose role it is to reboot society.

Fascinating, fable-like storytelling.

The beauty in this mini-series is the weaving of three stories about the main character, Liv: 1) Her present day life (plane crash/survival scenario), 2) her recent life of hyperworking lawyer, the death of her father, and a new love life, 3) and finally, her life as a child, in a home broken by a manic-depressive mother.

This movie got my attention for for the plane crash/survival angle. But as the story unfolded, I began appreciating the backstory of who Liv is. The things that make her personal life a shambles are the things that equip her to survive in the wild. Not because of skills, but rather because of her will.

The storytellers do a great job of weaving the supporting characters into the survival scenes, appearing as alter-egos for Liv's conscience. Some of it is wry (dead plane passenger Sam), poignant (her father), manic (her mother), and romantic (Danny).

I can understand why this series would disappoint many viewers. Some of the survival stuff is unrealistic, and the flashback storytelling is over-the-top at times.

Overall, I found it engaging and entertaining. Masterpiece? No. But worth the time, if your expectations are reasonable.

It's not "Hell or High Water," but I enjoy seeing Chris Pine and Ben Foster together again. I think the best part of this movie is that Chris Pine is constantly vulnerable because his body is failing him. He's not a superhero. He does a good job conveying the vulnerability of a soldier who is clearly hampered by conscience, physical limitations, and the fear that he will fail his family as his father failed him.

There's not a lot of meat to Ben Foster's part; he's a much better actor than this role allows for.

Keifer Southerland does a credible job, but his final scenes feel like he's a B-movie heavy.

Overall, watchable, but not memorable in any particular way.

I applaud Daily Wire for hiring Gina and making this movie. I hope they'll do more together, because the potential is there.

As Westerns go, the story is a bit formulaic: Sins of the past come back to haunt the good guys...see Forgotten, Old Henry, among others. Still, it's a solid theme to work from. The primary location set at the cabin is oustanding. Beautifully captured in the cinematography.

Gina's performance is a mixed bag. She's a stunning presence. Some of her scenes were delivered expertly, while others, you could feel her acting. I think she'll continue to improve. She's talented and will improve with more time spent in front of the camera.

Nick Searcy is the most experienced actor in the cast, and he delivers, as expected. He a fine performer.

The gun play is weak. Read a professional reviewer comment that the weapons of the day were not accurate, so poor accuracy should be understandable. That's incorrect. The guns depicted in the movie are capable of very good accuracy. It's shooters who are innacurate. The writers relied to much on ineffective gunfighting to fill screen time. Should have reduced the volume of shots fired to make it more realistic; ammo is not limitless out on the prarie, whether in a homestead or on horseback.

The movie slows during the cabin seige. To many stop-start cycles of conflict with the bad guys. Again, the writers would have done well to intermingle other content. Maybe flashbacks or some type of parallel story, to break up the monotany of that sequence. Perhaps more time spent in town scenes with Cerrone. I suppose the budget was a limiting factor in this regard.

So, in summary, the movie could have been done a bit better in terms of overall performances, plot and script, but it is by no mans a bad film.

Looking forward to whatever Gina Carano and DW do next.

21 Bridges borrows plot elements from Copland (corrupt NY police precinct), Prince of the City (narco-corrupted NY cops), Serpico (lone honest NY cop trying to hold the line), and The Usual Suspects (ripped off the wrong victim with dire consequences). It blends those elements into a reasonable story.

Where it falls down a bit is the idea that one cop (Bosman) can get into a series of gunfights in five or six hours, in numerous venues, with well-trained opponents, kill all of them, and walk away as the hero. That moves this film from drama (where it belongs) to an action hero flick.

Also, there are a couple of plot leaps that make no sense, e.g., how Frankie Burns (Sienna Miller) comes into possession of the flash drive in the final confrontation.

Chadwick Bosman was a fine actor and his performance is good. However, Stephan James and Taylor Kitsch, as the bad guys, turn in the best performances.

JK Simmons sleepwalks through his role as the corrupt precinct captain. He's a favorite of mine, but there is nothing challenging in the role for him. Same for Keith David as the police chief.

Worth watching, but not a finely crafted film. Leans more on action than plot.

Well written, acted and directed. Maid is well worth watching. It deals with numerous, difficult family and social issues in a relatable way. Domestic abuse, mental illness, addiction, homelessness, dysfunctional relationships, generational social problem inheritance.

Margaret Qualley is excellent in the lead role. Andie McDowell's performance is also outstanding.

What I like most about this movie is how poignantly it portrays Jadin's life, struggles and death, via a very good performance by Reid Miller. For most of us, going about our everyday lives, we don't have to deal with that kind of soul crushing, emotional distress. He's worthy of our sympathy, and because of that, it makes Joe Bell's pain easier to relate to.

Mark Wahlberg does a credible job. Really liked Gary Sinise's performance.

Nobody will confuse this film with cinematic greatness. There's no grandeur. No towering monologues. The camera work, sound and special effects are all good, sometimes very good, but nothing great. The script is good, and necessarily hammy at times.

What this movie does exceptionally well is make fun of nearly everyone who gets caught up in today's divisive politics. The liberals are over the top. The conservatives are over the top. Cliché after cliché, and they all seem silly. And they should: Clichés only become real after they are manifested too often in the world.

The more subtle point is Crystal, the protagonist of the story. She represents the rest of us. Just an average person caught in the middle. She doesn't have a side. She doesn't deserve the injustice of her circumstances. She trudges on against the adversity. She's endowed with her own, potent wisdom, jaded by a world-weary point of view. She's just trying to survive. She's bemused by the insanity of the game, yet sober because her well-being is at stake.

Crystal is an avatar for the average American who simply wants to survive, avoid ruin, and maybe have a chance at happiness, despite the crazy people with megaphones and power trying to do them in.

Romantic comedies are easy to like and consume. Usually, nothing particularly profound happens, but they stir your emotions and deliver some good laughs. The Hollywood versions come in many shapes and sizes, but still tend to be a bit formulaic.

Crash Landing on You uses many of the same devices as a Hollywood rom com, but it's set in such an unlikely context: South Korean woman, North Korean man, with the story spanning the border between the two nations, adding political, cultural and economic intrigue. It's not that cross-border rom coms haven't been done before, with culture clashes being one the elements of the romantic interest; it's actually been done many times. What makes this story different is the nature of the relationship between North and South Korea, which puts funny, crazy, and downright dangerous constraints on a romance. The writers make this a central element of the plot, and do it beautifully. It leaves them with no shortage of villains, unlikely allies, and all kinds of plotlines to work with.

The characters are endearing. The two leads are beautiful, apart or together. Performances are generally excellent. I'm watching with subtitles, and it's not my culture, so it's a bit hard to finely gauge the acting performances, but in general, I think the cast is quite good.

It's one of the strangest television experiences I've ever enjoyed. Highly recommend it.

Read The Stand when it was first published. Read the King-edited long version when it was later published. Have re-read it several times over the years. Among my favorite books.

Like many fans, when the original TV mini-series aired, I was thrilled to watch, and disappointed with the end result. I've hoped for a remake many times over the years, and imagined the casting. It was a discussion we had many times at the dinner table in our house. We mostly dwelled on casting because Molly Ringwald was so ruinous in the original miniseries...it left a lasting impression.

We never considered the plot timeline could be so badly mangled. As other reviewers have stated, the non-linear storytelling was not only pointless, but harmful to the telling. It adds nothing, and detracts greatly.

The last episode starts by tragically omitting the difficult journey home by Stu, Tom and Kojak. It's a great part of the book, and well done in the original miniseries.

Instead, the end of the series is extended with a Frannie-centered tale of the ongoing battle of good-and-evil. Flagg reborn, still tempting souls with low hanging fruit. Frannie fighting the good fight, with Mother A's help, to "be true and stand." Odessa Young turned in a fine performance over the entire series. No discredit to her. There was simply no need for this plot extension (except maybe for Stephen King's need to finish the story differently, because that was on his mind).

I never thought I'd say this, but if forced to watch one of these miniseries again, I'd watch Molly Ringwald's awful performance, just because of the linear storytelling of the first series.

For those of you who like to dwell on casting, here's my take:

Odessa Young > Molly Ringwald (not even close) Miguel Ferrer > Nat Wolf (Miguel's part was better written) Gary Sinise > James Marsden Laura San Giacomo > Amber Heard Matt Frewer > Ezra Miller (writing and plot treatment for Miller was a disaster) Ruby Dee > Whoopi Goldberg

When the movie ended, my thoughts were: "Wow, that was a really dark, depressing movie. And Joaquin Phoenix is an incredible actor."

After a few days to ponder it, I now view it a tremendous movie. It works on so many levels: The transformation of a mentally ill man to someone who is criminally insane. A dark origin film that takes Arthur Fleck, in an otherwise ordinary tale of woe, on an unlikely path to an eventual arch-villain whose unhinged randomness is his greatest weapon. And that transformation is not quite complete in this film, leaving room for more

The cinemtography is ugly (in a great way) and sets the dark mood. The plot and the script do a great job of making Arthur's tortured existence palpable and sympathetic. Phoenix's physical performance is unbelievably good. Never felt so sorry for such a creepy persona. He's like a car wreck you can't look away from.

Highly recommended. I'm looking forward to seeing where they go with this.

First, I'll agree that the filmmakers got a lot of details right: The timing of the U.S. attacks when the Japanese were caught in the rearming process. The poor performance of the Devastator TBD. Faulty torpedoes. The politics of the Japanese military. The fast turn-around getting Yorktown out to sea again. And lots more.

But the errors, embellishments and omissions were glaring: The Marshal Islands attack was ridiculously inflated. The Kamikaze hit on Enterprise during that battle (complete with Nick Jonas saving the day) never took place. The complete absence of American fighter planes on the American carriers. American attackers going in and facing anti aircraft fire without having first been jumped by Zeroes, and the missing dogfights via F4F fighter escorts. SBDs blowing Zeros out of the sky. Taking the time to depict John Ford as a brave movie maker on Midway, yet not showing Marine Fighter Squadron 221, flying antiquated equipment, going out to meet the incoming Japanese attackers against overwhelming odds and pretty much getting slaughtered. Yorktown's involvement in the battle reduced to one scene where she is burning, depicted from afar. The Nautilus getting depth-charged U-571 style. The ships in both fleets in such tight formations, it's more like a photo op than a battle formation.

So many worthwhile details that could have been made right in the same screening length, if they would have simply ditched the goofy Doolittle sequence. I love Aaron Eckhart, great actor, but his scenes in China had no place in a movie called "Midway," if the price was cutting out major elements of the Midway battle.

Maybe I'm being picky, but when they go out of their way to glorify John Ford, while leaving out a squadron of Marine fighter pilots that sacrificed themselves so valiantly, it just strikes me as typical Hollywood b.s.

This is an excellent cast working with a slightly subpar script. All of the performances are solid. Ray Liotta is always bankable as a villain. He brings an intense edginess to bad guy roles that few actors can match. Hopkins feels a bit miscast (not the guy you expect to be working at a lumber mill), but still turns in a respectable performance. There's good chemistry between Styles and Ludwig that adds extra dimension to a script that needs it. Good cinematography, particularly outdoors. The movie uses flashbacks to fill in plot holes, and it works for the relationship between Liotta and Hopkins characters. I think the movie would have worked better if they didn't use flashbacks for the Liotta/Styles relationship; it was too recent and too important in the plot context. The flashbacks make Liotta seem more sinister and unpredictable, but the movie needed a bit more length in constructing the plot. Could have also used a bit more background for Wizard and Scotty characters. Not quite enough character development overall, and the movie felt a bit flat in that regard.

Worth watching if you go in with reasonable expectations.