Reviews

While this is impossible, Hollywood should never have been given the keys to the CGI kingdom. Fantasy and science fiction have been turned into absurdity, as evidenced by this awful film. More magic and nearly everything fake, Lucy the flick fits into the nonsensical -- and silly -- comic book movies designed merely to separate money from families and over stimulate the kids. Tell a story? Nah. Employ real acting? Nah. Kill a ridiculous number of people? Sure. It gets two stars because Scarlett is a delight to look at and she's married to comedy nerd writer extraordinaire Colin Jost. Anyone who thinks this is entertainment, art, or whatever, isn't thinking, and Brainiac Lucy would agree. Oh, and that we only use 10 per cent of our brain capacity is a proven myth.

While Christopher Nolan is a superb director, the film did little for me. That may be because of my age. I found the 1980 BBC miniseries "Oppenheimer" starring Sam Waterston as the famous scientist better written, better acted, and much more informative than the current film. Having said that, Nolan's film, no doubt, will be popular and informative for the younger generations which have shorter attention spans, aversions to a TV series produced four decades ago, and probably little knowledge of what it was like to grow up under the threat of nuclear annihilation. The current film tries to cover three segments of Oppenheimer's life: his younger years, the Los Alamos/Trinity segment of the Manhattan Project, and his persecution after WWII because of his communist ties. All three segments are sort of shuffled together like a poker deck between hands. The intercutting, while done well, is often jarring and confusing, but that is the hand dealt to feature film producers since they must stuff their work into the time slots allotted to them by theater owners. The miniseries, like a novel, allows the story to be stretched out in more lifelike proportions. Much has been said about the use of 70mm film, and even the producers suggested this large format added to the majestic nature of the subject matter, which by any standard is epic. However, the technical aspects of the film, while adding eye candy to the production, did little for the Oppenheimer story, which is epic in its own right. Large parts of the dialogue were difficult to decipher, a common problem with today's motion picture and television productions. Diction is no longer an essential aspect of the art form, having fallen to the god of realism rather than articulation. And the music was nothing short of banal, with an overpowering mix that got in the way of the story and the film. In short it was unimaginative and too loud, like Dick Wolf's more recent television productions such as his "Chicago" franchise. Oppenheimer tells an important story to new generations, and that may be its saving grace. For my taste, give me the BBC and it's 1980 miniseries with Waterston.

Nice to pass the time with this version of the Johnson County Wars in Wyoming, one of the major cattle wars of the 19th Century. Most of the acting is pretty good. Burt Reynolds is a bit over the top. Looks like the cast had fun dressing up. Pretty scenery. The UK ranching baron is a bit too prissy. So it was a Wyoming story shot in Canada, and yet another cowboy movie in which someone sang "The Cowboy's Lament," a song first published in 1910. The Johnson County War ran from 1889 to 1893.

Here is how you can be entertained without $100 million worth of CGI and special effects - with writing, music, good direction, good acting, and movement. Where do I start? I'm a writer, so I'll start there. The script by Andrew Patterson, and whomever worked with him, was fabulous. I've listened to every old radio show there ever was and the script reminded me of the very best of radio scripts. Fitting that the center of the story was a radio station (wrong call letters though; should have started with a "K" but that's minor). The story unfolded with words and stories, strengthened by the score, heightened by the movement through the town, almost like Steve McQueen's "The Blob" with two high schoolers running all over town at night to warn everyone of the gooey invader. But these two characters, also a boy and a girl really, were unraveling a mystery that was revealed at the end of the film. This looks like writer/director Patterson's first "big" outing, so the budget was lean. In that regard, it brought back what was done with "The Man from Earth" in which a compelling movie was forged essentially from one set, good writing, and a bunch of talented actors talking. Watch it!

After watching two episodes, it has become clear that the critics (like The Denver Post's) and the purists are clearly sicks in the mud. I let Space Force "play" at my desk while doing other work-a-day chores and found myself laughing out loud throughout. This is just what I need during this time, among the most troubling in my lifetime. The topical throw-away lines were well written and deftly delivered. It is light fare that does not take a lot of brainwork - just what the doctor ordered. It is comedy that is acted out seriously. I hope the real Space Force takes it all in stride. As an avid space fan (both real and fictional), I find the episodes I watched say more about people than the concept, one in which I believe.

I thought it might work as a desk series (not requiring much close attention, while allowing me to do other work), but much of the overdubbed English was so flat the thing got annoying. Looks like they were trying for a European trailer trash Tony Soprano, but it even fell waaaay short of that. Pretty cliche ridden. I just can't buy a mob gang hanging out at a vacation trailer park. Faded at S1E4.

Sure, there is no gun play or exploding heads, but IO is a nice break from, say, The Punisher. This is a relatively new director, clearly with a low budget. Netflix, Prime, and Hulu are encouraging longer scenes, so deal with it. Yes, it is slow, but it essentially is a film about two people during a brief encounter Climate change is being beaten to death, but, heck, only the public and film makers are addressing it. The politicians and so-called h\leaders certainly are not. Sheeshe, at least there's no crummy looking embryonic monster bursting out of someone's chest.

There are moments.

What I liked most about this anthology series was...

THAT THE FOLKS BEHIND IT DID IT!

It's called gumption. These are Indie producers, probably Indie actors, Indie directors, and Indie writers.

And I could find them on Amazon Prime...not in some obscure little theater buried on some college campus somewhere in the West for a one-night showing, then release to DVD.

No, it's not what we're used to, but with this series of episodes behind them, they've learned a little. And maybe if there is another season, the directing will be a little tighter (the shooting and editing is not bad at all), the acting a bit crisper.

There stories are better than the negative reviews indicate.

The bad reviews must have been based on dashed expectations of those looking for a Keanu Reeves shoot 'em up. (Please! They are still counting up the dead in the Wick films.). This film is better than its overall review scores, and in spite of the fact that the director hid behind a pseudonym. You do need to pay attention to the braided plot lines, one in Spanish with subtitles and the other in English, and they each tell compelling stories that come together at the end. As a writer of mysteries, I was intrigued with the approach to this one. The story telling method was a risk, which obviously does not appeal to all, even the "pro" critics (who should be ignored at all costs anyway). For many, though, the film will satisfy.

A few Swedes, a pile of Brits, two Irish, and some 'Mericans head for Norway to to be Norwegians and to shoot the film adaptation of Jo Nesbo's mystery thriller novel "The Snowman". Good acting, but too much was jammed into the confusing script , so follow it closely. I questioned the killer's motivation in the end. 'Merican actor J.K. Simmons playing a Norwegian with a sort of British accent was a bit of a stretch, and we were treated throughout with CGI snow flurries that never stick to anything. Some nice cold scenery. Rental.

One unrealistic catastrophe after another. Let's see, the peeps: a gun wielding raccoon with a smart ass attitude, a green woman, a steroid pumped thick neck, a tree guy (the Ents were much more "real"), and a regular guy stuck in Eighties movies. Truly inoperative dialogue. A lot of screaming. Heroes get killed and resurrected regularly, Bad guys scream a lot and have ruined deep Hollywood voices. Music is maudlin and attempts to be heroic but flops. A lot of noise. Villains all predictable.

Slipstream is far better than the review rankings indicate. The film is a nice break from today's frayed sci-fi kill the monster or be killed plot lines. Slipstream fits in more with the likes of Asimov, Bradbury, or Dick. Sure, there are some familiar plot points like a dystopian near future, environmental devastation, societal collapse, human movements back into nature (actually, sounds a bit like right now, huh?). Intriguing, though, is the common mode of transport, ultralights. With the shifting of the jet stream to cover more of the planet and closer to the surface, the pilots use these "slipstreams" to get around as ground transport is nearly obsolete. And these elements are kept nicely in the background, providing a tapestry for the story, which is a basic cop chase, double crosses, introspection, and interesting character (one of which is an android) interactions. It is worth watching the film for the flying scenes and the key exterior locations alone -- Cappadoccia, Turkey, and Malham Rocks UK. Director Steven Lisberger (Tron), Music Elmer Bernstein, Cast includes Bob Peck, Mark Hamill, Kitty Aldridge, Bill Paxton, Robbie Coltrane, Ben Kingsley, F. Murray Abraham? Come on! Get it!

Not impressed with Josh. He seemed to have one expression throughout the entire film.

Benicio Del Toro carries the entire flick. Hell, half of it was in Spanish and it was superb to watch him. To stuff his bank account, he needs to be the villain in either a new Batman or Star Trek film. He makes every role believable.

Overall, the film is worth a watch, if only to get a feel for what life might be like in romanticized Central and South America. Like I said, I finished it -- unlike Markie Mark's "The Gambler," which dragged me thorough a half hour before I searched YouTube for a Hopalong Cassidy adventure.

This movie is far better than some of the reviews indicate. One reviewer rightly said that good films like The Thing or The Man from Planet X were made at the same time, but the comparison is faulty. The Flying Saucer was a one-off by Mikel Conrad who starred in it, wrote the storyline, directed and produced; it seems to be his only writer-director-producer credit. TMFPX was extremely low budget but used far superior actors. And Thing was a Howard Hawks production with a top-notch cast and crew; many of the scenes, judging by dialogue and action alone, seemed to have been directed by Hawks even though he is not credited. Compare The Flying Saucer to the many other sci-fi flicks of the early fifties and it holds up a little better. Except for interiors, the entire film was shot on location in Alaska – so you get a great look at the 1949 Alaska environment around Juneau, Spring Lake, and Taku Glacier. And a number of boats, docks, cabins, and float planes from that era. I found the storyline interesting – a scientist builds a saucer (From alien plans? This question is left to the viewer's imagination) that both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. want to get a hold of. The saucer was a good MacGuffin. Acting was stiff at times, but this was a pro- sumer production. Still, it was worth watching.

I bailed at 2 hours and 13 minutes. I don't care how it ends. Why is it that filmmakers think dragging viewers through unneeded minutia is art? There are wide shots in this film that I could have shot and directed. Perhaps the director forgot to shoot a close-up. Do we need to see a father, barely a speck on the screen, walk all the way to the group returning his son to him and then watch him and his son keep on walking and walking and walking into another scene. For what? To say you did all this in one shot? A first year film student could do that. It certainly doesn't come close to rivaling the opening shot in Touch of Evil. And in Citizen Kane, Welles covered far more sweeping material in 119 minutes (instead of 158!). Attenborough covered Ghandi in 188 minutes, and this was one of the most epoch stories of the 20th Century. Even Upton Sinclair would not have put mired his readers with such tediousness. Reminds me of Kevin Costner's attempt at Wyatt Earp, where the movie really starts when the badge is pinned on Wyatt's shirt, about an hour in. Don't confuse screen time with quality. This flick needs a tough edit, at least 45 minutes.

Yet another unimaginative monsters-chase-humans flick created for the SciFi Channel. I won't reveal the monster for fear you might laugh yourself into a coma. A scientific team with soldiers teleports to a far off planet (a la Stargate) to find a plant that will produce enough oxygen to save Earth, which is choking on its own pollution. The gear everyone carries looks like toys and the canvas tents and cots don't seem very futuristic. Things go wrong, the team is stranded, and the monsters pick them off as they make their way to the back-up teleporter device. Every so often the Director of Photography shakes the camera to tell us the planet is unstable. In between the "excitement" we're treated to some fairly lame interpersonal dialogue. Sean Patrick Flanery makes the best of the dreadful script. The special effects are about as cheesy as you can get. Otherwise, it's a great romp.

Just saw the movie - for the first time! - the other night on cable. It is fabulous - very rich, very dense. I'd recommend it to any Leone fan. I noticed many comments about the long shots in closeup and the acting through action rather than words, which adds to the richness. An interesting note about some of the long scenes. My business partner (we run a production and communications firm) interviewed Ennio Morricone a number of years ago when he was being honored in LA. Apparently, he basically cranks out many of his film scores and then puts them "in the drawer" until a movie comes up. In many of the Leone movies, scenes were shot to Morricone's score, not the other way around (which is more typical), so many scenes are stretched to match the music. Back to Duck You Sucker - I'll start searching for a DVD. It's definitely one for the collection.