Reviews

For any of us who were in high school at the time of this movie, t Real here's so much that rings true. The story, the performances, everything about this movie cuts to a very deep level. Even here 44 years later, I am still deeply moved by the performances, the story...everything about this movie strikes a resonant chord.

Thank you to director Tony Bill, the cast, and crew for creating such a vivid, indelible portrait of high school life in the late 70s and early 80s. If anyone was that awkward kid trying to fit in, this movie rings extremely true. A real gem of a movie, and one which still makes me have feelings today.

I really dislike this episode. In addition to the cruelty that the Platonians inflict upon the crew, I have a personal aversion to Parmen himself. In both his demeanor and his looks.( sorry, the actor portraying him just strikes me this way) he comes across as one of these "pretty boys" that has gotten the world (fame, fortune, women) handed to him on a silver platter. There's not a scene that goes by that I don't want to just kick him in the nuts. And Barbara Babcock's character isn't much better. She's a vain Barbie doll who just needs to be knocked down about 15 notches. In some respects it's a testament to the actors that they have been able to create characters that evoke strong, and in particular negative emotions. Nevertheless, the discomfort I feel while watching this episode really is palpable.

Y'know, everybody says that "Spock's Brain" is the worst episode of Star Trek. Nah, this one leaves it in the dust. I mean, really. WTF? A bunch of space brats, who have been possessed/groomed by Melvin Belli? Just the memory of "hail, hail, fire and snow" induces PTSD. It's a shame, because Craig Huxley is a really nice fellow. I've met him a couple of times at ST conventions.

I don't know what the writers of this episode were thinking. But, it's off the charts, ridiculous, bad, and PAINFUL to watch. Did any children over the age of about four ever even play "Ring around the Rosie?"

The only positive thing out of this episode that I can even remotely come up with is that it introduced the United Federation of Planets pennant.

I can't watch this movie without dissolving into tears. In addition to the sadness and grief that permeates the movie due to Chadwick Boseman's completely untimely and tragic death, I can't get beyond the thoughts of how difficult this movie must've been for everybody involved in it. I watch the images of grief and it's impossible to separate the actors from the characters they are portraying. No, it's not a perfect movie and there are story problems, but on an emotional level, it accomplishes something that few movies can. It draws me in and affects me on a deeply emotional and deeply personal level. And that's what the best movies do. While I can't give it a 10 out of 10 rating, this movie demands a solid 9 out of 10.

I know that critics and some people are going to hate this movie. I for one thoroughly enjoyed it. It's silly. It's over the top. It has ridiculous dialogue, completely illogical writing, and it borrows from everything from Emmerich's own output to Big Hero 6. And everything they say that is wrong with it, IS WRONG WITH IT. But it is totally fun to watch and everybody should go see it, enjoy the ride, and not expect it to be anything more than a BIGASS Roland Emmrerich end-of-the-world flick. 8 (at least) out of 10.

First there was Idiocracy, then American Politics 2016-2020 and now we have Don't Look Up.

This is scathing satire of current politics, economy, and media. Sadly, watching this, I found myself more upset and worried than amused or entertained. Even with DiCaprio's "Howard Beale" moment, it's not enough to make me feel like we're even going to get this country back on track.

A great movie, but to quote Dr. Mindy, "It's horrific and beautiful at the same time."

I first saw this movie shortly after it came out back in 2017. At the time, I didn't think much of it. It didn't move me in the way it did others on this board. I felt it was ok, but nothing special that hadn't been done before.

I just recently watched it again. I'm not sure why my original take on it was so mediocre. It's almost as if I watched a different movie. This is truly a beautiful film. The performances are tremendous. The pace is near perfect in the way it treats Elio and Oliver's relationship. The cinematography and the Italian countryside is sumptuous to view. The soundtrack and the use of actual piano works adds to the overall aesthetic of discovery and longing.

Yeah, a much better film on second view. Mea culpa.

I went to see this today and in all honesty, it affected me rather deeply - much more than I expected. I truly don 't get what the critics are disliking so much about their movie. Sure the actors playing high school students are too old for the parts - this is a frequent complaint of mine for anyone who has read my reviews - but you know, it really didn't matter to me. The story was compelling and the acting was overall quite good.

I did think that the music is a little weak - many of the songs sound the same in that indie "stream of consciousness" mode where the lyrics don't necessarily rhyme and the melodies seem to meander through the notes that the words are matched with.

And the story or the basic premise that the lie that is told so that the main character can feel "normal" and "liked" is a bit tough to reconcile, but the emotional impact that the overall story packs is undeniable to anyone (or who has had a loved one) who has had to deal with mental illness, psychological difficulties, ADHD, or depression.

I found myself moved to tears several times during the movie, No it's not a great film - it is doubtful that it will win any major awards for anything. And there is nothing that the critics are pointing out that isn't correct, but a movie is more than the sum of its technical parts. The bottom line is does it impact the viewer emotional, and "Dear Evan Hansen" definitely hit that nail square on the head for me. 8 out of 10.

Full disclosure...I need to start out by saying that Diane Lane and I are the same age and I have had a major crush on her since this movie.

What I love most about this movie (and what I loved about it the most when I first saw it back in 1979) is that it doesn't treat the kids in the movie with contempt for their intelligence and actions (even if some if the adult characters do.)

I love the story, and finally got around to reading an English translation of the original novel "E=MC2, Mon Amour" it a few years ago. The movie is fairly faithful to the novel, although the kids are portrayed as even more advanced in intellect than in the movie.

The use of so much Vivaldi in the soundtrack (and Georges Delerue winning the Oscar for it) has always bothered me however, as I truly believe that Jerry Goldsmith should have received the award for "Star Trek - The Motion Picture" that year. Delerue's score is frankly somewhere between non-existent and derivative (if not down right plagiarized from a number of Vivaldi's Lute Concerti.) However, I also know that Hollywood is nothing if not political, and Jerry Goldsmith had made himself somewhat persona non grata with many members of the academy - enough so that even with a far superior score, they would not award him the Oscar that year.

My fond memories of this movie as a young teenager carry through to this day. Other comments on the "believability" of the kids just don't hold up when you realize that 1) the book itself is the source of this, and 2) there are indeed 13-year-olds who read and understand the philosophy of Heidegger.

I gave this movie a 10 forty-two years ago, and I give it the same rating today.

And Diane Lane is still beautiful!

I seen to have a knack for catching October Sky whenever it is on television. This is one of the most poignant ever made. There is a distinct sadness to it despite its uplifting mood of telling the story of Homer Hickam's success in following his dream and getting out of the miserable situation in a 1950's West Virginia coal town.

The sadness is ever present: in the hopelessness and eventual end of the coal towns and the toll they took on a generation of workers; Frieda Riley's Hodgkin's disease; the struggle to overcome an unfortunate hand dealt by economics, society, and location; the lack of understanding between the generations all combine into a truly unforgettable movie.

And yet, overall it is these very examples of the sadness that raises this movie into one of the most inspiring and uplifting films of the past quarter century.

This was the very first movie I ever purchased on DVD back in 1999 and it has remained one of my absolute favorites for 21 years.

And I 'm certain that the next time I'm channel surfing and happen upon October Sky, I'll definitely stop and watch it even if it is the 50th or 60th time I've seen it.

Trek fans always seem to group "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock" in with the notion that the "odd-numbered" films in the series are inferior to the "even numbered" ones.

I've always felt that Star Trek III was an obvious exception to this (I also feel that "Star Trek: Insurrection" and "Star Trek: Nemesis" pretty much contradicted this even/odd argument, but that's another review.)

Star Trek III was made at a time when movies featuring ensemble casts and their care and concern for one another were the flavor of the day. Movies like "The Big Chill", "St. Elmo's Fire", and TV series like "30Something" were all very popular.

As such, it hits all the right buttons. Every actor gets his or her moment - George Takei, ("Don't call me tiny") Nichelle Nichols, ("This is fantasy") and James Doohan ("Up your shaft") probably get their best moments in the entire run of the movies, and Leonard Nimoy's directing debut doesn't disappoint.

The best part about Star Trek III is the way the story has everyone work together and "conspire" to do what they must do (even blowing up the beloved Enterprise!) to rescue their friend. You can't beat that kind of a human and heart-warming premise. In the case of this particular franchise, and with characters we have come to know and love, (for nearly 20 years at the time this movie was made) it feels like being wrapped up in a comfortable blanket by the fireplace having a drink with dear friends.

The next time Star Trek III shows up on TV, take another look at it. It's much better than you may remember.

Look, I realize the cultural significance of this movie. I have gone to midnight shows no less than 50 times. I love the events, the silliness, the costumes, the partici............PATION. It's all very enjoyable and I will probably never stop going to and joining in. If I rated it solely on that, no doubt....solid 10

BUT....

When it comes right down to it, this is really a horrible (and horribly made) movie. The script is bad, the music is bad, the story is bad, the special effects are BAD, All the "artistic" aspects of a movie are, for the most part, bad and even the moments that are good are done in such a cheap, amateurish way that it is difficult to compliment them. And no, I'm not going to concede that it is all intentional.

The acting is really bad (perhaps this part actually is intentional) with the only performance of any note being Tim Curry and that is only because he completely invests himself in it.

I also realize that we're talking 45 years ago, when it was still quite common for studios to produce crap - see Bog (1979) - but I have to ask how this ever got green-lit as a theatrical production. No, I never have seen a stage production, but I can't help but wonder why anyone would have thought it would make a good adaptation to film.

Nevertheless, that this is a culturally significant movie cannot be ignored. After 45 years of nightly midnight showings across the globe and countless home video viewings as well, its impact is incalculable. Not bad for a lousy film.

What a most bodaciously silly and entertaining time was had by all!

I really enjoyed this. It was exactly what I was expecting. What I liked most about it was that it all felt like a comfortable , fun visit with a couple of old friends I hadn't seen in 30 years. I also liked who they went back in time and picked for the band. Sure, lots of it didn't make sense, but then did anyone really think it would?

Lot of fun. Rent it or if you have theaters open around you, go see it.

I should start out by saying that that I truly love "Love, Victor," and would recommend that everyone get a subscription to HULU to watch it. It is an extremely worthy sequel to "Love, Simon" (which I also thought was outstanding in nearly every way.) Both of these have affected me on a very deep and personal level and I have found myself crying at some point in just about every episode. I wish there had been this kind of movie/TV series 40 years ago. I don't know that the gay teen experience has ever been done more thoughtfully or with more honesty than in either of these and I desperately wish we could have a full season of 26 episodes instead of just 10.

But...

One of the things that I found distracting in "Love, Victor" was that although it strives for such authenticity in both the story and the performances, I am not able to get beyond the the observation that I am watching actors that are much older than the characters they are portraying. I found this to be a problem in "Love, Simon" as well, but it is even more noticeable in "Love, Victor" due to the way the characters are written. Their outlook on life and the "experiences" they have already had seem far too advanced/telescoped for real 15-18 year-olds. Realizing the task of having to write interesting characters mandates information in the writer's guide to build both the drama and the characters, it just feels like these characters are too "overwritten".

The "age" factor is also a problem in the casting itself. I completely understand the realities of TV and movies - both from a "mature performance" standpoint as well as the financial and logistical benefit of not having to provide on-site education for the cast. However, too many of the members of the cast are distractingly not teenagers and very obviously young men and women in their early to mid-20's

That being said, everything else in "Love, Victor" is just about pitch perfect. Victor's coming out is handled with sensitivity and honesty. The social dynamics of high school are the best I've seen since "Love, Simon" (which was even better and which incidentally was the best I'd seen since the John Hughes' films of the 1980's) Other than the above issues, the cast and their performances are outstanding. Three stand out particularly: Michael Cimino in the title role, Isabella Ferriera as his sister Pilar, and Anthony Turpel as his best friend Felix.

I want so badly to give "Love, Victor" a 10, but I have to remove 1 star for the above. I think this is actually about a 9.5, but alas, IMDB doesn't allow fractions of stars.

As a student in 10th grade when Cosmos was originally broadcast on PBS, I got a double dose of the series both watching it myself and when my science teacher used it for his entire unit over a semester.

The importance of Cosmos cannot be overestimated. In addition to the profound impact it had on me personally as a 15-year-old, rewatching it recently on Blu-ray, has reminded me just how prescient and relevant it is 40 years later. And although a considerable portion of the science has been eclipsed by more recent research and discoveries, an amazing amount of the information is still viable. Additionally. despite vast leaps in special effects abilities, little of the visuals comes off as dated, except perhaps some of the hairstyles and clothes in the contemporary sequences (of the late 70's.)

The knowledge, information, and world view that Carl Sagan put forth in the series and in the way he made it both exciting and interesting has never been equaled. Sagan's skill in making the science both valuable and entertaining is something that continues to inspire the viewer.

If you are reading this review and for some reason have never watched this series, please take 13 hours out of your time to do so. It may not change your world the way it did mine 40 years ago, but I doubt that you will come away from it unmoved.

Cosmos is a true masterpiece, then as well as now.

Ok, I get why not everybody understands or likes this film. It definitely has a "guess you had to be there" vibe to it. I remember seeing this in the theater with a bunch of friends when I was in college and it very quickly became an all-time favorite. When it came out on VHS, we would have weekly viewing parties.

It IS weird, It IS quirky, and it is definitely an acquired taste in humor, but for some reason it also resonated with all of us back in the Big 80's. It's one of those films that you either get it and its aesthetic, or you don't. If you try to analyze like a film critic - yeah, it's not great.

But the low -budget SFX, the throw-away lines, the silliness, and the total buy-in of all the actors make it completely enjoyable to watch and re-watch now 36 years later.

Damn, I'm getting old.

I've never understood why this movie is in anyway revered. It's bad. Bad by movie standards, and bad by Mel Brooks standards. It's nearly impossible to believe that this was made by the same person who made The Producers, Blazing Saddles, Young Frankenstein, Silent Movie, High Anxiety, and History of the World - Part 1. It's almost as if Mel Brooks had some sort of "funny" lobotomy.

Part of the problem is that while claiming to be spoofing the Science Fiction genre, he really only spoofs Star Wars, and does a lousy and extremely cheap job of doing that.

The jokes are (almost entirely) uninspired (although "Alien" homage, and the opening shot of the "endless" spaceship are pretty genuinely funny.)

Another problem is in the casting. With the possible exceptions of Daphne Zuniga and maybe Rick Moranis, no one in this movie seems to be invested in their performances.

The whole thing is just painful and staggeringly unfunny to watch..

I give it 2 stars - 1 for not being "Jews in Space" as promised at the end of HOTW-Pat 1, and a second star for the giant vacuum cleaner. Everything else - a solid goose egg.

I can't say enough good things about this little gem of a film. All the performances are spot on. It plays like the best of the John Hughes films from the 80's. The only criticism (which cost it one star in my rating) is that some of the actors playing the teens are clearly in their mid 20's (and older!) which at a few times in the film takes you out of the action. Unfortunately this is true for many movies and is perhaps an unavoidable "pothole" that many if not most teen dramedies/movies suffer from.

Other than that, everything about this film rings so true. The apprehension Simon feels; the agony of first crush/love; the script couldn't be better in capturing today's youth/young adults; it's all very good.

Another plus is that is stays very close to the book on which it is used "Simon vs. The Homo Sapiens Agenda" (although like nearly every movie based on YA fiction, the book is better - so no harm, no foul)

If you haven't seem this movie, buy/rent it, sit down with a box of Halloween Oreos, your significant other, (gay or straight) and a box of Kleenex (you'll need it!)

9 out of 10 stars, hands down!

"We have a Turkey situation"

"How should we address it?"

"With cranberry sauce." (HA, HA, HA,HA)

This was just a fun, silly movie -- perfect for a family outing. It has no pretensions to be anything more than just a goofy, romp through "history". No, it doesn't contain any riotously funny scenes. No, it doesn't contain any hidden agenda. No it doesn't contain a subtext of humor aimed at the parents/adults in the audience. And no, it is not a thinly veiled attempt by Hollywood to promote a "Vegan" agenda. (Seriously?!?)

It's not great art. It doesn't even really try to manipulate the heart strings.

It reminded me a lot of "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure" and even referenced it at one point.

It's just exactly that kind of a (again) fun, silly little movie.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Just take the kids and enjoy it.

I have to disagree with anyone who gives this episode a higher rating than 1 star. This is an embarrassingly bad episode on a lot of levels.

Essentially it is a warmed-over next gen version of "Plato's Stepchildren" from TOS. And in addition to that as it's been pointed out is a recycled script from "ST: Phase II" from the 70's Everything about this episode just irritates. Ardra, in addition to being annoying, is immature and petty. The whole "Picard as sex slave" deal is just kind of gross and is something that he would never agree to even if backed into a corner. On top of it all, Ardra looks like some sort of outer space prostitute. Picard seems particularly repulsed by her, yet the episode end with her making rather coy sexual overtones toward him.

UGH UGH UGH!!! Skip this one. You'll be glad you did.

While we all know now that the reason for "Shades of Grey" being a "clip episode" was due to the 1988 writers strike and the production running out of money at the end of the 2nd season, I still can't excuse it on that basis.

There should have been ways to tell this same story without delving into the scene vault every 2 minutes. The entire amount of time devoted to new scenes (largely, those with Diana Muldaur, Marina Sirtis and Jonathan Frakes on the sickbay set) is about 15 minutes. The rest is all clips from previous episodes. Surely the director could have found a away to squeeze out of the budget a few extra "new scenes" that would have been "Riker specific" flashbacks. Perhaps they could have used alternate takes or different camera angles of those same previous scenes (I'm sure at least some existed), or possibly even re-filmed some of the same scenes with the actors.

Frankly, I just see this episode (when it was first broadcast and still today) as a complete mess, a real cop-out, and a very depressing way to have ended the 2nd season..