TMAuthor23 Reviews

Man of Steel (2013)

Cavill's Fine-Snyder Is Not

[6/10 · 29 May 2024]

Having recently rewatched this I have to say the six rating is a stretch. As good as most of the actors are, this film is a slog. Let me count the ways.

The washed out blue tones throughout the movie are depressing and a dumb hallmark of Zack Snyder and his favorite cinematographer. I'm not asking for jewel tones here, but some vibrancy would have served better.

Krypton. Why? We all know the general backstory, and Snyder screwing with canon to make the movie longer and more depressing is another spoonful of bad medicine. The convoluted krypton story is full of plot holes but here's the biggest: a society that can create the technology, ships, equipment, living holograms and weapons that Snyder's krypton can, would certainly have built a society on another world, and wouldn't create tech to commit genocide to "rebirth" their society. And the scenes with Jor-El (Russell Crowe) cause the movie to scream to a stop every single time. Stupendously stupid.

Clark takes thirty years to acclimate and master his powers. Zod and his crew? Days. Stupid squared.

The climactic battle scene between Superman and Zod, blasting through skyscrapers that would have killed tens of thousands was ridiculous. Sure, Zod wouldn't have cared, but Superman's casual destruction and causing death does not equate with the character we know, or the boy who saves a bus load of kids or the deep sea worker who saved dozens of lives anonymously. Dumb cubed.

Amy Adams morphs from a fearless investigative reporter to a wide eyed helpless damsel. Sure.

The relentless, joyless, ugly plot will leave you wanting a shower, and a superhero viewing of something much happier.

The Girl on the Train (2016)

Emily Blunt Is Great Actress...

[3/10 · 27 May 2024]

.... But this movie is a piece of crap.

It doesn't help that the book (incredibly poorly written with so many POV changes in the first person that by the end it's a mess) was a piece of junk to begin with.

It was the rare, but not unique, book that caught fire because two actresses with a book club seized in it and promoted the heck out of it, despite the fact that it was terrible. T. E. R. R. B. I. L. E. Think of other salacious and thin novels line it: Fifty Shades, After... The reason for mentioning the multiple POV switches when reviewing the movie, is that they were inexpertly written in the novel. All in the first person, and so blandly and generically voiced, that you couldn't tell who was narrating half the time.

And then, in the end *spoiler*, the protagonist (played by Blunt) who has been a whiny incompetent, alcoholic, amnesiac mess throughout, suddenly becomes a vicious corkscrew wielding ninja who guts the killer.

I'm sorry, what?

Yes. That's the movie.

And an actress who is talented, with an incredible range, is reduced to performing in a screenplay that was utter garbage.

Pass.

Zombieland (2009)

Terrific New Take On The Zombie-Apocalypse

[8/10 · 27 May 2024]

Every so often a movie comes along that creates a new take on a genre or story. If we're lucky, it'll be well acted and funny too.

This film checks those boxes...hard!

The "rules for the apocalypse" as described by Jesse Eisenberg's character (Columbus) are a hilarious actionable series of thoughts that zombie flick viewers have thought for years: don't go in there! Use the gun! Run away!

Consider that every actor has been nominated or won (2xEmma Stone) an Oscar and a tongue in cheek script and you have gold.

Columbus, the "deer in the headlights hapless hero", Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson) the walking killing machine with a smartass one liner for everything, Wichita (Stone) the jaded con artist surviving by looking out for number one, and Abigail Breslin as Little Rock, the naive innocent looking for guidance; they're all a new twist in horror film character tropes.

Other tropes are exploded throughout, and there's gross out slapstick (zombie kill of the week) as well as character humor built off of the well fleshed out characters.

Highly recommend and I'm not even a zombie flick fan.

Upgrade (2018)

Original Concept-Terrible Film

[3/10 · 25 May 2024]

When you've watched a TON of movies, being surprised by a film is usually a good thing.

Many plot points are formulaic, but the central theme, cybernetic enhancement, has never been handled exactly like this before.

Unfortunately the production quality is shaky, and the acting by the lead, who is on screen almost 100% of the time, is awful. Maybe it was the weird choices he made on his performance, or maybe the director pushed it in this direction. But the goofy reactions to his being "taken over" by his nanotechnology alter ego just looks stupid. And the heinous carnage created is at odds with his sometimes comic reaction. It's like he watched Tom Hardy in Venom, and thought to himself, "Hey, I can do that." No...you can't.

As the film rolls on we discover there are dozens of thugs who have been bio-engineered, some with what appear to be "cheat code" powers: one criminal can kill people by sneezing on them, or using his X-ray vision to locate foes and blast them into oblivion with a built in arm gun that's reminiscent of The Terminator. That's pretty unbeatable if you ask me.

And the ending? You could call it a cliff hanger and you wouldn't be wrong. But it actually felt like there was more script to shoot, but they ran out of money.

No resolution to the central plot. No personal victories for our hero. Just an abrupt fade to black.

Awful.

Justice League (2017)

Better Than The Snyder Cut

[7/10 · 24 May 2024]

Pro reviewers generally hated this. Their comments ranged from "not fun" to arty comments like "didn't delve deeply enough into the superhero mythos". Sheesh. IMO a superhero movie is about popcorn, grip the edge of your seat action, and hopefully some laughs. Reviewers cannot make up their dang minds. Comic book movies (unless helmed by Christopher Nolan or George miller) are just supposed to be fun.

The top four actors (Cavill, Gadot, Mamoa and Affleck) acquit themselves well. Eisenberg, Miller and Fisher are woefully miscast and hurt the film every time they're on screen. Likely why fisher's role was reduced in this version, despite his complaints about unfairness. Besides, Cyborg? There are SO many DC heroes that would have been a better choice.

Because this version was a chopped up reshoot, it is, well, choppy.

But the humor and comraderie are welcomed.

The biggest disappointment is that we finally got a chance to our favorite DC heroes (with some good actors in the roles) and they blew it.

Zack Snyder's Justice League (2021)

Nope!

[5/10 · 24 May 2024]

Cavill, Gadot, Mamoa...thank you.

Ray Fischer and the train wreck playing the flash...no thank you.

Overdone CGI, mind numbing depressive script, dark visuals, dark story and a self indulgent overlong run time.

What it does have is a consistent, cohesive directorial approach. That doesn't make it good.

When the Snyder-verse fanboys discovered they had succeeded in convincing a studio to release this version, it was a guarantee that no matter what it looked like they would swarm every review site and pump the ratings.

Nope. Not a good movie.

Spare yourself and watch something else. I'm a DC comics guy and I am hoping James Gunn does a better job producing the new DC universe. Hopefully it won't jump the shark and give us something as putrid as Thor: Love And Thunder.

Atlas (2024)

This Is Not I-Robot

[2/10 · 24 May 2024]

For those wondering how Jennifer Lopez managed to get cast in the lead role for this film, a role she is completely wrong for...she produced it.

Without giving one specific plot point away, it's only necessary to compare this to the Will Smith I-Robot film to know what it's about.

In I-Robot, an imperfect movie, but a box office smash, there was a damaged protagonist who hated AI (robots) and allowed it to cloud his thinking and consume his life and career. When an existential threat of true AI dominance arises, threatening human extinction, the protagonist bonds with an AI cohort, and fends off the uprising and destroys the AI central threat.

This movie really wanted to be that movie, except in space with a female lead. There is real thing in Hollywood: you can steal a story if you change several key aesthetics. So, here we are.

There are a lot of other problems. The most visible of which is Lopez. She's the kind of actress who some time ago encountered the nadir that many actors do: her status as a celebrity eclipsed her stature as an actress, and she began performing in a very packaged and self conscious way. When you can tell an actor is thinking about how they look in a film, that's not good.

The other challenges? When a lead performer is as polarizing as Lopez there are many who will "hate watch" this, rubbing their hands together in anticipation of the imminent schadenfreude.

It's further complicated that the director, Peyton (Andreas), is familiar enough with spectacle, but not masterful in putting together something that should be of epic scale.

Add to those obstacles the glaringly apparent lack of originality in the script or character beats, and you have a patient that is Dead On Arrival.

The script attempts to make the story of AI galactic domination relatable by focusing on Atlas's (Lopez) personal history with betrayal. Unfortunately it throws the entire weight of impending genocide out of orbit. It makes the trials of the protagonist feel small; and Lopez, not looking dirty enough or scarred enough, hits every mark we see coming from a mile away.

Mark Strong, Simu Liu and other supporting cast members are saddled with similar story, plot and dialogue problems.

What we get is another big splashy Netflix film that will be forgotten in a hurry; to be half-watched while doing chores or sitting on a plane.

Bummer.

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)

Cavill IS The Best Superman

[6/10 · 24 May 2024]

But Zack Snyder was still the dude who made this film.

Snyder's films are heavy, dark (story wise and visually) and sad. So is this movie. Superman is about truth, justice and the American way. Problem is, our current generation can't quite decide what the American way is, or what that even means. So, in that vacuum Snyder jumps in and gets out his black and blue paint brushes and goes to work.

When that gets combined with unfortunately consistently sketchy DCEU CGI we get a film that is frequently a muddled mess.

Fans of the "Snyderverse" will disagree, and that's fine. But there's no arguing that none of these Superman films killed with the critics or at the box office. Not Cavill's fault. And really Affleck isn't to blame either. He definitely redeemed the mess that was Daredevil. Gal Gadot serves well, if underwritten once again, but the rest of the cast are not great, and not well cast (which continues in Justice League). Jesse Eisenberg in a jumbled mess of a spacey mojo infused plot of nonsense and drowns in bad dialogue. Amy Adams, a towering talent, turns in a muted performance. Lane and Costner, as good as they are, have been relegated to being plot devices without enough room to shine.

So, worth watching for sure, but with lowered expectations, and don't watch it when you're already feeling a little depressed.

No Time to Die (2021)

Craig Does Well; Ending?

[7/10 · 24 May 2024]

Craig, the modern day quintessential Bond, handles his business in this film very well. The plot, although a little creaky in the super villain area, is good, but not the best in this latest version of Bond.

These films are hard to assess fairly. The sexist, womanizing and pandering versions of fifty or sixty years ago are a completely different animal. And yet, they don't quite relate to the Bourne films or the Mission Impossible franchise either.

So the fact that in this particular film we're pushed more firmly into the era of gender casting, virtue signaling and diversity casting, there's a significant disconnect. Those elements would have been better served in the next iteration of Bond, instead of trying to make this movie a bridge, essentially forcing it to carry more than its own weight.

And who will the fans be of that new franchise? A female Bond? That is so counter to the massive legacy of machismo in this franchise that it will not work with the same fan base. Do an offshoot, or a completely different intellectual property. There are plenty of actresses that could pull that off.

A Bond of a different ethnicity? Provided the script and actor are simpatico (Idris Elba) that could work too.

Other than Craig, the performances are not top notch. Ana De Armas is way out of her depth, the woman playing the other 007 is stuck with a script that makes her a whiny overly competitive problem child; and Remi Malek is completely unconvincing as the big villain. The ending, no spoiler, has tremendous emotional weight, but that is almost entirely driven by Craig's performance.

Worth watching, with reserved expectations.

Bodkin (2024– )

Worth A Watch

[7/10 · 13 May 2024]

The pluses? The cast, including the dozens of extras that add layers of believability to the odd little Irish town.

The story, a cold case about a long ago trio of missing persons, combines with a creaky Pod-cast Scooby Do adventure, and it meanders a lot. This makes the early episodes a bit slow. The action picks up in the later episodes starting with #5. However, the narrative begins to jump around a lot, flashbacks from other characters perspectives, and hops from one character to another too often.

The eventual resolution of the multiple threads is both a bit of a letdown, and a whirlpool of wrong assumptions getting vetted one by one.

The comedy isn't as non-stop as some reviews and the trailer suggests. It's dark and filled with the personal demons of the heroes complicating their efforts. The personal renaissance each person goes through is satisfying, if a little too neatly accomplished. There are some sly funny moments though, filled with irony and a lack of self awareness.

The three protagonists are conflicted individuals, performed very well by a surprising cast. Siobhan Cullen's Dove is an unrepentant b!+@# who has big problems brewing back home in London. Robyn Cara, who has made a career of playing ditzy characters, at first seems to be playing true to form, but her character Emmy reveals more depth and complexity as each episode unspools. Will Forte is an acquired taste, and his character, Gilbert, is a doofus who's made big mistakes that are nipping at his heels. He continually gets in his own way trying to be nice. Fortunately he becomes less of a tool as the season nears its conclusion.

David Wilmot turns in a great performance as Seamus Gallagher, the mysterious townsman with a scary past, who is trying to embrace a "normal" life.

I recommend it, it isn't high art but there are some laughs and good performances..

Star Trek: Strange New Worlds (2022– )

The Best Trek In Years

[9/10 · 13 May 2024]

We're two seasons in and, so far, it's been a pretty great ride.

The 9 rating is based on several things: cast, production value, stories (of course), character development and fitting within what is classically Trek.

It nails almost everything, IMO.

The cast is uniformly top notch. Even my two least favorite performers (Olusanmokun and Romijm) do a credible job. Not every episode is a home run. My least favorite, The Elyssian Kingdom from season one, and I am not a fan of the musical episode, Subspace Rhapsody. But that's just me.

Production values are also consistently high, with only one or two episodes showing some cracks. The stories are so good. And the way character development is threaded throughout is very well done too. The showrunner (a job we didn't even know existed during TOS run) is taking some of the classic characters ins direction that I don't love (Uhura's aggressive independence and broad deep brilliance as one example. But in today's landscape Nichelle Nichol's underwritten and inconsistent female supporting character would have been ridiculously lame). But in particular the performances of Jess Bush, Navia, Chong, Peck and Mount are excellent. That's what you need in a classically designed ensemble show.

The decision to revert back to episodic TV (albeit with continuing threads) it's also welcome. It allows more flexibility, range and character service.

And honestly, it's the first show that feels like true Star Trek since the last several seasons of TNG. That doesn't mean DS9 and others didn't have some excellent work in them. But after the disasters of Discovery and Picard it is "pinch me" awesome to be viewing a Trek without groaning and pulling your hair out.

There's still some unevenness, and Pike resolving his existential problem needs attention. But it took TNG 3 seasons to figure things out. This crew is ahead of the game.

All in all this is without question a joy to watch.

The Lost Boys (1987)

Entertaining But Hasn't Held Up

[6/10 · 12 May 2024]

The best parts of this are the scenes where it feels like a Scooby Do adventure. The bad parts are when it gets all serious and gauzy with soft focus lenses, overwrought musical scoring and melodrama. Unfortunately there's a lot of that. The practical effects used in this also present some problems when viewing it forty years later.

A pro reviewer scored this 10/100 stating that it felt like The Goonies or a Spielberg film. Those aren't bad things.

However, this is the kind of movie that could easily be remade and done better. Consistent thematic plot, better effects, and a more cohesive score.

Sad side note: this was when Corey Haim was at his peak as a young teen star, before Hollywood chewed him up and spit him out. He passed away years ago and the long downhill slide his life took was sad indeed. His teen collaborator, Corey Feldman, is funny in a small role. But his career went into the abyss too. Cautionary tale about the dangers of LA and 80's Hollywood.

The number of strong actors in supporting roles (Sutherland, Weist, Hermann, Gertz) is what lifts this movie above its peer group of 80's horror comedy. Worth a watch as a stepping stone in the vampire mythos in the movies.

The Boys (2019– )

A Trip Through The Sewer

[2/10 · 12 May 2024]

At its heart this show wants to be Watchmen, the controversial movie helmed by Zack Snyder. But instead of leaning into the heroism aspect of that movie, or the conflicting morality of what heroes can do vs what they should do, this series pushes the boundaries on social metaphors and asks the question: what if super-powered individuals were morally corrupt test tube experiments? The plot delves deeply into those queries, and embraces the horrific things superhuman people can do when they're not held accountable.

While season one had some good things going for it, there are enough disgusting visuals and plot points to drag it down. I'm a Karl Urban fan, and Quaid is excellent in his role. But the depravity of the "supers" is beyond the pale. The Aquaman placeholder is a serial rapist. The Superman wannabe is a serial killer and engages in stuff that no one should have to look at.

I've got a family member that liked this show (at least season one) and even he had to admit that the gross out deaths (that get amped up in season two) and the oppressive sexual perversion stuff was over the top.

It's a sad statement of our times (or at least who rates stuff on this site) how many people rate this a nine or a ten. How can anyone watch this stuff and not feel disgusted? I don't care that it's supposedly drenched in satirical metaphor. It's just gross.

You know what I hate? Wait, that's a very strong word, but...yeah, I hate dweeby trolls who scroll through this site and randomly "unhelpful" rate reviews that don't match their view. Maybe the fact that this site, like almost every site, is now populated by inarticulate, uneducated prepubescent idiots. But maybe I'm wrong.

I weep for humanity.

Sugar (2024– )

Episode 6 Is When It Starts

[8/10 · 11 May 2024]

Why episode 6? Because that's when the real show premise and plot is revealed. At first, you'll see it as Sugar having a hallucination...but it isn't. And then there's the strangeness around a bullet.

The first five episodes give us Colin Ferrell (in an excellent performance) in a neo-noir with layers, a great supporting cast and an interesting, but convoluted, plot.

There are clues throughout that what we're seeing is not the whole thing. Sugar "doesn't like to hurt people" but he often does. Brutally. There's oblique interaction between him and what we think is his associate/person in the chair/handler, but that gets blown out of the water in episode four. Sugar is also unbelievably virtuous with strangers, victims (because he DOES hurt people) and acquaintances. Too good to be true you say? Not when you get to episode 7.

The GIGANTIC left turn in episode seven is almost unforgivable. It feels like a tremendous cheat. In the streaming series Midnight Sky we were torn between whether the main character was crazy, or is there really a portal to another dimension in his root cellar. When we finally get the answer (at the end of a series that was cancelled!) we've been strung along too long to really care. Here, in Sugar, we've totally invested in all these characters and the missing girl who is at the center of the major plot (or so we were led to believe), when the rug gets completely ripped out from under us and we discover we're actually watching a very different show.

The episode leaves us wishing Sugar's true nature and self was revealed earlier, so we could walk with him through the emotional seduction he's been dealing with. Ultimately he's been drawn in too far, and isn't an observer any more, he's an active participant.

The last episode wraps up the kidnapping mystery, and the reason for Sugar's people wanting to steer clear of the kidnapping, but...the season ends in a cliff hanger and a half dozen mysteries not answered.

Hopefully there's a season two. Otherwise I think we'll all be pretty p1$$ed off.

Sleight (2016)

The Original Story Would Have Made A Better Film

[1/10 · 10 May 2024]

First of all, the original book this was based on, and the person who wrote it, aren't credited. And that's probably a good thing.

The original hero was a young teen harassed by gangsters, bullied at school and chased by supernatural criminals. He navigated the moral quandaries of having gifts that could make things easy, but easy comes with a price. Although he wasn't perfect, and made mistakes, he constantly strove to find the right balance.

Ultimately his youth and naivety cost him someone close to him, but he was able to save thousands by pursuing truth.

In this movie we get a kid who sells drugs to make money, chops off a person's hand to pass a test by gangsters, and mutilates himself to acquire a special ability.

Ugly, dark and un-redeeming.

But that's what Hollywood loves to do.

Dark Matter (2024– )

Not A Bad Start-Let's See Where This Goes

[8/10 · 8 May 2024]

The current site rating (for the episodes available) feels about right. For me around a 7 as well.

It starts slow, which represents typical Apple TV filler or padding in a story that might be better served as a movie. This is frequently the case when a series is based on a single book.

But... Production values are good. The two leads, Edgerton and Connelly, are both strong actors. There have been other series (possibly ripping off the book on which this is based) that have used this premise and not done well. But without having seen all the series' episodes we can't tell at this point where Dark Matter will go.

Alice Braga, as Amanda, is a capable actress although not on the same level as the two leads. Her role looks to increase beginning in episode three. Jimi Simmons, still looking like a Christian Slater cousin or clone, is fine as well as Ryan, Jason's (Edgerton) best friend.

In episode one, as is the case in most series like this, it rips along pretty well. It's the later episodes where repetitive exposition bogs things down. This kind of "story bloat" can be a problem. The scripting, acting and intriguing plot may reveal a very good series though, so I'll reserve judgment.

Other reviewers want to take issue with the quantum theory (apparently all the rage in sci-fi, Marvel and Disney nowadays) angle and the Schrodinger's Cat reference in the beginning. Don't bother with any of that. It's mainly foreshadowing and merely puts forth the key premise: two things can be true at the same time; and if you could, would you change a key event in your past. The tech-speak dialogue about super position in quantum theory only serves to make us look too closely at the premise's central concept.

It's a flipped plot line of the old time travel trope of an older version of a person traveling back in time to change events in his or her past. Except here, in Dark Matter, it's much more complicated, and morally conflicted than that.

Time, and those extra episodes we haven't seen yet, will tell.

I'll keep watching.

The Roast of Tom Brady (2024)

Roast Me-But Not Like That!

[2/10 · 6 May 2024]

Tom Brady did a near spot on impression of Will Smith. When the roastmaster took a shot at Patriot owner Robert Kraft Brady got up and "whispered" in his ear, "Don't say that $#!!+ again!" Really? A Roast is formulaic and predictable. There will be all sorts of inappropriate and crude jokes. A roast is also a gigantic ego massage in public for the guest of "honor". So we get all of that, but also the roastee interrupting and letting everyone know that even at a satirical roast, HE will control the narrative and content. Was anyone brave enough to really skewer him with Deflate-gate or Spy-gate? Nope.

And what about that lunatic tirade of Ben Affleck's? That's why this is rated two stars. That's flipping weird but compelling TV. Let's watch an A-list actor burn down the house.

So when you're roasting TB12 make sure he gets an advance copy of your material. He wants you to take shots at him, but only with a Nerf Gun.

And for the TB12 fanboys and fangirls that are tagging "unhelpful", well, can't help you with your obsession. The truth is the truth.

Thanks, but no thanks.

Along Came Polly (2004)

Why Was This Made?

[3/10 · 5 May 2024]

Jennifer Aniston is an average talent who enjoyed perfect casting in an iconic TV series. Her performance in this is very middle grade. Virtually any actress could step in and not change the movie much, unless it was a talent like Bullock.

Ben Sillier. Oy. You either love him or hate him.

The shtick of a Schlub who is a deer-in-the-headlights succeeding against all odds is over. Will Ferrel, Steve Martin (a million years ago) have mined this concept to death. Stiller is a one trick pony who rides this same tired pony in almost every film he makes (Night At The Museum, Something About Mary, Mitty, Meet The Parents...). There are almost zero laughs in this and I highly encourage anyone who is thinking about watching it to slide on by and pick another horse.

Save your viewing hours for something better.

So Help Me Todd (2022–2024)

Great Duo Chemistry Wasted

[4/10 · 5 May 2024]

Marcia Gay Harden and Skylar Astin have been in some good things. Not this.

Their chemistry is decent. However the buffoonery and slapstick hijinks mixed with a multitude of serious family and business place drama don't work.

Ensemble shows are popular and when they're done well they can be amazing and immersive. If you have a Sopranos and an HBO budget and commitment it can be special. In most hour long broadcast TV shows there is a rule about how many regular characters you should have...9 is the number. In comedy half hours 9 would be pushing it: Cheers had 7, Seinfeld had 6 or 7. This series? Holy crap! In the work environment alone there are 7 recurring characters, the family circle includes 8! And then there's Harden's ex-husband and boyfriend. That's 17 recurring characters, and I'm not including the girlfriend of the law firm dork, or the evil ex-partner of Astin's defunct private eye firm. That's way too many balls to keep in the air, especially when you're trying to stick the landing in season one.

The hokey Scooby Do antics of mom and son while they're on a case together is jarring when compared to the sister's slow motion marital destruction and personal train wreck. Then you throw in the gay brother who has problems with his gay identity? And the secondary character at the law firm (Astin's ex) who marries a guy she doesn't love, and then starts competing with Harden's character. And...the ex husband shows up out of nowhere asking to be part of the family again? And those aren't the only flimsy subplots! Oh, my lord!

They needed to pick a lane. Astin, who i really like, plays his role at such a frenetic pace that it became annoying by the middle of season one.

Harden, whose romantic backstory is a waste of time, plays a character who vacillates between incompetence and lucky competence and is a strain to watch. Her character is by turns insufferably pompous, all-knowing, or clueless, but leaves each episode with a smug smile on her face as she sashays off to a glass of wine or a fancy dinner.

By the end of the first season the character arcs and multiple plot lines had all unraveled.

And, unsurprisingly, it's been canceled.

What a waste.

Anyone But You (2023)

A New Rom-Com Low

[2/10 · 30 April 2024]

The two leads are up and coming actors. This vehicle did neither of them any favors.

Rom-Coms are a slippery critter. The high bar? When Harry Met Sally, It Happened One Night, Sleepless In Seattle, While You Were Sleeping, Dan In Real Life...and the low bar? A very long list, that now includes this mess.

The plot is full of romantic comedy tropes, too numerous to tick them off one by one. The dialogue is atrocious and the acting is pretty bad too. The casual insertion of profanity by almost every character is off-putting. I've never seen Sweeney in anything else, but her performance in this isn't anything special. Granted, she isn't helped by the script.

Powell appears bummed out to realize he signed up for this bad ride. He certainly doesn't deliver the charismatic performance he turned in for Top Gun Maverick.

The supporting actors are a mixed bag, mostly terrible with heavy emphasis on the overacting.

Hard pass.

Rebel Moon - Part Two: The Scargiver (2024)

Two Cliffhangers In A Row?

[5/10 · 19 April 2024]

We've had some jarring cliffhangers over the years (Star Wars, Matrix series, that Hunger Game Catching Fire stunner), but two in a row? In bad movies, in a mess of a series of films? No thanks.

If you were hoping part 2 was going to redeem part 1...uh, no.

Zach Snyder's films look cool. No denying that. There's a following. That's indisputable.

But all of his films (with him writing in particular) have story, plot and dialogue issues. This film is no different.

There is so much exposition (indiscriminately dropped in) that the main story comes to a screeching halt every time. And that exposition? Stupid. Rehashed dull crap.

If you have never seen the several versions of Seven Samurai, watch any of them for a better play on the central plot in this film. George Lucas and others have already plundered great Japanese film epics and retreaded spaghetti westerns to develop science fiction films hundreds of times. The modern audience is wise to this, and there is so much content out there that they can smell lame junk from the back row.

There are too many coincidences, too many holes in the plot, too much lame dialogue (that some of the actors had HUGE difficulty delivering) and too many forced attempts at shock and awe.

It's a shame really. The small story idea around a rogue android gone wild is given scant service and little screen time. That story, expanded upon, could have been amazing. As it stands he shows up to save part of the day, and it's telegraphed from miles away. And the voice work for the Android is not right for his part. Feels like a strange homage to C-3PO.

If you finished Part I wondering why all these heroes were willing to risk their lives to rescue a backwater agricultural village on an unremarkable planet... and why an all powerful evil empire would waste resources on it... well, you're going to be seriously disappointed with the answer. Because it's a gigantic nothing burger.

Usually folks stick around in an action movie to watch the bad guy get clobbered. Well, not here. The front and center space nazi (brought back from the dead twice?) gets an important part of his body cut off by the heroine. But because this is the PG-13 cut, all of that takes place off screen. So no visual confirmation that the bad guy died. Lame.

And the big bad? The guy who has been giving all the orders, and brought nazi-Ned back from the dead? He never shows up. Ridiculous.

One of the biggest gripes I have with Snyder's films is that there is no comic relief. They all want to be taken so seriously that there is no joy when a hero succeeds, or a villain is defeated. It becomes more about reflecting on the loss and damage to arrive at the end result. Such a bummer.

And the ending? Nope. Another cliff hanger. Will there be a part 3? Please no.

So cue it up, watch it, shake your head, and then go watch The Seven Samurai.

Fallout (2024– )

Excellent World Building-Story Problems

[4/10 · 15 April 2024]

Reviewing a video game adaptation presents challenges. Because they are (except for Halo apparently) intended to honor the fandom and the original game. This series does that, to a degree.

The set designs, CGI (except for the Gulp monsters), and production quality are all very good. And who doesn't enjoy a good old villain performance by Walton Goggins? He's great.

Ella Purnell, despite the fact that she's saddled with a Mary Sue role, is also very good, projecting just enough "fish out of water" humor and surviving by the skin of her teeth as central character Lucy. Her standard response says it all, "Okey Dokey".

Unfortunately, aside from those two there are many miscast ineffective performers, led by Aaron Moten as Maximus the renegade "knight" and Moises Arias as Norman, Lucy's brother. There are several small bit parts that are well done, but they are few and far between.

The writing? All over the place. A lot of the overarching story does come from the game, but there are enough bizarre and gratuitous plot lines that by the end of the sixth episode it all begins to fall apart. The tonal shifts between overheated melodrama (the fifties flashbacks) to the hokey spoof of life in the vaults, to the Uber violent present day quests through the badlands on the surface do not serve the viewer well.

Because they handle their roles well, the episodes that feature Lucy (Purnell) and The Ghoul (Goggins) can be fun to watch, until gratuitous weird crap starts happening. But Maximus' story is harder to watch until he joins up with Lucy, because Moten is so bad that it takes the viewer out of the story every time. His story is also so close to John Boyega's (as a defecting Storm Trooper in The Force Awakens) that his performance suffers in the comparison. He takes himself so seriously, and his expression changes so seldom, that it doesn't mesh with anything going on around him.

Then there are the frequent plot problems (the all powerful knight suit can be deactivated by anyone who unscrews the battery/fusion core from the back of the suit. Really? Wouldn't the armor have some safety features to protect the knights from that?) that are the result of unimaginative writers. One of the biggest oddball issues is that all of the squires who are being trained to serve the knights as schleppers/pack animals are all skinny unhealthy looking toothpicks. Dumb.

When you finish watching a series, especially one that ends with an open ended story line, you should be anxiously awaiting the next installment.

Nope, not here.

Glass (2019)

Essential To The Trilogy, But....

[6/10 · 11 April 2024]

Have you ever waited for a sequel? Excited, high hopes? And then you see the movie, and while the multi movie arc required seeing the sequel (Star Wars prequels, Batman and Robin...) the experience was a big let down? That's this.

I waited years to finally watch it because a family member likened it to The Happening and other Shyamalan failures.

James McAvoy is amazing, as he was in Split, but the rest of the film contains now predictable Shyamalan problems. Slow pacing, plot issues and scenes where logic flies out the window. Bruce Willis has almost no dialogue.

It isn't coincidental that the scenes with McAvoy's split personality characters are when the movie is at its best. Unfortunately it isn't enough to pull this thing above water.

*SPOILERS* David being drowned in a puddle while his son is off camera apparently doing nothing is bad writing. Anya Taylor Joy's character is not effectively written into the flow of the plot either. Are we witnessing Stockholm Syndrome with her obsessive devotion to Kevin Crump, the man who kidnapped her in Split?

And Glass? I enjoy most of Samuel Jackson's films, but first, he doesn't speak until the 1:05 mark, and the things he accomplishes in the institution are not believable, and left unexplained.

The plot conceit, that comic book stories are historical reflections of real world mythos, gets so over worked that by the end it's fallen apart.

So, it's necessary to watch this if you've seen (and enjoyed) Unbreakable and Split, but ultimately it's a disappointment.

Steve! (2024– )

Steve, We Hardly Knew Ye

[4/10 · 4 April 2024]

I get it, most people who will watch this "documentary" are/were fans of Martin. And you know, during a time when the country desperately needed a laugh, he swooped in with his bizarre take on comedy, and made a lot of people laugh. So, good on him for being that guy. Pun intended.

The good? Rarely seen photos and footage of Martin's early days provide a glimpse into the modest beginnings of a well known performer. The bald and pained ("please turn it off, it's so bad I can't bear it") assessment by Martin of some of his early gags. The insight into what was clearly an abusive relationship with his father also lends depth to what drove him.

The less than good? That's a slippery slope. As a documentary, having a bunch of celebrity buddies offer their thoughts is questionable. It's all so gushingly positive that it quickly becomes boring. Even when he was at his zeitgeist peak, I never found the walk-like-an-Egyptian or I'm-a-wild-and-crazy-guy shtick all that funny. It made me laugh when my friends tried to do it, but genius comedy? No.

The documentary tries very hard to paint him as an iconic master of comedy. The fact that his routines haven't aged well puts the lie to that theory.

Can he act? Yes. There are three films in his catalogue that I think are great: one comedy and two serious roles. Does he resonate as an image of the late seventies and early eighties? Yes. Like other offbeat performers he developed his bits and found a niche and cashed in.

There were five moments that I thought were worth the watch: when he himself couldn't bear to watch his early frenetic stuff; when he and Martin Short were trying to write a set and were failing miserably; even on The Tonight Show Sammie Davis Jr stood up to give him a hug when he finished his set and he didn't know how to respond because "my family weren't huggers"; when his father (a class A1 jerk if ever there was one) offered the critique "well he's no Charlie Chaplin" on his movie The Jerk; and when an early girlfriend reminisced that when she broke up with him she couldn't handle his strange comedic ramblings even though she knew he wouldn't stop pursuing fame, and believed he would eventually make it happen.

Annie Hall (1977)

The Writing Was Decent

[3/10 · 3 April 2024]

The film was not. This was my first lesson in that the Oscars were (and are) about what people in the industry think is important. The movie is honestly below average. Woody Allen (who slept with, then married, his adopted daughter) was never a good actor. Like John Wayne (until True Grit and The Shootist), he played every role the same. And not well. Try and watch this film and not cringe every time he's on screen.

And Diane Keaton? Best Actress? If you've seen her in anything, you've seen her performance in this movie. Same laugh, same takes, same line delivery.

DOA.

What's sad, is that much like high school politics (class president, prom queen), The Oscars are only about who, and what are popular in the moment to other actors and directors. It isn't about what movie audiences find compelling.

While there have been times where the two coincide, it's rare. Take a look at the best picture winners of the last 12 years, and watch them. There is no way the average American movie goer would vote most of them (Oppenheimer might be an exception) as the picture of the year.

It's all about messed up moral values and who's who.