There was nothing enlightening here. I felt that the engineering from social, psychological, computational, and mathematical aspects were interesting and should have been explored more, since they essentially glossed over the misinformation campaigns running rampant on every social media platform the world over. Even if this doc would've focused on regulation, or the lack thereof, that would've been something, but they chose to not call any entities out, remain middle-of-the-road, and out of the fray. I think that this topic would've been much better served as a multi-part series that explored the various ramifications of social media, rather than 90 minutes of glossed over, big-picture fluff that didn't hit at the heart of any of the numerous implications caused by the inherent designs of social media platforms.
I will say, however, there were far better recommendations for how to combat this ever-present problem in the last few moments of the film, while the credits rolled. The director had the interviewees each list methods they utilize to prevent overexposure to the ills of social media to them and their families.
It wasn't the most memorable finale ever, but it also didn't need to be. When you have an ensemble cast this size, it's difficult to incorporate all 11 main players in a heartfelt goodbye that encapsulates everyone's feelings of family, togetherness, and finality. After having watched this, I read an interview w/ co-creators Steven Levitan and Christopher Lloyd, where they explained that they were both fans of finales, where the characters were saying goodbye, b/c that's what the audience was doing, as well, and I agree w/ this premise.
The last montage was of the camera panning over framed pictures of all the characters taken from the past 11 years, finally settling on a family portrait taken in the season one finale w/ their white outfits splattered w/ mud. This was the only keepsake Christopher Lloyd took from the set, fittingly saying of it, "I thought that if we had to land on one image, that's a good one because it is sort of metaphorical: Families are messy, but beautiful at the same time."
This was fucking horrific. This scriptwriter should be forced to find a new career. The second that Rosamund Pike was kidnapped, I thought to myself, "He's either going to propose, or they're going to go into business together." The problem was in getting to the point, where this actually happened. These Russian mobsters must've been the most incompetent buffoons on the planet to not be able to finish off two individuals, who they'd already pretty much brought to w/in an inch of their life. This was such an incredible stretch that it made this movie absolutely ridiculous.
Aside from this, the fact that the writer tried to make these two women sympathetic characters screams that there's something really off w/ this writer. On what planet are people who take advantage of, and essentially murder, some of the most vulnerable members of society sympathetic?
On one last note, I've never been a fan of Rosamund Pike. I'd seen her in two previous films, where she was not good at all: Jack Reacher and Gone Girl. In the former, she's so melodramatic, it's difficult to watch, and it's even more difficult to take her character seriously. In the latter, although she's playing a character w/ Antisocial Personality Disorder, that doesn't necessarily mean someone devoid of affect, which is exactly how she played that role. She may as well have been a talking stump in that movie. I realize that she received industry-wide recognition for the latter role, but I prescribe this to the industries' complete and utter lack of understanding of psychological disorders and their accompanying attributes.
I wasn't going to watch this film b/c of my distaste for Ms. Pike's acting ability, but the movie, on its own, won such rave reviews, I figured that I'd give it a chance. However, something about her just wasn't right. She had this odd grin in a lot of scenes, where it either didn't fit, or it seemed like it would've been inappropriate, if it had been a real-life situation. I just find her acting to be really off-putting. Luckily, both Peter Dinklage and Dianne Wiest are always top-notch performers.
I felt that this was a good way to wrap this trilogy. And, while this didn't have the traditional happy ending most films of this genre have, this is exactly what makes this film stand apart from those others. Life can only be mapped out so far in advance, and there will always be unforeseen circumstances that cause us to take detours from the destinations we've predetermined for ourselves. That's part of the wonder and splendor of living life. To put it in proper film terminology, Ms. Gump was right, "...you never know what you're going to get."
I'd like to say that I'm surprised by the hate for this film, but it's so blatantly obvious, it smacks you right in the face. The problem here is not film itself. It's a wonderfully directed piece by Nia DaCosta, who kept the tone fun and light-hearted and created a film that didn't take itself too seriously. The three leads had great chemistry together. I think that Iman Vellani is a tremendous talent and has a bright future ahead of her. The hate for this film derived from the fact this it was a woman-forward film, and not just women but women of color. And, many of the co-stars of this film were people of color, as well. White, Marvel fanboys don't tolerate women or people of color at all, and it's been shown not only in the Marvel Universe but in other films, as well. Women-centric films, and films depicting stories involving people of color, receive low ratings and poor reviews from many members of the public. It's undeserved, and it stifles creative outlets for anyone who isn't white, Christian, heterosexual, and cisgender male.
I hate the main character. He is so irredeemably unlikable, it's practically unfathomable that someone would write this, and it would get greenlit for production. Aside from being more boring than watching paint dry, one of the oddest things about this show, which is incredibly irritating, is the audio. In at least two of the first five episodes, they employed this background audio, which in one case sounded like a cellphone notification and in the other, a high-pitched squeal. I can't believe that no one caught this in post, b/c it's so hideous to listen to.
Bravo! This mini-series hit right at the heart of the insidiousness of sexual assault and rape; what it means to be assaulted and what it means to be (dis)believed, and what it means to seek justice. It's incredibly sad and unfortunate that this is such a worldwide epidemic, where victims of sexual assault are regularly dismissed, shamed, or even blamed for being a victim. This mini-series got into the details behind all of this by telling a compelling story of what it was like to be in these various positions.
The casting for this series was especially strong, and the performances were marvelous. Toni Collette and Merritt Wever were tremendous as the investigative detectives, and their chemistry together was fantastic. Kaitlyn Dever, as a teenage rape victim, was believable and sympathetic. Her portrayal of someone who'd been assaulted was detailed and nuanced, and she did justice to the many survivors of sexual assault. Danielle Macdonald was also terrific as another rape victim.
I have to say that as well done as Watchmen was, it wasn't as strong or nearly as important as this mini-series. I felt that this should have won both the Emmy and the Golden Globe for Best Limited Run Series, Best Writing, and Best Casting. This was truly a remarkable achievement; not something that comes along every day.
This was actually pretty good. Parts of it were really amusing, and the story, while not original, was entertaining. The actors had good chemistry together, and I thought that the film worked pretty well overall.
This film, of which I really hate to refer to it as that, is nothing more than child rape apologist's tribute to a horrific family. Of everyone involved in this film, the only one w/ any semblance of humanity is the ex-wife/mother, and it didn't start out that way. She eventually came around to the fact that her ex-husband was a child molestor, yet she refused to believe in her son's guilt.
The way that this story was portrayed was as disgraceful as the family's blind denial of facts of their father's wrongdoing. The director, Andrew Jarecki, has since been raked over the coals for what he tried to pull w/ this film, b/c he definitely didn't film a documentary. Instead, he picked and chose what to show in order to portray the Friedman family in a certain light, and even in the best possible light he could frame them, they still come off as horrible human beings. This should just go to show how truly guilty these men were.
If you read the trial transcript or a legal review of the case, you'll see what Jarecki chose to exclude from this film as a way to make it seem that the son was not guilty. Additionally, the one brother, David, was the most vociferous of the bunch, when it came to defending the father. He lives in a constant state of denial. Any documentarian worth their salt would have questioned him w/ the only hard evidence this case produced against the father, the foot-high stack of child pornography seized from his home during the postal service raid. Yet, that question never came, and it allowed David to continue to spout nonsense about his innocence in direct conflict w/ the evidence at-hand. It's good to see that Jarecki really doesn't work in film any more.
I'm down for dumb comedies, but when all you have is dumb, there's nothing fun or interesting about that. This was a huge swing and a miss on the part of the scriptwriters. There was nothing funny about any of this, and I don't know who Andrew Santino is, but his delivery comes across as mean-spirited rather than playful or funny. I don't know what William H. Macy was doing slumming in this.
This was incredibly disappointing. The entire film is described by this expository voiceover in the voice of Michael Fassbender's character. There are only two reasons for such a tool to be used throughout a film: Weak writing or a production company that didn't have the funds to make a film the way in which it was intended. In this case, I think that it was the former. This was a story about nothing that went nowhere, and it had nothing of interest to say along the way. The only reason for the rating I gave it was b/c of the cast. Had they been any less, this film would've ranked a 4/10.
This was terrible. This has nothing to do w/ the fact that it's a remake of a beloved movie. It's awful as a stand-alone film. There isn't a single thing funny about this "comedy," and the story is pathetic. The least they could've done was to write an actual script instead of whatever this was supposed to be.
This was a particularly impressive film. Cooper Raiff created a tremendous screenplay, and the actors chosen for their respective roles were certainly worthy of their given tasks. This film brought out exceptional performances from all involved, especially Vanessa Burghardt, co-starring in her first film, and Leslie Mann, who just kills it in everything that she's in. She really gets far less credit than she deserves for her level of talent. And, of course, Dakota Johnson was fantastic in her role, as well, which covered a great deal of emotional ground.
What set this film apart from others like it in its genre was its realism. While the protagonist, played quite capably by Cooper Raiff, began the film as a bright-eyed, hopeful, recent college grad looking at a world of opportunities, he quickly came to the realization that life outside of college couldn't always be planned for, and we, as the audience, began to see the cracks in the facade of not only his character but also those in his life. And, that's what makes for a great character, their problems, how they deal w/ them, and what the outcome ends up looking like.
In this film, what turned out to be in the end wasn't necessarily what we may have expected, but then again, that's how life works. That's what was so realistic about this film. Life can often be sad or melancholy, and sometimes, we'll have feelings of ambivalence or unrequited love. None of this makes our lives worth any less. It's simply another of life's many lessons along the journey, and that's the splendor of experiencing living.
This was a sweet movie for the holiday season. I didn't find it particularly funny, but I don't think that it really needed to be, and I also don't think that's the direction they were aiming in. I thought that it was solid, wholesome, family entertainment w/ Jillian Bell stepping out of her comfort zone, and she did a really nice job in the lead role.
This film was an important view of what it looks like to stand up to murderous fascism, those who use their outsized power to put their boots on the throats of those they oppress.
This was definitely a western for a modern-day audience, and while the story and dialogue lacked in certain parts, the acting was stellar. Overall, this was a tremendous cast of exceptionally talented actors, and I have to state, the three leading women, Danielle Deadwyler, Regina King, and Zazie Beetz really stood out, as wonderful as the rest of the acting was. Ms. Deadwyler's performance was remarkable, and I'm going to now watch her filmography b/c of how impressive she was in this role. She nailed her character to a tee!
Edi Gathegi was also right on point in his role, and as I watched this, I couldn't help but think how underrated Delroy Lindo is as an actor. He has been so good for so long in so many roles, and he really deserves much more credit than he actually receives.
Overall, while the story could have been written for more dramatic effect, rather than the blood and guts style of Quentin Tarantino, and the dialogue could have stood a few revisions, the cast really saved this film. I believe that if this film had been written as more of a drama, rather than an action film, it would've received rave reviews.
Movies like this tend be schmaltzy and corny, but I felt this film was able to eclipse that bar through both the performances and the dialogue. Jessica Rothe was terrific as a young woman struggling in the face of unimaginable adversity showing a tremendous range of emotion in the role. Harry Shum, Jr., while reserved in much of his role, showed off great depth in his ability to reach the core of his character's emotional journey.
While skipping a bit of the process, I did feel that this film sufficiently covered the five stages of grief. It's not easy to watch a loved one die, nor is easy to be the one dying. These stages are very real, something that most of us will go through at some point in our lives, and I felt that this film did service to this shared experience.
One scene I felt encapsulated the relationship between Jennifer and Solomon particularly well was at their wedding, when they were standing at the base of this large fountain discussing the potential outcomes of Solomon's treatment. Jennifer stepped up on the ledge of the fountain and jumped into the water in her flowing wedding gown. She asked Solomon if he was going to join her, and he stepped up on the ledge, as well. After a moment of looking at the water, the camera focused on this feet, as he jumped. It was a strong metaphor to show that Solomon was jumping in w/ both feet first into his marriage, his wife's care and support, his treatment, and his journey into the unknown.
All in all, I thought that this film worked on a variety of different levels. It's not an Academy Award-level drama, and it doesn't try to be. But, it is a solid love story about two young people who struggle mightily w/ something they know very little about, and in the face of all adversity, they found that their love for one another carried them through immense loss and heartbreak as well as could be expected.
While I realize that this film is based upon actual events, it has a pretty hard Christian bent to it, especially for a Disney film, so much so that it actually feels like what would be considered a Christian movie. It's not a bad film by any stretch, but it's quite saccharine in its emotional tone. One thing I didn't particularly care for was how Sammy Brown was presented as an afterthought in regard to her participation in the making, and performance, of the music. Yes, this film was about Zach Sobiech, but he was a performer in a three-person band, and the movie cut one of the performers completely out of the film while relegating the other to backseat status. It just didn't feel right.
This was brilliant! It was immensely funny, energetic, introspective, and entertaining.
I really enjoyed this. The cast was fantastic, and Jennifer Lawrence really knocked it out of the park in her role. The story was sweet and heartfelt, and it was really funny.
What is Shailene Woodley doing slumming in this garbage? If she wasn't in it, I would've given this a rating of two or three.
If I wanted to watch a puke and shit fest, I'd watch YouTube videos made for tweens. I can't believe that that this won the Palme d'Or at Cannes or that it received an eight-minute standing ovation. This was the story of a collection of piss-stains on the sidewalk of humanity. Why, of why, would anyone give a damn about any of them?
This was really terrible. It was as formulaic as formulaic got. As I watched the film, I was reminded that while the creators of the majority of these superheroes may have had a good idea in the beginning, a good idea does not a story make. Most superhero origin stories were incredibly basic. They followed the same type of idea, and it got really boring really fast. There was zero depth to any of the characters involved in this film, and when Amanda Waller called on a ridiculous roster of superheroes to assist in whatever catastrophe was next, it made for a really poor setup of a movie, let alone movie franchise.
The cursory look at whether these superheroes should be assisting oppressed people was really pathetic, as well. They showed up in an oppressed country and protected the oppressors w/ some line about "due process." It made them look like the same fascists that were oppressing others in the first place, b/c fascism and murder were not designed to be fought w/ due process. The entire point of fascism was to bypass due process in order to implement your special brand of hate.
This line of thinking bled into the entire problem w/ the dialogue. The script felt as if it were written by people who didn't have much in the way of critical thinking prowess. In the beginning of the film, the heroes were on their way to confront Black Adam, and Pierce Brosnan made a statement about how they'd employ diplomacy so as not to get into a fight w/ him. The first thing Brosnan then said to Black Adam was, "Kneel or die." How exactly was that anywhere in the universe of diplomacy?
Finally, there was one plot point that stood out as especially terrible, and it was the death of Fate. In the film, he stated to his team members that he'd be taking on the enemy himself, b/c he foresaw the death of Hawkman. He said that he should be the one who dies, instead. However, he didn't so much as die in battle as commit suicide. In the middle of the fight, he simply removed his helmet, the item which gave him all his power, and allowed the enemy to kill him. Of course, this was used as the emotional impetus to drive his teammates. It was so poorly written that it was nearly unfathomable. The only reason I gave this film a six was due to the fact that this debacle wasn't in any way the fault of the actors involved, and I felt bad for them.
I'm not really certain what I just watched, but the acting is top-notch. The story is esoteric, and it doesn't flow particularly well. It seems as if the movie is made of constituent components that were retrofitted w/ one another. Oscar Isaac was tremendous, and Tiffany Haddish was notable in her role, as well. I thought that they had strong chemistry w/ one another, so the movie kept pace, even when it wasn't overtly clear what was going on.
The first season was quite impressive. The casting on this was just incredible, and the dialogue was snappy, funny, and kept the story moving in the right direction. While this was billed as a mystery w/ comedic elements, it's much more than that. Each of the leads has a backstory that affects their interactions w/ one another and causes them to come together to seek something that's missing in each of their lives. The first season was as much about this as it was solving the mystery behind the murder.
I also wanted to note the seventh episode in particular. It was an episode that took place from the point-of-view of James Caverly's character, Theo, who is deaf. There's no dialogue in the episode, and there is practically no audio at all, save for limited sound effects and some light background music in a few scenes. The entire episode relied on American Sign Language as a means of communication between Theo and some of the other characters, and he also was able to read lips. As Mr. Caverly is actually deaf in real life, the episode showed a good example of how someone who is deaf might live in a hearing environment; sort of on the periphery, attuned to others, their body language, and what they're saying by use of lip-reading, but not necessarily included in the social structure of the environment. I felt that the cinematography and script of this episode was a really good use of the medium to convey a bit about this world.
There really is no comparison to Joss Whedon's version. Zack Snyder's version was epic. It had heart; it told a tale; it brought disparate pieces together as a whole; it tied everything together nicely. Whedon seemed to slap everything together believing, since he was making the first Justice League film, how could it go wrong? Well, he just found out.
What really struck me about this film, aside from how truly fantastic a film it was, was that the vast majority of this had already been filmed, and Whedon trashed it all. Aside from being a womanizing, misogynistic sexist (at the very least), he also has a gigantic ego. He took what would have been a great film that he simply could've put a bow on, disregarded it, and pushed out something that absolutely paled in comparison. The sheer arrogance it took to do that was just astounding.
Now that this film is out, and it seems to have gone over really well, I'm hoping that it keeps the cast together, along w/ Zach Snyder and his vision for this storyline. It'd be a shame for Warner Bros. to go back to Whedon's storyline.
This was not a good film. I was really disappointed, b/c it seemed to a fairly novel idea. The problem was, the writing was just tremendously awful. First off, why would anyone bother to go to the lengths Viggo Mortensen and Kodi Smit-McPhee went to in order to subsist on insects and melted snow, while trying to fend off disease, death, robbers, and cannibalistic road warriors? The entire premise of the film fell flat on its face. When they discussed taking their own lives, I kept thinking, "What in your right mind is stopping you?" There is literally no reason to continue living.
Second, the son was terribly written. I don't know what the writers were thinking, but they clearly didn't bother to consider the environment they'd created. This was a child born into a world of isolation and death. His mother had committed suicide, and he knew that in order to survive, he had to travel w/ his father, avoiding all the aforementioned pitfalls of this world. Yet, this child was the single most fearful child I'd ever seen.
At first, I thought that maybe he was autistic. I actually stopped the movie to look up the character online in order to determine if he'd been written as an autistic child, but there was no mention of it. He was just afraid of his own shadow. He was so scared of everything, I'd even go so far as to say that he was a coward. And, to top things off, he was 110 percent useless. He helped his father do absolutely nothing. As his father is spitting cupfulls of blood and limping on a bloody leg, does the kid help him pull the cart w/ all their belongings? Of course not! That's the father's job!
This kid was constantly crying about something, so in the end, when his father died, and he began to weep, I felt not a tinge of sympathy for him, b/c he'd spent the past two hours whining and crying. It completely took all the power out of the moment. Plus, the happy ending to the movie made this entire thing completely worthless. I really have no idea what people saw in this film.
For the type of movie it was, I thought that this was a solid effort. Ava Michelle was really impressive in her debut as a leading lady. She encompassed all the traits her character experienced throughout the movie quite seamlessly. I really hope to see more of her in the coming years.
There's obviously a good deal of pushback in the commentary section for this film, but I don't necessarily feel that the commentators are giving this film, or its subject matter, its proper due. I feel that everyone has their own struggles to deal w/, and sometimes, these struggles are exacerbated by external forces, such as bullying, that make them even more difficult to deal w/ or, in some cases, even intolerable. Standing out anywhere, for any reason, can be difficult for lots of people, b/c they feel separated from others. Whether we're talking about a physical disability, an intellectual disability, an age difference, an ethnic difference, a difference in sexual orientation, a height difference, or the like, in principle, it's really the same. It's something, as viewed by the majority, that sets us apart, as the minority.
I won't minimize one person's struggles, b/c I've never walked a mile in their shoes. I don't know their psychological makeup and how they're equipped to handle adverse situations. It's not fair of me to assume that if the same thing were to happen to me, I would handle the situation differently. Of course, it's easy for me to sit back, w/ the advantages of not having had to deal w/ the frustrations, and critically assess each scenario, but that ignores the human element of having had to live through the experience and how individual interactions will affect different people in various ways. The point is, to judge how others have handled an emotionally charged experience would be really arrogant and ignorant of me.
This film was really disappointing. It was advertised as a sort of interesting, light-hearted mix between children who have access to both Neverland and Wonderland. Yet, this film had a much more somber tone to it that wasn't necessarily suitable for younger children. I was willing to give this film the benefit of the doubt, b/c as we all know, how a film is marketed isn't necessarily what's contained in the final product. However, the film's plodding, methodical pacing really belied the entire storyline, so much so that as the film was approaching its end, there hardly seemed enough time to properly wrap up the loose ends. Ultimately, it seemed that this film had been over-edited. I got the feeling that there might've been much more going on in an original cut, b/c it was difficult to imagine such a disjointed script having been filmed.
This film was a bitter disappointment. First off, it's 135 minutes long, and the first 120 minutes is a slow burn. Yet, Kaufman brutally mangled the finale, completely dissociating any meaning from the first two hours of the film from the remaining 15 minutes. He goes "off-script" from the book, for some unknown reason, and he chose to go w/ a plot device that just ruined the film.
The acting was solid, and the story was building nicely, but it ultimately led into a ditch on the side of the road. When Kaufman made the decision to deviate from the novel, he may as well have set fire to the first two hours of the film, b/c it ended up meaning absolutely nothing. If you've read the book, you'll understand what the first two hours were building to. However, w/out that knowledge, watching this film is a gigantic waste of time. I can think of myriad better ways to spend 135 minutes.
