Reviews

I am intrigued by the difference in ratings between those who are reviewing this 2017 film and those who are comparing it to the 1995 animated version of the same story.

The original animated film, which is considerably shorter than the 2017 version, has nearly constant, continuous explanatory dialogue. You could follow the story line about a "Puppet Master" with your eyes closed, relying on the extensive explanations. The 2017 film demands that the viewer assemble a story line from what is seen, not just heard. If you don't pay attention you are certain to miss important elements in the plot, some that are both critical and subtle. As the story develops so do the characters. They change realistically, so that a viewer who is not paying attention is likely to be disappointed.

This is not a cartoon or a TV show, in which everything is explained. The viewer in this instance is required to pay attention and to allow what is on the screen to influence observations and expectations.

In addition to the action, there are parts of this film that carry strong elements of a character's personal confusion, disappointments, and longings. These are things not conveyed in the animated version. The animated version follows a relatively simple story line, while the 2017 film focuses on the main character's personal confusion and her determination to resolve her confusion.

I was surprised at how real the characters' personalities seemed, and how understandable were their reactions, which take the viewer beyond an elemental story line.

Slow build-up to an exaggerated horror movie ending. Unnecessarily violent. If you put in enough mutilations to qualify as a horror movie and mix it up with a love story you will then end up with an ugly mess that is unpleasant to watch. Triggering our sense of extreme displeasure (some scenes compell any reasonable person to turn away) does not equate with quality. The acting was good. The story was impossile to appreciate. I know that when this came out in 1999 it was well received, maybe because it was so different from all other Japanese movies. Being unique does not mean that you created something worth watching.

I read through previous reviews and was surprised that some viewers were disappointed because this was not a "formula" film. That would be a film that explained everything and laid it all out in obvious steps leading to a predictable conclusion. Instead of that, this film realistically addresses the shock, evil and sadness of war, and the importance of personal commitment to those sharing the same experience. If you don't like to think about what you're watching on a movie screen, this film is not for you. If you want to be impacted by incredibly good acting, a remarkable exposure to the evils of war, and a refusal to provide an ending that answers all possible questions, then this is not your movie. This film will make you think.

Director Garland deserves extra praise for doing something I have never seen in a feature film. He uses the black and white photos attributed to the press photographer characters to freeze the action for a few seconds. Those still shots are held long enough to remind us that when the real world presents us with something frightful it often plays out in those same kind of frozen moments.

Unfortunately, none of the above is captured in the trailer, which presents this film as though it is a typical war story with a conventional salad of explosions and shooting. Don't expect that and you will be captured by one of the best films ever made about conflict occurring in the midst of human relations.

I watched "Backstabbing for Beginners" as a dramatic film, not as a documentary. I am surprised and disappointed that so many of the ratings posted here arise from comparisons to real events. As a movie, this does an extraordinarily good job of portraying the naïve character Michael Sullivan, played by Theo James. And for anyone who says that Ben Kingley's presentation as Pasha was too coarse, I can only say that I have worked with people in high positions who swore a lot and made questionable decisions, while always claiming that they only did what was necessary. So many of the comments posted here ignore what should have been the primary consideration of the characterizations in the film -- the dissection of routine work into personal failures that feed off of the exchange of a lot of money.

There are moralality arguments presented in the film that don't seem to get the attention of commenters on IMDB. As the failure of the UN program is dissected we witness the slow unveiling of the common excuse offered by perpetrators that "everybody is doing it" -- meaning stealing -- and the attempted justification that everything done was necessary for the common good. In other words, we were the good guys who need to compromise our judgment in order to complete our assigned tasks. These are critical considerations for any group or agency that claims beneficial motives for its work. In my consideration the appeal of that kind of misjudgment was presented more realistically than I have ever seen in a film. And the characters were all completely credible.

I had low expectations, based upon the angry reviews condemning this film. I admire Herzog's work and had hopes that the low opinions I read arose from bizarre prejudices. Having now seen the film, I can't understand the anger and disappointment that others expressed. American audiences generally want more action, but this is not that kind of movie. The acting is great, the desert cinematography is beautiful, and the story is captivating -- unless you were expecting something less real. This is a bio-pic about a real woman. And it is at least a depiction of the beginning of western involvement with the middle east. Some viewers obviously disliked a story line that involves a couple of fractured romances and had no action scenes. But it is faithful to the real life of the woman portrayed. I can not help wondering if some of the negativity arises from men who do not like being told about a woman who shaped her own destiny. If you haven't seen Queen of the Desert yet, don't expect it to be like every other movie you've seen.

"Poor Things" has to be one of the best movies I've ever seen. It is funny, sad, sexy, and remarkbably intelligent. It is the story of a woman who has been given the brain of an infant (her own) and then develops through a range of experiences into an adult who must recognize and understand her needs and impulses and the influence they have upon others. I have not read the book, but I was captivated by how well this story fit into the medium of film. The extravagant sets and makeup and the use of fish-eye lenses were in perfect balance with the reality of the human relationships.

Bella, the main character (played by Emma Stone) makes mistakes, the same that most of us have made on our journey to maturity. Bella learns from her mistakes, a stunning example of what is possible. This is a fantasy tale, spiked with humor, about one person arriving at a deep understanding of herself and others. It is also a "feminist" story of the fullest and best kind.

It is directed by the Greek director Yorgos Lanthimos, screenplay by Australian Tony McNamara and the late Scottish writer Alasdair Gray. The film is based on a book by the late Scottish writer Alasdair Gray.

Seems like the opinions expresssed here were either 100% favorable or 100% UNfavorable. Nothing in between. The unfavorable complained about political issues, ignoring the fact that some Republicans and some residents who lived along the Rio Grande expressed opinions that were not nearly as toxic as some of what was posted here. Those who gave favorable reviews seemed to stay away from arguing politics and focused on what the movie looked like. It is just a movie, after all. The anger expressed in some comments does not belong here -- or anywhere else. We are supposed to be able to discuss differing points of view without getting nasty about it.

I am surprised at the inability of some viewers to recognize the genuinely human characteristics of the Joaquin Phoenix / Ridley Scott depiction of Napoleon. I thought this film was as realistic as possible. Yes, Napoleon is shown to be a neurotic and egotistical person with a drive to achieve power over others. Anyone who believes those characteristics are not realistic must not be paying attention to the world we live in. Such qualities have been demonstrated for centuries among all such driven people, many of whom have reached high positions of power. Fortunately such people are not many, but unfortunately they do occasionally attract a following among those who are attracted to what they see as strength. I thought the acting in this film was incredibly good; and the historical re-enactments matched what I have read and were dramatic enough to satisfy most people.

Season 1 of Chicago P. D. was great. The stories were about solving crimes, and the characters interacted with each other the way anyone would if put into a close-knit group. That means with an element of reserve. I did not finish season 2, giving up before the last two episodes. The stories had become less about resolving crimes and more about predictable personal relationships among co-workers. The series degenerated into something like old daytime television romantic serials, pure melodrama. One episode near the end of season 2 was an exception. Unfortunately it was gruesome beyond reality, not exactly satisfying drama. I couldn't help comparing Chicato P. D. to The Bridge [Bron/Broen], a prize winning Danish-Swedish police procedural series that lasted for several years, 2011-2018. It no doubt was aided by avoiding the need to crank out a new episode every week.

What could have been a worthwhile examination of a critical event in American history is instead a celebrity show-off event, hastily assembled and unrealistic. The Spielberg-Streep-Hanks triumvirate has plenty of fans, but the result of their collaboration is a film with characters who never seem to quite fit into their roles. Publisher Katherine Graham is depicted as a stumbling woman lacking self-confidence. The real woman knew how to behave among members of government, not knocking over chairs and nervously removing her glasses repeatedly. She was also the widow of a man who killed himself, which might have left her with an air of gravitas that is lacking in the film. There's not much to say about Hanks portrayal of editor Tom Bradlee except that the character he portrays appears to be a frantic, over-acting fool.

If you want to see what a newsroom really looked like and how editors behave, watch "The Newsroom" TV series from 2012-2014, even though it depicts a TV newsroom instead of a newspaper. Jeff Daniels, the lead, should have been recruited for the Ben Bradlee role. The difference between his acting and that of Tom Hanks puts Hanks and Spielberg to shame.

The unique importance of this film is reminding people that publication of the Ellsberg Papers was a significant event in American history, and particularly America's role in the Viet Nam war. Too bad the movie is focused on being light entertainment instead of a serious depiction and analysis of reality. One final comment about the glimpse of the Watergate Break-in at the movie's end. It is totally unrelated to the Ellsberg papers and happened a year after the papers were published. The fact that Nixon was President during both events does not mean they are related, unless you're making a movie about Nixon.

Exceptional! This is promoted as a comedy, which it is, but it is also much more than that. It is a comment on how the negative views by those in power can overwhelm the positive views of those with virtually no power. The "good guys" are charged with enforcing the law and the "bad guys" are trying to run a community relief operation. There is no shortage of extremely humorous moments, but the story's ending settles into something more serious that is predictable through all that preceded it. The cast is large and every one of them, even those who had smaller parts, turned in great performances. Above all, this film is a comment on American culture, dressed up with humor to make it more palatable.

A self-proclaimed scientist teams up with Hollywood special effects guys to create a pretend Neanderthal couple. Then she has them parade around naked. As entertainment, rather than education, it should have been no more than 30 minutes long, instead of stretching it out to 120 minutes.

Yeah, we know how blue screen works and how Hollywood can create pretend people by pasting tracking markers on actors, but what does that have to do with Neanderthals?

Too bad the "scientist" didn't pay as much attention to conveying useful information as she paid to her wardrobe.

Don't get misled: just because it came from PBS doesn't mean it's good.

Such mixed reviews. No, "The Immigrant" is not melodrama. Emotions are not exaggerated. No, it is not slow. The story moves at a reasonable pace to tell us about a period and place very different from our world. It presents characters struggling through a daily existence that Charles Dickens would have recognized.

It is a masterpiece of character development. None of the characters is a stereotype that rides along on a single track. They all have good qualities, even the character portrayed by Joaquin Phoenix, and they all have some dark qualities, including Marion Cotillard's remarkable portrayal of Ewa and Jeremy Renner's portrayal of Orlando the Magician. There are no "perfect" characters in this story. All are forced to compromise their beliefs in order to survive.

As the characters stumble through a world in which nearly everyone participates in graft and corruption, they are forced to make decisions unlike any thrust upon us today. It is important to remember that.

This murder mystery is glaringly unrealistic and full of movie cliches. It is like a bad Agatha Christie story. The most realistically depicted character is the detective's partner, but according to a bonus feature on the DVD he is a real police detective, so he had a sense of what would play real. Too bad they didn't listen to what he might have suggested. The production got mired down in trying to use upper class NYC characters to impress viewers. Big mistake!

For years I have been a Binoche fan. This film ended that. Men are all depicted as predators and Binoche as a woman who can't make a commitment. There is no story. This could have been done as a podcast instead of a film. There is little recognition of the film medium and what it could deliver. From interviews we learn that the director, Claire Denis, and the star, Juliette Binoche, connected early on, each anxious to work with the other, which suggests that they both should have put more consideration into this project.

"The Dead Girl" is an incredibly good movie, great story line, great exploration of relationships, and fantastic acting. It is not so much a "mystery" as it is a deep analysis of how and why people act in unusual circumstances. Nothing in this film is predictable, but it is all amazingly realistic. Some of the characters are despicable, some have persistent minor failings that interfere with their ability to see reality, and some experience self-discoveries that are in at least one instance impossible for them to accept. All of the characters encounter events that illuminate things they previously had never fully considered. All of the actors were great, and I thought the acting of Kerry Washington, who plays a prostitute, was particularly remarkable. I then learned from an interview with her that she spent time with former prostitutes preparing for her role. No man would have told this story as well as it is told in the film. Yes, it's a dark tale; and no, there are no car chases or scenes of violence, which a man probably would have believed necessary. This film was written and directed by a woman. I think that's what made the difference. Women are better listeners than men.

Twelve years after this movie was made, big capital still runs the world. In an era in which international banks and other huge corporations have superseded governments, this movie is prescient. But that also means the film is complex, which seems to have alienated some viewers -- judging by the negative comments posted on IMDB by "keep it simple" advocates. Some viewers have also complained that the two main actors, Clive Owen and Naomi Watts, don't seem real enough in the challenges presented to them. Owen portrays an obsessive former police officer who has taken a job with Interpol. He is uncomfortable there because Interpol does not have arrest authority and is primarily a data gatherer. Watts is a New York deputy District Attorney who has a husband and child at home. No, there is no romance between the two main characters, a cliche that other movies commonly exploit. If you're looking for adherence to movie formulas you've seen repeatedly, this is not the film for you.

Some viewers may not be aware that the story about the fictitious IBBC (International Bank of Business and Credit) was inspired by the real circumstances of BCCI (Bank of Credit and Commerce International), which had connections to several American banks. Investigations in various countries ultimately led to the demise of BCCI. Although the bank was liquidated, most governing individuals associated with it escaped punishment.

This is a remarkably silly movie -- Jerry Bruckheimer and Tony Scott struck again with more incredible action than you ever hoped to see in one movie. I'm guessing that any ratings for this movie above four stars have come from people who really enjoy car crashes and explosions. They are not few in number. For a movie that's 15 years old there were a lot of holds on the DVD at my local library.

This film should have been promoted as science fiction rather than a crime thriller, although the best science fiction has at least some degree of believability. That was totally missing in this venture. The story is absurd, even if there's a lot of eye candy for some viewers to behold. Just remember, if you hope to be able to go back 2.5 hours to the time before the movie starts, and instead do something more challenging or rewarding, think again.

I have seen several of Kelly Reichardt's previous films and thought every one of them was smart and at the same time entertaining. This one did not appeal to me. I did not like the 4:3 frame ratio, which I thought had died a well-deserved death in about 1945. I understand from an interview with her, that Ms. Reichardt thought the format would help capture the characters' faces. As someone accustomed to the conventionally wider screen, the narrow frame was only a distraction. I also didn't like the cinematography, which seemed unnecessarily dark and dreary. It went beyond trying to create an atmosphere and ended up looking like the DP had made a mistake in his camera settings. The story itself was very slow in developing. Ms. Reichardt's earlier films also were slow paced, but the pacing fit them so well that it aided their stories. This time it just interfered. I know that generally critics liked this film, but I see from some comments here on IMDB that I am not alone in being disappointed.

This is a revenge movie in the American style: everything either simplified or over-the-top. If you want to see a real revenge movie made by a woman try "The Nightingale". It's real, serious, and pertinent to today's issues. It is set in the black-white wars in Tasmania in the late 1820s, when Australia was treated as a prison by England. The story is so well scripted, cast, and acted that it is more relevant than "Promising Young Woman", which tries so hard and yet fails to succeed. If you want a serious story about revenge -- real issues about real people reacting in real ways -- forget about "Promising Young Woman."

Never heard of Sparks before seeing this film, but I don't pay much attention to pop music. They have had a musical career of about 50 years, full of smart and humorous lyrics, framed by great music, all of it written by the two of them. They are two brothers who get along and love what they are doing. Who could ask for more?

Way better than we expected, given the subject matter. Made by a woman and featuring some women taxidermists who bring a sense of beauty and style to their work.

The Apparition is considerably better than its scores on IMDB and MetaCritic would suggest. Comments posted by some viewers reflect their unhappiness about the film's length and about it's failure to put forward rigid conclusions. Maybe they've been watching too much simplistic TV.

This story demands that each viewer must make his or her own decision about what to believe. This is not a religious film, although it can be viewed that way. It is about the human belief mechanism and how it is influenced by what we want to believe and what we choose to doubt. There are scenes in this film that leave the viewer wondering what he or she should conclude, which is exactly what the characters in the film are experiencing.

At its core, this is the story of two people. We meet first an adult male journalist, somewhat cynical, who has just lost a close friend. He is troubled by what he regards as his failure to protect his friend. He agrees to help the Vatican investigate claims of a miracle. The other primary character is an attractive teen-aged girl who says she witnessed an appearance of the Virgin Mary. The girl was an orphan who grew up in foster homes and orphanages and has pledged herself to a life as a nun. Those two characters form an unexpected bond as the story progresses. We are left with a question: what qualities of human behavior are "saintly"? This is a thoughtful work, no easy answers, just like life.

If Robin Wright were not in this movie, and also directing it, it would not get the sparse favorable attention it has received. As many others have pointed out, it is painfully slow. But worse, the story is stupid. For instance, why didn't Wright's character think to cover the broken window after the first few cold nights? Why didn't she figure out by trial and error how to saw and chop wood? Any novice camper would quickly develop some skills. If it was a recent personal tragedy that drove her into the wilderness, it would seem reasonable that she would either learn the necessary skills quickly or leave (I know she didn't have a car, but desperation compels us to find solutions). I don't think the intent was to depict Wright's character as suicidal, but the audience has a choice: she was either suicidal or just plain stupid.

Excellent. Great acting. Great script. This is a movie that needed to be made. I have seen Tahar Rahim in the 2009 French film "A Prophet." He is an incredibly convincing actor.