Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
These following films impacted me emotionally, intellectually and creatively, that prove filmmaking is not only an art form, but also tremendously entertaining with impeccable structure, stellar acting, superb writing, astonishing overall production values, and top-notch directing.
A decent reboot, but will never hold candle to the great Tim Curry
I've seen the new movie, IT Chapter One, one late Saturday night, in keeping with the tradition of seeing the horror or thriller movie only on the late night.
The movie is obviously better than the broadcast television version in all aspects, due to high production value overall, but one thing is certain.
While Bill Skarsgård did a good job portraying the villain, Tim Curry is much more nuanced and thus creepier and scarier. It comes down to characterization.
Bill Skarsgård's character is way over the top in characterization, but maybe his portrayal is merely inspired by the novel. Tim Curry's characterization is perfect, which might well be one of the best portrayals of a horror-film villain in cinema history, that includes television.
The new movie is fairly faithful to the novel, with plenty of profanity uttered by the young actors. That might shock some prudes, but I don't have a problem with it. I swore a lot when I was a child on the verge of adolescence, as well as similarly curious about sensuality. No child is too (to wit, perfectly) innocent in development.
Of course, the new movie had to omit the more explicit scenes that involve sexuality as originated in the novel. Otherwise, there would be the "moral panic" protest over the "tamely filmed and sensibly edited" (implied) erotic scenes not unlike, say, The Last Temptation of Christ when that film came out in 1988, the same year this new movie takes place at the beginning.
I am more into psychological horror with slow pacing, which is so rare as to be non-existent. The classic movies with psychological terror plus slow pacing would be Jaws, The Changeling, the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Shining and Japanese horror Ringu, the latter that to this day I consider one of the scariest movie watching experiences I had (the other "terrifying" movie-going experience would be Irreversible and I Stand Alone, both by the French auteur and provocateur Gaspar Noe, and both equally disorienting in harsh content and insane cinematography & editing), because of its mystery that led to the shocking and unexpected twist that blew my mind with my jaw dropping sense of palpable horror.
This said, I am very much a jaded moviegoer. This is why I was not even scared or phased when I saw the new movie, thanks to "cheap" jump scares with obvious CGI meshed with the makeup effects. Although a few "lingering" scenes, such as the bloody bathroom, impressed me in experiencing what it's like to go through the psychological terror.
Perhaps if the new IT movie have the emphasis on practical makeup effects, albeit more expensive than CGI, then it would easily scare me as well as many similarly jaded moviegoers who know cheap jump scare scenes when they see it, that cannot even make them jump at the seat. Unfortunately, CGI is the standard visual effects, and that lessened the scare factor of this movie. The good or mediocre "scariest" movies with practical makeup effects were last made in the 90's, in particular Hellraiser series, notably Part III.
With all this said, the young cast did a fine job, given the intense adapted screenplay with heavy language and other risqué content. I know that if my young nieces and nephews ask me to take them to see this movie, I might hesitate not because of its scary and nightmarish scenes and the villain but because of its language alone that would be a bad influence.
I look forward to the second chapter, now that Chapter One is expected to be a big box office hit. It hit all the right notes, but it cannot hold the candle to Tim Curry. He should have returned to the role, instead of a relatively young actor who nearly hams it up portraying Pennywise the Demonic Clown.
By the way, although I disagree with the novelist Stephen King's shrill politics lately (he gets a cut of the royalty from the success of the new IT franchise and merchandise), I had to see the new version of IT, because hype -- the first release of the movie teaser and trailer that saw tens of millions of view count -- justifies the commendable quality of this movie. The author was so impressed that he praised the movie in a tweet earlier this year.
Alien: Covenant (2017)
Alien: Covenant well-made but marred by predictable story twists
I'll do the best impression of the character "David".
Overall superb production values. Well-polished especially the cinematography and improved visual effects.
But, it fails to follow up with the very ending of a strange unique creature in the otherwise turgid and unnecessary prequel Prometheus.
This movie disregards logic that includes the ridiculous chestburster scene that trumps the lore of the original Alien movie.
The twists are predictable as always. I can predict the telegram within the movie, that neither the screenwriters nor the director would hope to prevent. I assiduously avoid the spoilers, yet I am the armchair psychic.
This movie, indeed, is the goriest of the franchise so far.
So gory it detracts from the science fiction thriller aspect, that, along with cinematography, is reminiscent of the early and gruesome "Saw" movies.
This movie is better than Prometheus without the infuriating elements such as awful dialogue and offending subplots that demonstrate the screenwriters to be the hack.
But the fact that Alien: Covenant -- by the returning producers Walter Hill and David Giler (both who re-wrote the original Alien script by Dan O'Bannon and Ron Shusett that made that movie a feminist parable, despite no writing credit) and even the returning director of the original Alien movie -- chose to disregard the logics that were established in the earlier movies is frustrating since I'm a follower of the Alien legend in the realm of science fiction.
Alien: Covenant is interesting, but its logic is bizarre to be canonical, even with the twists that might confound. Hollywood tries too hard to be clever and original, but they tend to fail.
As always the best part of the movie is the actor Michael Fassbender, who cannot do wrong except stellar acting, even in a mediocre or bad movie.
An almost awful & lurid film that exploits the female sex; Verhoeven a poor man's Brian De Palma
As the header title notes, the director Paul Verhoeven is indeed a pale imitation of Brian De Palma.
I saw this movie at the art-house where it was the only one film that plays anywhere where I reside at this time of writing, in a second-run circuit.
Needless to say, despite my intrigue with the great French actress Isabelle Huppert, this movie is patently ludicrous -- so absurd that it demands the suspension of disbelief with some confusion as to the female psyche, as imagined from the male perspective as the armchair psychologist.
I am not a feminist or a "white knight." Far from it.
However, besides the risible and infuriatingly frustrating absurdity of the plot twists, this movie is unbelievably lurid with exploitation, that is demeaning toward the female sex.
Even for the aforementioned actress, who has to be the bravest actress in this world, who is willing to take on any edgy film project that pushes the envelope, so to speak.
Anecdotally, I saw The Piano Teacher at the same art-house venue, starring the same lead actress, exactly 15 years ago. Which is an incredible coincidence.
Unlike "Elle," The Piano Teacher is far more nuanced with Michael Haneke's clinical directing style, slow-burn pacing, and Ms. Huppert's astonishing portrayal of a tormented and psychosexually twisted character.
In my humble opinion, Huppert's role in The Piano Teacher is one of the best performances ever captured by the actress; the other (equally and non-manipulative) astoundingly superlative performances being the fellow French actress Marion Cotillard for "La Vie En Rose" and Bjork's one-off-only lead acting in the poignant "Dancer in the Dark."
But "Elle" pushes the envelope not only too far, but also shreds the envelope to the extreme edge, outside of viscerally obscene hard-core pornography.
The MPAA is wrong to have given this movie a mere R rating. It should be NC-17, period.
"Elle" doesn't make any sense whatsoever, that confound me as to the point of the plot and subplots. It's a rather vacuous commentary on the female psyche, and the sheer ludicrous elements of the entire plot leading to the bizarre "happy" ending left me flabbergasted with frustration and disbelief, because this movie demands that I leave my brain at the door in terms of excessive suspension of disbelief.
Paul Verhoeven has proved himself to be the poor man's Brian De Palma, the latter who, at least, knows how to pull off the crazy plot twists and intrigues without coming off laughably absurd, until recently in the last two decades, when De Palma simply went off the deep end, not unlike Lars von Trier in the last decade.
"Elle" is simply "Basic Instinct" in reverse, and still as ludicrous as that infamous 1992 erotic thriller with plot holes and equally absurd demand for suspension of disbelief that infers puerile male chauvinist fantasy.
This said, Isabelle Huppert is, as I reiterate, the bravest actress. I doubt that she will an Oscar for Best Actress (she had won Golden Globe Best Actress award last month), simply because the Academy members, in particular elderly and perhaps more prudish, will be so offended and outraged by the risqué content and absurd plotting in "Elle" that they walk out in droves midway or turn off DVD to eject in palpable anger, given that this movie is one of the most provocative ever made to date.
That this movie made me cringe with horror -- and The Piano Teacher barely made me wince, being hypnotized by the great and magnificent Isabelle Huppert's performance -- especially with grotesque sexual content (not just rape acts but also involving other elements that are just as morally offensive) is quite an accomplishment.
And I braved through Gaspar Noe's brutal and nasty films (I have not seen Nicolas Refn's films, especially "Only God Forgives" and "Neon Demon" that are said to have prompted walkouts).
Ergo, "Elle" certainly takes the cake as the most edgy movie released in recent memory, outside the typically pretentious and over-edgy film festivals like Sundance, Telluride, Cannes and Toronto.
Paul Verhoeven should be rightly called a hack, because he could not cease to direct the latest films laden with inane plots and perfectly ludicrous premises, as if he dares the audience to suspend disbelief by forcing us to leave the brain at the door, to be insulted and mocked for daring to question the parallel world of ruthless reality and plausible fiction.
Verhoeven apparently hates the audience enough to mock us, and "Elle" is not an exception that belies his utter cynicism toward humanity in terms of values or the lack thereof.
This "film" is borderline rubbish that thieved my ten dollars -- I seldom go to the movies -- save for Isabelle Huppert's courageous and competent performance, that no sane film actress in Hollywood and London will agree to by taking on the lead role that is perverse, dreadful and exploitative.
I will be genuinely shocked if Ms. Huppert wins the Oscar for Best Actress, defying the odds given that "Elle" is the most infuriatingly ridiculous and deliberately provocative movie in recent years.
* 1/2 out of four
Hacksaw Ridge (2016)
Better than overrated & schmaltzy Saving Private Ryan; depicts true heroism & visceral carnage
Awaiting Director Mel Gibson's return since the astonishingly hyper-real thriller Apocalypto, which was one of the best movies of the 2000 decade, I came to the movies on the day after Christmas, just when this movie might depart from the first-run theatre too soon.
Needless to say, my reaction was that of astonishment, to some extent, in seeing the visceral horrors of the 'unimaginable' carnage of combat and atrocity, that indeed force the viewers to question mortality and that war is indeed Hell.
Hacksaw Ridge is a spectacular war movie, that should compliment the varying classic wartime movies like All Quiet on the Western Front, Paths of Glory and Full Metal Jacket.
However, due to the moderate budget that had to be funded by the sources outside the Hollywood system that basically blackballed Mr. Gibson following the scandals that are best left unmentioned, the unfortunate outcome is that the visual effect/FX looks dodgy in some combat scenes, that detract from the immersive realism of the horrors of war.
Especially, in the gut-wrenching and nauseatingly visceral portrayal in this movie, the particularly ferocious battle between the American infantry and the relentlessly brutal and ruthless Imperial Japanese infantry on the southernmost Japanese-held island of Okinawa in the duration of World War 2, that was precipitated by Japan's unwise decision to attack Pearl Harbor, likely as a reaction to President Franklin's oil embargo and blockade that antagonized the Japanese to commit to total war, much to their regret given the Americans' fearsome and retributive resolve.
I would go on the record to state that Hacksaw Ridge, despite some dodgy CGI effects of combat violence and gore that was, understandably enough, due to the moderately low budget in financing outside the unforgiving Hollywood movie studio system, accurately and unflinchingly depicts the horrors of carnage in the protracted battles, especially against the fanatically determined and heartless Japanese infantry.
I have had read the history books on the horrors of war and occupation, such as Imperial Japan's brutal occupations of China, Korea and the Philippines as well as the accounts of the battles, notably the famous photograph of the flag-raising on Iwo Jima and what led to that moment. My father is an amateur historian of WWII Pacific Theater who interviewed the ancient surviving American soldiers of this theater, who spoke very negatively about the Japanese soldier that seem demonic and inhumane, which is true.
With Hacksaw Ridge, through Mel Gibson's brilliant but otherwise almost imperfect (i.e. melodramatic scenes meant for establishing characters in order to explain the motivation -- especially why the humble yet unrelentingly non-conformist Christian protagonist chose to enlist only to be subject to violent bullying and hazing trying to force him to change his inexorably pacifist belief when he only wanted to serve as the mere combat medic) direction to show us how horrible the war truly is, it forces us to confront our mortality as well as ask ourselves the existential questions such as nihilism and suffering.
This movie, for the first time in a long time (not even recent other violent and horror movies would bother me), made me queasy and aghast at the grand vision of carnage that infers the absolute inhumanity to one another, that invoked the philosophical questions of mortality.
In many ways, Hacksaw Ridge is, in terms of pacing, storytelling, characterization and visual portrayal, the better movie than Spielberg's absurdly sentimental and turgid propaganda Saving Private Ryan, that went downhill after the opening battle sequence that was well-done in depicting the carnage on the massive Allied invasion of Normandy on D- Day.
Furthermore, Hacksaw Ridge touches upon the utmost courage in face of adversity that include despicable bullying for holding firm to the pacifist belief in genuine religious principle, unbelievable heroism and absolute carnage, whereas Terrence Malick's The Thin Red Line is merely philosophical that, while almost well-made (fantastically ethereal cinematography by the twice-Oscar-winning cinematographer of "Braveheart" John Toll) and well-meaning, was frustratingly esoteric, almost maddeningly inert, and apparently naive.
Ergo, Hacksaw Ridge is certainly dissimilar to the aforementioned films Saving Private Ryan and The Thin Red Line, noting my complaints about these movies with their inherent flaws.
Indeed, Hacksaw Ridge is one of the finest war-centered movies made to date, with all the right filmmaking and competent storytelling components that accentuates the true horror of war, with Mr. Gibson's insistence to show us that war is really hell, and that we the people should be thankful that the Allied soldiers fought valiantly for our freedom and liberty.
I am the descendant of the grandfathers on both of my parents' side. I am the grandson of the former captain-ranked bomber pilot in the European Theater and the former Navy sailor in the Pacific Theater. My father and I saw this movie when we finally had the time to go to the movies, since he and I were busy with our jobs & other obligations.
Hacksaw Ridge impressed us to poignancy, knowing that the horrific portrayal of carnage is exactly why our ancestors fought the unspeakable evil, especially the Imperial Japanese with their terrible love of violence and rape and so on, yet vigorously denied by the ultra right-wing nationalists in Japan.
The Allied forces sacrificed their lives and limbs to "save" the civilization, and for that we must be grateful to them, including my grandfathers, so that we never have to experience the appalling horrors under the occupation by the despicable invading enemy.
A grand comeback for Mel Gibson in redemption as the superbly proved auteur, since Apocalytpo and this film are the visually astonishing, compelling and unapologetically unflinching movies that depicts the morally tenacious and appalling human conditions in the duality of good and evil, with the latter film that portrays the doubtlessly truthful adage to its most effective extent: "War is Hell."
3 1/2 stars out of 4
Angry Birds (2016)
Angry Birds Movie is a filthy movie that masquerades as family entertainment, with risqué humor & overall lameness
(As sent to my brother-in-law by e-mail, warning him to consider banning this movie for queueing as selection for his young children.)
I just rented The Angry Birds Movie on Blu-ray at Redbox, and I found it to be appalling and terrible. I'll explain why you should NEVER show it to your developing children.
It's one of the most irritating animated movies I've had a misfortune to have seen, and I did not finish watching The Lego Movie which I turned off when it was only about 20 minutes. I hated that movie that grated on my nerve.
The one common thing Angry birds movie and Lego movie share is that it's nauseatingly nonsensical, inane, and frenetically paced that doesn't know when to pause for quiet reflection.
Another common thing both movies share is awful forced humor, and what made Angry Birds worse is that it's atypically crude for a PG rating, with this movie being advertised as a "family" movie when that should be the opposite in deceitful advertising.
The Angry Birds movie contain profanity and risqué humor, with the former "cleverly" (according to the idiotic producers' belief) disguised with double entendres such as substitute for the F-word, at least twice.
This movie doesn't know what it truly wants to be. It's a bizarre and convoluted animated movie, and it's simultaneously irritating, headache-inducing, and morally offensive.
I can't see any point of this movie, despite it being a mobile game adaptation. It's a surprise that this movie, despite the mobile game's enormous popularity, is almost a disappointment in domestic box office gross.
I can attribute that tepid box office gross to the bad word of mouth that condemned the movie by the appalled parents and annoyed children, who could not understand some inexplicable movie references that only the adults know for sure, and they will, inevitably, ask with confused demeanor, "what does it mean?"
Angry Birds is overall an awful movie, and it's absolutely NOT appropriate for children under 10 at least. It contains a prolonged scene involving the stream of urine that is unnecessary and offensive.
This movie, by the way, is so puerile in its juvenile attempt at humor, including lame movie and pop culture references, that it's not funny at all. I never chuckled.
It's an endurance test. And I played Angry Birds mobile game only momentarily, and then left unimpressed. Although I admit to buying Angry Birds gummy products in various editions at the neighborhood grocery store to cut out the characters at home.
As a parent striving to be good and protective, I suggest instating a ban of Angry Birds movie so that your children should never see this movie until they are teenaged age, at least.
It's too dirty for a PG rating, courtesy of the creator studio and the shameless Sony distributor that emphasize vulgarity in children's entertainment that fails to even entertain. They fail with this movie, badly.
I'd give it one star. One of the worst movies of this year.
The only positive thing to say about the movie is that the CG animation look gorgeous on my Sony HDTV as almost upscaled to 4k. That's all there is to this putrid piece of crap that's only a cash cow for its producers who pushes filth on the children while masquerading as family entertainment.
This filthy movie ought to be PG-13. MPAA is moronic with its rating decision yet again, with conflict of interest favoring the big studios with the low bar on appropriating movie rating.
If you see the movie with your wife, you will know why I hate this movie and am appalled at its risqué content. Definitely not for kids, either, despite its marketing misnomer claiming family genre. It should be next to adult anime section and 70's R-rated adult animated fare like Fritz the Cat.
(* out of 4)
Spotlight good but unexceptional; why tell the story now? It's a glorified HBO movie.
(As e-mailed to relatives and attorney friends.)
I rented a Blu-ray disc of the movie. Albeit I held on to it for days and then I had to pay almost ten bucks in accrued rental fee, because I've been busy and am quite lazy when it comes to priority of watching movies at home.
While the movie Spotlight is well-made, it's not exceptional and it's a standard movie. It feels like a slickly produced HBO movie at times.
I would expect this movie to bash Catholic religion, but it's more restrained. But why this story needed to be told in movie form is a bit strange, given the topic.
I enjoyed Zodiac and The Insider, based on true stories, and these are far superior compared to this movie that plays like a "TV-M" Hallmark movie.
The reason why I mention this movie to you is two reasons: the rare topics that relate to lawyering and journalism.
But given the precedents like the aforementioned favorite movies I cited above, Spotlight isn't that fantastic.
Spotlight won Oscars for Best Picture and Best original Screenplay, and I think Best Picture is unwarranted, but I also thought script was very good that held the movie well for two hours instead of three long, almost drab hours.
I recommend the movie just for brief lawyer "mumbo jumbo" if that will pique your interest how movie depict lawyering.
In my opinion, Spotlight is overrated but a tad respectful in its sensitive treatment on the controversial topic involving sex abuse within Catholic church.
One thing I disagree with is the given MPAA rating that gave this movie an R rating. It should be PG-13, but the MPAA thought the subject is too mature, so they automatically gave it an R rating, for adult themes alone, besides brief language and relevant sexual abuse references.
MPAA is really out of touch. In my opinion, for example, The Insider should have gotten a PG13 rating, despite some language. It's a relatively "bloodless" movie but still great.
Omohide poro poro (1991)
A decent film on childhood remembrance and adult introspection, but could be better paced
(Prefacing my commentary as emailed to my relative to offer my thoughts, I offered to take her to see this rather unconventional animated drama film on my tab; she agreed, despite not having been to the movies in years because she's picky.
She said she sort of enjoyed the movie, but complained that it felt glacially paced as the biggest flaw. She is millennial-aged, while I am Gen-X.)
Well, the movie Only Yesterday has its good merits, but, of course, it's rather slow- paced that makes it hard to be reasonably attentive.
I found the ending strangely touching that is indescribable.
Perhaps you might enjoy the movie more if you saw it in English dubbed version, rather than the subtitled version, because the dubbed version would keep the story moving at a reasonable pacing, without you struggling to understand some cultural notes that fly over our head.
The best part, I think, is the pineapple scene, which is simultaneously fascinating (given cultural background as explained) and a little poignant. Second best is long retrospection near the end of the movie, even though it could be better paced.
I reminded you during the movie you showed me how to cut the pineapple.
I suggest that you check out The Tale of the Princess Kaguya (out on DVD/Blu ray), also written and directed by Isao Takahata, who is now retired (old age in his 80's now) and a mentor to & best friend with Hayao Miyazaki. I saw it at Tower theatre, subtitled version, and the ending was very poignant.
As far as I know. Isao is a serious dramatic director in animation, that is non- conventional. Only Yesterday is the most dramatic animated film I saw, and I've seen a few animated dramas.
Only Yesterday is the anti-thesis of stereotypical full-length animated movies that tend to pander to children and also adults with risqué humor and such like Shrek series and other franchises that I didn't want to see just because they look mindless.
Only Yesterday is a very thoughtful picture, despite its pacing. It's also quite nostalgic, and the adult character woman reminds me of you and your status, as I noted in discussion before. And it was released in Japan in July 1991, which explains clothing design for the "present day" scenes.
Walt Disney Studio, which bought the rights to distribute Studio Ghibli catalog in North America and parts of the Western world back in about 1998 with agreement not to edit any film, refused to release this film likely because of its glacial pacing (that they think will bore Western children and adults alike) and because of mature themes involving menstruation and subtly mature themes.
The distributor GKIDS took the film off Disney's hands and released it, albeit this year to commemorate 25th anniversary.
(** 1/2 out of 4; because the pacing is so glacial it's hard to be attentive without fidgeting, typical of Japanese cinema style, as my relative commented.)
The Revenant (2015)
Why is The Revenant a darned lousy movie? Let me count the ways
(As e-mailed to my few relatives, to impart the fair warning not to see this silly and execrable film.)
Just saw Revenant movie with open caption last night.
I bought a ticket to Kung Fu Panda 3 that plays at the same time as the movie. I may see it in hypocrisy to protest the idiot ["pendejo"] director's soap box politics. But at least I refused to pay FOR the movie directly, so they don't get my money, so there's that.
As for my opinion:
Terribly overrated. It's ridiculous, pretentious, inanely contrived (esp. protagonist's dead Indian wife), frequently dull and thematically & aesthetically anemic with one-dimensional characters especially the villains who hammed it up.
There is absolutely no point in this movie.
It is offensively politically didactic to the audience on race relations between Amerindians and whites, as if patronizing the audience by the director's self- important mockery, which felt overbearing with his overkill directorial style, like "Look at this, look at me, isn't this pretty, great job (cinematographer buddy) Chivo!"
Some shots are irritating with "in your face" close-ups. There is absolutely no tension throughout the movie because of over-directing that is so palpably annoying it kills the enjoyment with occasional dull pacing in paper-thin plot structure.
There are unintentionally laughable scenes that require suspension of disbelief like CGI animals (not just the mauling bear) and swimming in the icy-cold river wearing bear fur coat with no adverse hypothermia effect (frozen to popsicle afterwards in twenty degree temperature). It's like a nature action movie with lack of logic as seen from Hollywood perspective.
As for Leonardo's acting, it's really nothing to write home about. It's all method acting aided by the cold and chilly air that affect the actor to nearly and almost overact. I really didn't think his acting Oscar is due for this movie. It's a pity award.
The movie drags way too long. An hour could be cut and nothing would be lost. Pretentious filmmakers think length equals depth, but it's the opposite. They are very shallow in preconception, heavy on sensationalism (some scenes obviously pretentious as if the director is a show-off) and light on logic and reasonable pacing.
Inarritu is a total hack who pretends to be an intellectual when he is not, instead he mugs as if he's on par with Kubrick. Cinematography is the only thing that's good about the movie, but still an awfully pretentious movie with no point to comprehend.
I checked my watch more than a few times during the movie. It's how restless I felt. Gore doesn't phase me, but Inarritu's directing is the worst and most irritating factor about this movie.
George Miller is very calm, controlled and serenely self-assured in commanding direction in contrast to Inarritu's desperately provocative and bore-you-to-death pretentious approach to filmmaking.
That Miller lost best direction Oscar to this sentimental and lecturing hack Inarritu says a lot about the idiocy of Hollywood.
Don't bother because it's so long and indulgent with pretension that Leo's subtly Oscar-bait overreaching method acting cannot compensate for how lousy this movie is, in terms of demerits.
What a piece of crap.
* out of four
Steve Jobs (2015)
Character assassination of Steve Jobs by magnifying his flaws to attack relentlessly and viciously that are entirely pointless.
(As written to my few relatives by e-mail, one of which opposed the idea of going to the movies to see this movie on account of its R rating and uninteresting subject matter. I went alone and offered them my opinion as follows.
In the spirit of my brief review, shame on Aaron Sorkin. A perennial over-liberal hack; his Oscar for a past movie is not even well-earned.)
I saw the movie Steve Jobs.
In summary, a total and complete character assassination. A very negative portrait of Jobs and there is no point or meaning to extract from this movie.
It's way, way, way too talkative that makes it hard to follow with constant cross talk and argument, regardless of the principal actor Michael Fassbender's good acting.
It's so talkative with constant dialogues that it will put you to sleep, guaranteed. I did not but I feel it ran a bit dry in some spots.
The movie is way over its head. Some scenes are outright false as complete fictionalization conjured up by the screenwriter's imagination.
I think the Steve Jobs estate (widow) should sue the producers of this movie for the defamation of character that literally assassinate Steve Jobs repeatedly with rumors and embellishments that are outright untrue to mislead and deceive the audiences.
Don't bother to see the movie unless it's in a dollar theater, and that's to watch the impressive acting ensemble and visual editing design and framing, in spite of the terrible and totally turgid and dishonest script.
I give it one star, to be honest.
Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)
Mad Max: Fury Road - the good, the bad, the grotesque, and WAY over-hyped
(This is the same email I wrote to my brother in law, a movie buff, for blunt and honest commentary verbatim)
I saw Mad Max Fury Road late Thursday night. The reaction varied with some mockery at a few weird scenes.
My opinion is it's a good movie for what it is. A few scenes are out of place that make absolutely no sense. There's a weird scene that should have been cut as it isn't relevant to the feel of the movie.
Director George Miller, an old dude at 70, typifies with his style going for the weird and the grotesque. It shows up again like in the latter two old Mad Max movies.
I almost hesitate to see the movie because of the reports and critic reviews that reported injection of feminism especially with the author of The Vagina Monologue, a staple of college indoctrination tour (my first sister was brainwashed with this grotesque/misandric/empowerment feminist bullshit).
I express disappointment in George Miller for the move. Not surprising as he pulled the similar bullshit espousing atheism in Happy Feet. I saw the movie and felt that feminism is minimal so not to be detracting. Almost subtle.
The movie was fairly intense and riveting with constant action. Sometimes a little too much and over the top. Deserves an R rating for restrained gory violence and also the rarest R rated movie that does not utter any profanity.
I look forward to more Mad Max sequels, if it makes some money. But I judged the audience's reaction with my astute observation and the reception is mixed, almost muted, because of how weird the movie is.
I noted the underage boys (under 14) accompanied by their fathers upon exit after the movie.
If I were the father, I will make exception provided the child is at least 11 and able to handle the violent content. It's a "hard PG-13" movie at best.