Change Your Image
Norman_French
Reviews
Looper (2012)
Well done in some ways but not a pleasant watch
TL/DR: It feels like they tried to remake 12 Monkeys stylistically (w/o a pandemic), but then put a twist in the ending so they could deny it.
The casting/acting/directing is fine, but there is some disturbing (barely off-screen) violence. The plot is VERY heavy-handed and probably not for everyone (it's NOT a good date movie).
One can extract a message regarding Free Will (FW) here. And by "FW", I don't mean doing-as-you-please, I mean rising about chemical determinism (i.e., charting-your-own-destiny for lack of a better term). In Looper, it seems like things are going in some unbreakable circle (just like in 12 Monkeys), but Joe figures out how to break the vicious cycle. It's clever but costly.
The film is sufficiently well done that it CAN be taken seriously, but then one has to absorb the multi-layered tragedy of the story. OTOH, if one DOESN'T take the story seriously, it will probably seem contrived and violent. Either way, I don't see how to give this more than six (6) stars. The mental aftertaste is unpleasant, and I don't feel like I absorbed anything of significance to balance that.
Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (2023)
A slow, painful watch until the final act
I watched this on DVR and had to keep pausing it for sanity breaks. The combination of the long runtime, contrived plot, and painfully slow pacing is just awful. The generally derivative story is boring and disappointing. The character of Helena (Phoebe Waller-Bridge) is very irritating (as many have noted). But the action and pacing *do* pick up in the final act -- it's suddenly an acceptable watch.
I won't spoil it, but there's an unexpected element to the ending that is rather sweet -- I got misty-eyed.
This is essentially an overly-long 3.5-star film conjoined with a short 6.5-star film. I give it five (5) stars overall.
X-Men: Apocalypse (2016)
Pros and Cons of a personal fav
PROS: Fun story, lots of action, and some admirable attempts at continuity with the other films. James McAvoy is great as always playing Professor X. Ancient control freak En Sabah Nur (Oscar Issac) seems like he might ACTUALLY be old -- we don't see that with most (supposedly) eternal characters. While many people didn't like him as a villain, I think he's OK.
In this film, both sides show off their teamwork. For example, I never get tired of the scene where Angel sky-lifts Psylocke (Oliva Munn) onto the top of a moving airplane. There's also a memorable scene with Quicksilver saving a bunch of students (to a nice Eurythmics song). But I go nuts when Jean Grey takes her gloves off at the end -- it's almost a religious experience for me.
CONS: It's another film where the plot is basically "World Saved When Magneto Changes Sides". I also don't really "get" the young Mystique personified by Jennifer Lawrence (and yes, I find the casting questionable). The original Mystique was dangerous not just because of her shape-shifting, but also due to her devious and dangerous mental skill-set. She's been rewritten as a "good guy" (and even a leader and role model) because of the events in Days of Future Past. While it's all rather questionable, it doesn't ruin the film.
Sophie Turner's portrayal of Jean Grey seems slightly wooden to me, but perhaps I'm focusing too much on that character (it's not like we have a cast of Shakespearean actors here).
PRO rating: 8 stars --- CON rating 5 stars --- AVG rating: 6.5 stars
BONUS: I'm adding a half-star for Psylocke's thigh-friendly costume, which I'm told Oliva Munn was partly responsible for (so yay for her). That makes seven (7) stars total.
Thor: Love and Thunder (2022)
Almost too silly for its own good, yet Taika Waititi pulls it off
I like Taika Waititi's work (the What We Do In The Shadows *FILM* is a great example). He really pushes the silly humor aspect here, but for purposes of watching something fun on TV, it's quite good -- better than I was expecting actually. There are a number of running gags, and for my taste they all worked just fine. Christian Bale does fine work as villain-of-the-week Gorr. As endings go, this one is a bit unexpected, and it's pleasantly thoughtful (not just "Kill the bad guy!").
If you look beneath the surface, there are actually some serious philosophical questions posed, not that they need to be considered (or even recognized) to enjoy the film -- they'll fly over the heads of many.
1) If God (or gods) are "good", why are innocents allowed to suffer?
2) Should one expect a "reward" in an afterlife?
3) How should one make their life (and perhaps their death) meaningful?
4) How does one come to terms with an inability to protect those you love?
To be clear, I'm not saying this film is as good as Ragnarok, nor do I think it's a tearjerker in its serious moments. But such moments DO exist, and they're fairly well done. A longer (Director's) Cut might add to some characters, but we'd risk losing the carefully-controlled pacing. So it's fine as-is IMHO.
Anyhow, I hope you understand that this film can be enjoyed on multiple levels. I give it seven (7) stars, which is currently above par. Thanks for reading.
The Marvels (2023)
Inane and Pointless
For my purposes, this film is the poster child (or definition) of a four-star movie. It's watchable without significant discomfort, but serves no purpose -- it's just not enjoyable. I'm saying this as someone who very much liked Captain Marvel (2019). Now, a 12-year-old will likely have a different opinion; this is merely my take.
The body-swapping schtick is so contrived that it's not even fun the first time around (if it was, I'd be saying "it quickly gets tiresome"). It's just lame and goofy -- an expression which pretty much sums up the entire film. Not recommended for (most) adults.
I will admit the overall message is good (especially the ending), but thematically speaking, it's nothing you haven't seen before.
Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga (2024)
Epic prequel is great fun
This movie is very well done. It's well-paced, character-driven, has plenty of action, and gracefully leverages the settings of Mad Max: Fury Road (and even some of the minor cast). The vehicles are great; I especially liked the custom-built semi (with two engines and various defensive systems) and Dementus' 6x6 wrecker with the big balloon tires. I've seen all of the Mad Max movies, and for me this is the best of the lot. I immediately rewatched portions of this film (this rarely happens) and now feel a need to re-watch MM:FR.
Alyla Browne plays young Furiosa, and the transition to Anya Taylor-Joy is done seamlessly. The film segues beautifully into MM:FR at the end, although I could have done without the teaser footage.
Anya Taylor-Joy totally sells her character; she's great to watch (her eyes are fantastic with the black forehead-paint). The History Man describes her thusly: "That is the darkest of angels. The fifth Rider of the Apocalypse."
Chris Hemsworth does a fine job playing Dementus; it's nice to have a muscular guy who can ACT.
HEY FOLKS -- is it my imagination or was the final voice-over done by Charlize Theron? She says "This is our first fruit, but it's not for you and me. Each of us in our own way will vanish from this Earth. And then perhaps ... some uncorrupted life will rise to adorn it." I did a quick Internet search and didn't find any babble about this. Regardless of whether it's CT or somehow just sounds like her, it adds to the segue quality. The inter-film continuity is exquisite.
The main problem with Mad Max films is the premise that gasoline is necessary, scarce, and valuable, yet it's blatantly wasted in every film. Here we have hundreds of motorcycles canvassing the desert -- do the math on the combined gas mileage and you'll be amazed that the bikes aren't towed or stored aboard large transport vehicles -- analogous to fighters on aircraft carriers. But hey, the visuals are great, so there's that. Also, it sure seems like an armored GUN turret or two on the semi-truck trailer would have been a logical measure, but that would have compromised the wild action. So in that sense (and others) the movie is rather contrived. But on some level, one could say the same about lots of films.
I'm giving this eight (8) stars. It has a great vibe.
The Batman (2022)
Dark back-to-basics take on the genre
I didn't find this film to be emotionally engaging. As another reviewer said, it's not for everyone. At the same time, I think it's well done for what it is. But what IS it exactly?
On the surface, the film is about fighting corruption. But already things get murky, because The Riddler (Paul Dano) is ALSO fighting corruption -- albeit in a sick and twisted way. Does this mean Batman is merely the lesser of evils, or is he following a moral code?
Well, Batman doesn't use guns, and it becomes clear by the end of the film that he really IS a good guy, despite his internal demons. Robert Pattinson plays Bruce Wayne and Batman as essentially the same brooding character; they just wear different costumes. Selina Kyle wonders what's underneath the Batman outfit, but The Riddler realizes that such curiosity is "missing the point." He tells Batman that "You and I both know, I'm looking at the REAL you right now." This is just one example of intriguing statements made throughout the movie. The Batman isn't the most essay-worthy film that I've seen, but it IS a film that has some nice moments and easily-missed depth, so I contend that writing about it is a good mental exercise. The context of this film is significant; for example one of Robert Pattinson's pithy voice-over lines is "Vengeance won't change the past", which sounds simplistic out-of-context, but is actually a moderately deep message IN context.
Robert Pattinson frequently does a good job of conveying his thoughts with simple eye movements. I'm not a huge fan of his, but credit is due here. The brooding just NEVER lets up, which is totally in character (and an interesting counterpoint to Michael Keaton's excellent work given his character seemed to have an alter ego). John Turturro is excellent as the ultra-creepy Carmine Falcone, and Colin Farrell is unrecognizable as the Penguin. Jeffrey Wright is great as Lt. James Gordon. Zoë Kravitz is interesting as Selina Kyle, but not entirely believable.
The standard Hollywood attitude towards guns and their owners is quite evident; The Riddler somehow has dozens of disgruntled followers who are eager to do his bidding. These guys make weird online comments like "Rifles are good."
This film is kind of a back-to-basics reboot of the genre; the number of ridiculous gadgets is thankfully low. The film is so unrelentingly dark that it stylistically resembles a dark WW2 drama. I give it seven (7) stars for thoughtful boldness and internal consistency. It's quite long and some might find it slightly pretentious, but it's tolerable (especially on DVR).
AN ASIDE ON THE BATMOBILE
For laughs I was trying to reverse-engineer the engine, but it's designed to look cool more than anything else. I really DO like the aesthetic here (but less so the car itself). The engine is clearly a large turbo-charged V8, but don't appear to use intercoolers, so racing fuel (e.g., methanol) is likely needed to prevent detonation. The engine uses spark plugs (i.e., it's not a diesel), so fuel "knock" is certainly a potential issue. The exhaust plumbing converging on a jet nozzle (lining up with the crankshaft?) looks great, as do the blue flames, but engineering-wise these details don't make any sense. In one scene there are small blue flames emerging from under the hood, so ... is there a second engine up front?
We can probably assume the Batmobile has an armored body, which will add weight (less if titanium is used). The weight penalty would explain the need for an enormously powerful engine (or two). If you, dear reader, believe the car to be light and nimble, how did it crash through a guard rail so easily? And why are the axle/wheel hubs so massive?
Force of Nature: The Dry 2 (2024)
Problematic Sequel
This film attempts to use the same story-within-a-story format that its predecessor, The Dry (2020) did reasonably well. Both films star Eric Bana, who is a fine (if unremarkable) choice for the lead. However, this sequel has a number of problems dogging it.
The premise of an UNSUPERVISED corporate-sponsored "team-building" back-packing trip becomes more and more questionable as the film progresses. None of the five women appear to have much hiking experience, and no one is adept at reading a map. As things go wrong, the characters squabble over scarce resources and perceived slights, which seems unrealistic when it devolves into arguments, fights, and injuries that greatly diminish the group's chances of survival. Bear in mind this all happens in an area that's dense forest and subject to bad weather, is famous for a serial killer, and is difficult to traverse by Search-and-Rescue.
In these films the story-within-a-story features an old childhood trauma from Aaron Falk's (Eric Bana) past. But using the same plot device AGAIN in almost exactly the same way feels derivative and contrived. To make matters worse, many key plot points are very predictable.
I think this film has annoying flaws and disrespects the audience, so I'm giving it only four (4) stars -- two less than I gave the original. Perhaps the next sequel will mix things up by having Falk travel to someplace he's never been to before and no one has been killed, so he's confused and doesn't know what to do.
The Dry (2020)
Engaging whodunit with several layers
This film successfully uses the story-within-a-story format. More specifically, there is the present-day mystery, and another mystery, much older, from Aaron Falk's (Eric Bana) past that rears its ugly head given it happened in the same town. The film jumps between past and present in a familiar way. As one would expect, progress in made in solving both mysteries.
The characters (including various types of louts) seem quite believable, and the overall vibe of this film is good. Some characters mumble their lines, and together with their Aussie accents, it was sometimes difficult to follow the dialog (NOTE: For an unknown reason, the C/C subtitle feature on my streaming service refused to work).
While I could see one of the reveals early, the film was interesting and had a suitable ending. I give it six (6) stars.
Batman Returns (1992)
Did Tim Burton not understand what made his first Batman film so good?
{The 3-star review "Awful" is worth a read IMHO}
I gave Tim Burton's original Batman film 9 stars (technically 7 with 2 bonus stars for Jack Nicholson). I've rated many poorly-done sequels at 3 stars below their predecessors, but this is the first time my score has dropped by FIVE stars. The problems are myriad, but the short version is the sequel is a lazy attempt to blend the original TV show's campy humor with the gothic vibe of Tim Burton's previous film. For example, we still have perpetually cloudy and gloomy weather, and a lot of architecture with giant stone faces and riveted steel beams.
Danny DeVito and Christopher Walken play painfully smarmy characters. Michelle Pfeiffer is mostly OK in her role; her performance is a clue as to what Tim Burton was going for. In other words, while her psychotic performance is over-the-top, it kind of works (despite the lousy costume). To be fair, Michael Keaton does a fine job here and remains blameless. Also, the excellent Batmobile from the preceding film is still with us, despite some minor changes.
MORE COMPLAINTS (including SPOILERS):
The origin stories of the Penguin and Catwoman are cartoonish and completely unconvincing.
The whole concept of the Penguin's penguin army is embarrassingly stupid. They gather at a common destination to launch small missiles from their backs. How is this better than putting the missiles on a handful of pick-up trucks?
The circus-clown freaks added nothing to the film. It's also irritating that despite how many automatic weapons they fired, no one was ever injured. I'm not pining for more bloodshed; it's just that this type of consequence-free violence-for-spectacle is just too Hollywood-esque to take seriously. While the TV show could get away with tamer versions of such stunts, it just doesn't mesh with Burton's dark gothic vibe. The tone of the film is just a mess. The first film threaded the eye of the needle with Jack Nicholson's Joker; clearly Tim Burton didn't appreciate how difficult that would be to replicate.
The idea that the Penguin could obtain schematics for the Batmobile and the circus-clown freaks could quickly modify and sabotage it is so unbelievable that it could be considered magical thinking. I DO understand this was a necessary (or at least convenient) plot point, but it's totally non-credible.
IN SUM, this sequel is a major disappointment. It could be considered an "interesting failure", with Michelle Pfeiffer being the "interesting" part. I give it four (4) stars.
Batman (1989)
Arguably the best GOTHIC superhero movie of all time
The pervasive industrial/art-deco architecture gives this film a moody atmosphere. The imposing statues and creepy gargoyles almost push it over the edge into Gothic horror. The POS American cars add to the proto-dystopian vibe.
Michael Keaton seems an odd choice to play Batman but does a great job. Jack Nicholson is fantastic as the Joker; he was already arrogant and psychotic as a lieutenant mobster, but after he transforms into the Joker he's gleefully insane.
This film (and the disappointing sequel) feature the ONLY movie version of the Batmobile that I like -- the ones in the later (non-Keaton) films are hideous by comparison. Interestingly, the Batmobile doesn't make an appearance until after 90 minutes have gone by, but when it does ... WOW.
I give this film seven stars for basic entertainment value, with a two-star bonus for Jack Nicholson. That's nine (9) stars total. Tim Burton did a great job here; there are a lot of small touches that deftly enhance the experience.
PS: FWIW, the actors who played Alfred (Michael Gough) and Commissioner Gordon (Pat Hingle) kept their roles for three more films.
Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire (2024)
Starts off stupidly goofy but gets better as it goes
It's a bit odd to have every living original cast member (aside from Sigourney Weaver and Rick Moranis) present, but then have to sit through Paul Rudd being unfunny for half an hour. Luckily, when the main plot (and villain) finally get some traction, the film picks up and is actually watchable.
Mckenna Grace is occasionally fun as the girl genius who helps save the day. But the cameos by older cast members vary greatly in quality. Bill Murray (as Professor Venkman) is arguably the most embarrassing of the lot. I mean sure, it's nice that he showed up, but he seemed strangely (and perhaps awkwardly) out of place. I like BM as an actor, so ... not sure what happened here.
I give this five (5) stars, as there was a hint of the original magic.
Deadwater Fell (2020)
Lousy ending punishes viewers who actually cared about the story
Earth to Producer(s): Some of us would have appreciated finding out what happened in the upcoming trial. Did you honestly think that revealing (er ... confirming) the killer made everything else moot? You don't think showing whether Tom is set free to manipulate and/or kill more people is relevant? Why? Could you not afford even a simple summary graphic at the end?
It seemed like the filmmakers couldn't decide if Tom is a sociopath (willing victims) or psychopath (unwilling victims). He kept switching his behavior. The main thing they got right was Tom's complete lack of empathy. But he seemed to make rather poor decisions for such a seemingly smart guy. While D Tennant is an excellent actor, the character didn't seem all that believable to me. FYI, most psychopaths aren't violent; it's just that the ones you HEAR about are the dumb violent sub-types. Intelligent psychopaths are very focused; they are able to tune out distractions. Many top surgeons are technically psychopaths, whereas very few GP's are. I know one who's a (very effective) lawyer (and realizes what he is). Sociopaths are very manipulative and are often skilled liars, so Tom seems to be in this category most of the time.
This show started out well; I liked the characters and found the story reasonably intriguing. Cush Jumbo did a great job. It's a bit slow, but still I might have given this six stars (or so) if the ending had been competent. But subtract two stars for the ending and one star for the seemingly clumsy underpinnings of DT's character. That's leaves three (3) stars total. That may seem harsh, but I feel like my time was wasted, and my story buy-in was punished. Is the screenwriter a psycho by any chance?
EDIT: I want to address a potential counterargument. There ARE some extremely dangerous malignant narcissists in the world. Elaine Parent, the so-called "Chameleon Killer", comes to mind. Such people combine the worst aspects of (skilled) sociopaths and (violent) psychopaths. So was Deadwater Fell meant to portray such a person? I would argue NO, as these folks are WAY more smooth (and difficult to detect) than DT's annoying character. For more on Elaine Parent, I recommend the 3-episode docuseries by SundanceTV; it's a bit slow, but interesting. It held my attention.
Winter's Tale (2014)
Not a single A-lister gave a credible performance
One can tell this movie was based on a novel. There are some beautiful thoughts in the intro narration, but it's downhill from there as the characters quickly go through what feel like mere highlights of a larger/longer story. The ending is sweet and appropriate, but sadly it's largely wasted on this inept adaptation (made worse by poor pacing).
With a novel, one can spend more time learning and appreciating the characters. That process is short-circuited in this movie; we end up with implausible characters who do NOT convince the audience to "buy in" to the rampant magical thinking. Will Smith (who does some fine work) is especially bad as Lucifer -- he brings no gravitas to the role (though I think he's trying -- is the director the problem?). But ALL the acting is so shallow and cartoonish that this movie makes any Twilight film seem like Masterpiece Theatre by comparison. Be aware that I LIKE sappy movies, so ... the fact that I'm panning this film should give you cause for concern.
Tuberculosis ("consumption") is perplexingly presented as akin to a deadly version of mono; not kissing someone supposedly prevents transmission. TB is a highly contagious disease and to have it so grossly misrepresented is irresponsible and borderline insulting -- and don't get me started on the film's obsession with body temperatures.
I give this four (4) stars. If you want to watch a sappy film that does far more with far less (given the modest budget), check out "Quest for Love" (1971) with Joan Collins. That was the tear-jerker this film WANTED to be (and there are interesting story parallels).
Mystery Science Theater 3000: Lost Continent (1990)
"Doesn't the action let up for a moment?"
This film is chock full of rock-climbing shots that act as padding. It's amazing that the MST3K writers were able to liven this up as much as they did, because there's a LOT of this to get through. There was an abundance of clever sarcasm, and this put a smile on my face.
"Would someone PLEASE tell the director about compressing time through editing?"
The movie itself is the usual B&W S/F trope-fest. The leading man (Cesar Romero from the Batman TV series!) is interrupted from his womanizing ways to fly scientists in search of a wayward atomic rocket and they find a mysterious island with a dinosaur-laden plateau. But the rock-climbing and camping scenes (which use the same sets over and over again) were cheaper to film, so that's mostly what we see. It's an embarrassing way to make a film, and the MST3K folks make fun of this mercilessly.
I give this six (6) stars for entertainment value.
Mystery Science Theater 3000: The Bubble (2022)
MST3K didn't have much to work with here
So The Bubble is a like a long, slow, boring episode of The Twilight Zone. The (MST3K) writers came up with a few zingers, and they are very funny. But otherwise, the MST3K patter serves mostly to keep the film from dragging (i.e., it's amusing but not actually funny).
This is my first MST3K review, and also the first review ANYONE has written for this movie/episode, so ... am I breaking some unwritten rule here?
This is also my first time seeing the lovely Felicia Day here (she seems right at home), as well as Patton Oswalt, who does a fine job doing ... whatever it is that he does.
Kelsey Ann Brady is a HOOT as the voice actor for Crow T. Robot. Her overly-exuberant comments (in that bizarre squeaky voice) never get old. I hope she gets more voice work!
I rate this at 4.5 stars plus a half-star bonus for Kelsey. That's five (5) stars total. MST3K can be (and has been) both better and worse. So there.
Wild Mountain Thyme (2020)
Pastoral romantic fantasy set in Ireland
I really enjoyed this movie, despite the strange accents (and the "cultural appropriation" that this film stands accused of while similarly inaccurate films about Italy skate by). The casting is great; I especially liked Emily Blunt and Christopher Walken. The music is good, but borderline repetitive.
There are some witty lines, undoubtedly due to this film being based on a play. A few lines involve dreams.
"I've been having such dreams. Dreaming about everyone who ever lived."
"Because the kind of dreams kids have make adults miserable."
The ending is suitably warm, and (speaking in "code" here to avoid spoilers) there are some "unexpected" characters present. DO NOTE Emily Blunt deliberately breaking the "fourth wall" and looking directly at the camera! I reviewed this carefully, and I think the idea is for YOU, the audience, to feel explicitly welcome in the festivities. It's a nice touch, and easily missed.
For me (who likes these sorts of films), my baseline score is merely seven stars, given there are some jolting moments that detract from the (cherished) sappy/romantic vibe. One involves a plane trip, another involves an "incident" with a vehicle. However, I'm adding half-star bonuses for 1) Christopher Walken's haunting expressions in two poignant scenes and 2) the lovely ending. That's makes eight (8) stars total.
PS: If the Irish angle offends (despite the "Once Upon a Time" in the intro narration), pretend this is The Shire or something. Meanwhile, I'm choosing to enjoy this well-executed stage-to-screen adaptation.
To the Wonder (2012)
Pointless and insufferable European-style art film
This tedious arts film feels MUCH longer than two hours. The only entertainment value is wondering what-the-heck the theme is supposed to be. IS there a theme? Or is it meant to be a Rorschach test for the viewer?
I'm amazed how existentially empty this film is. The joy-of-life that's portrayed seems hollow and depressive. It seems that no good can come from the shallow character decisions, and sure enough, none does.
The last line ("Love that loves you ... Thank You") is interesting, especially when combined with the jump-cut to (the place identified as) "The Wonder". I wonder what it means. Is this a subtle nod (or even a "love letter") to God?
The rapid-fire editing gets tiresome very quickly and interferes with the establishment of mood and vibe. The characters have exceedingly few lines. The camerawork is often shaky. It's like an artsy-fartsy perfume ad, with semi-intriguing jump-cuts and mysterious characters, stretched into a feature-length film, but without adding any actual CONTENT. It's just as painful to watch as it sounds. It's hard to not think of Monty Python lines (e.g., "But where is the ambiguity?").
Possible themes that occurred to me (but I have NO confidence in ANY of them):
1) Life is short; create your own meaning; treasure your happiest memories.
2) Cutesy metaphors (e.g., "life is a dream") are no substitute for wise decisions (and critical thinking).
3) Life is empty without meaning and/or religion. God is ALL AROUND YOU. Open your eyes!
4) Your turn. Consider something involving "lost souls", "fleeting happiness", or "the brevity of life".
My take? Consider finding a common PURPOSE as the basis for a long-term relationship. Also, look up the "Hot-Crazy Matrix" if you don't know about it. Seriously. Dude could have saved himself a lot of time.
To be fair, the ending DOES try to tie things together ... slightly. Also, the characters are (in my experience) relatively believable in many respects.
I give this crash-and-burn art film two (2) stars. Sadly, it does NOT qualify as an "interesting failure" -- it's just a FAILURE (but perhaps with the tiniest glimpses of something profound).
Wild Wild Space (2024)
Various CEO personalities meet Cause and Effect
This film set out to be comprehensive and engaging to the average viewer and IMHO succeeds on those terms. The you-are-there vibe is really quite good. You can vicariously get a feeling for what working at a rocket start-up might be like (I was in one briefly MANY years ago).
One observation is that the extreme visionary approaches tend to succeed. Peter Beck of Rocket Labs saw an opportunity and went for it; he (initially) envisioned smaller rockets than SpaceX at a reasonable cost (but with outstanding quality). Peter didn't let his lack of formal training stop him; he seems to be a of force of intellect -- interesting guy.
Planet Labs went for ultra-small low-cost satellites; in their initial experiments they used cell-phones as the payloads! They're a great example of *evolutionary* engineering, whereas SpaceX often does *revolutionary* engineering.
Chris Kemp at Astra Space seemed to believe he would be a player in this "space" (no pun) by sheer force of will. He's persuasive, but the company seemed to have a "me too" approach -- they wanted to be like Rocket Labs but cheaper. There didn't seem to be more to the business plan than that.
The movie does an excellent job of showing the evolution of these companies and how things worked out for them (it wasn't all good BTW). HOWEVER, the film doesn't go into technical details, such as WHY things went wrong; we're simply told things like an engine didn't fire (or cut off too soon).
This is a seven-star film for casual viewers, and probably a six-star film for those with relevant engineering skills (who might have appreciated a few more details). That's 6.5 stars overall, but I'm rounding down to six (6) stars due to some inaccurate statements about the impact of the Kessler Effect (which wouldn't prevent launches to higher orbits or other planets if it occurred).
MoviePass, MovieCrash (2024)
Repetitive yet doesn't answer basic questions
So MoviePass was supposed to evolve into something more like a profitable loyalty card -- AFTER enough market share was captured to have "clout" with the studios and theater chains. At least this was the initial claim (but eventually the employees knew it would never happen). So I have some questions.
1) Why SHOULD everyone pay a flat rate? Shouldn't people who see more movies pay more? You can counter with examples of streaming services, but their business model is more conducive to flat-rate subscriptions (e.g., they don't maintain physical theaters).
2) What was the "secret sauce" that would prevent a competitor from stealing their idea? What exactly was MoviePass bringing to the table OTHER than an arguably interesting vision?
3) Why was losing ANY money considered OK, given pundits kept questioning the business model?
4) Why was subsidizing theater ticket purchases considered a success and/or "disruption"? Wouldn't throwing money at people in other ways cause other "disruptions"?
5) Why didn't employees quit when things got out of hand?
There are interesting elements to the story, so I'm giving this five stars despite the poor pacing and lingering questions.
Gods of Egypt (2016)
Ludicrous but generally entertaining
Despite this movie consisting of non-Egyptians with vaguely British accents, I like the characters; there is chemistry, and some credit is due. Nikolaj Coster-Waldau is a great choice for Horus.
This movie seems very "american" given the underdog status of Horus and his band of supporters. I say this a bit hypocritically, as I LIKED this aspect of the film. One does have to view the movie with part of the brain disabled. For example, ancient Egypt is famous for never having discovered the wheel, yet Bek and Zaya make an escape in a WHEELED chariot. Meanwhile, elephants and slaves are slowly dragging giant stone blocks through the sand. HUH??
The effects are generally good, and the fact that the gods are all around 10 feet tall helps sell them as inherently different (and explains their tendency towards smug condescension).
I give this six stars for entertainment value, but I'm lopping off one star for having to switch my brain off to fully enjoy it. That's five (5) stars total.
The Devil Wears Prada (2006)
Unbalanced film about unbalanced people
{NOTE: The 3-star review "All the Wrong Messages" is relevant.}
TL/DR: This is a chick-flick with a lot of unlikeable characters, and was a mildly painful watch for a guy like myself. We get to see a bunch of scheming shallow people stabbing each other in the back whenever they can (oh goody).
PROS:
Meryl Streep plays imperious magazine editor Miranda Priestly and is entirely believable as a queen-bee fashionista. She believes the world revolves around her, and in a limited sense, it DOES. She gives a great performance here.
Emily Blunt, who plays "Emily" (hmmm), does a fine job as the conniving primary assistant.
Stanley Tucci is excellent in a supporting role. He is the only character I really liked and he steals every scene he is in.
CONS:
Anne Hathaway's portrayal of Andrea ("Andy") Sachs is meant to be the semi-comic focal point of the movie, but for some unknown reason Anne plays this character SO lightly that she comes off as somewhat cartoonish. It's the opposite of how Stanley Tucci approached his role.
Adrian Grenier plays Andy's boyfriend Nate, who's quite unsupportive of her success (see the review I mentioned at the top). He's really quite irritating; why did she go back to him?
Some of the spoon-fed plot points are annoying. For example, when Andy finally quits, she throws her phone in a fountain instead of simply switching it off or declining the call. The filmmakers wanted this pivotal moment to stand out, and resorted to a cheap (and very tired) gimmick that was right out of a low-budget rom-com. It sure didn't seem like the audience was expected to figure out any nuances on their own (gad).
While the (intended) message that the fashion industry is NOT real life (for most people) is good, the film seems almost pointless and left a bad mental aftertaste (yuck); I don't feel like I learned anything, except to avoid similar movies.
IN SUM:
Despite liking Anne Hathaway in other films and some fine performances by the other actors, this was disappointing and generally unsatisfying. I give it four stars plus half-star bonuses for both Meryl Streep and Stanley Tucci. That's five (5) stars total.
Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015)
WOW -- that ending
So I rewatched this (in 2024) and the experience was pleasant. I'm over my initial reaction of "What -- ANOTHER Death Star? Can't we have something NEW?".
CONS:
Feels like a remake. The meet-up with Han and Chewie is improbable and feels contrived. It's annoying that Rey and Finn instantly become competent with a lightsaber when Luke had specialized training sessions.
PROS:
Good music and visuals. Plenty of action. Daisy Ridley sells her character. Great to see Carrie Fisher and Harrison Ford. The meeting with Luke at the end is fantastic -- Mark Hamill provides overwhelming gravitas.
This is arguably the best movie of the third trilogy. I give it seven stars, plus a bonus star for the memorable ending. That's eight (8) stars total.
Trainwreck (2015)
The title is your first clue
This rom-com has exactly ONE funny moment (it involves Amy and Lebron). The rest is vaguely amusing at best, and disturbing at worst. The characters aren't charming or even likeable (except perhaps Brie Larson's sister character). LeBron James has a series of cameos and he does surprisingly well -- he has some gravitas, unlike the professional actors (hmm).
It's hard not to compare this to Fever Pitch, which also starred an SNL alum (Jimmy Fallon) in a sports-flavored rom-com. However, Fever Pitch had some serious cringe, so I gave it only 3 stars. Trainwreck is admittedly better, with casting that looks fine on paper. But there's just no magic here, aside from Tilda Swinton in a bit part. I give it four (4) stars, as it's often boring.
Downfall: The Case Against Boeing (2022)
My take as a system engineer
{NOTE: The 5-star review "Missing A Great Deal Of Context" is very helpful but misses some engineering perspective IMHO}.
Elegance flows downhill. By this I mean that if you don't have an elegant, well-thought-out concept, you pay dearly later when various sub-systems just don't play together all that well. With the 737MAX, the fundamental problem is that the plane was not designed to hold such large (diameter) engines, and this caused a series of trade-offs, culminating in the band-aid fix that was the MCAS system.
To be fair, "band-aid" solutions CAN be done relatively well, despite their inherently icky nature. But the geniuses at Boeing put a single-point-of-failure into this abortion -- the single AOA (angle-of-attack) sensor (although a second sensor was available as an option apparently). Combine this with regulatory-skirting corporate behavior (such as hiding the existence of MCAS), and you have a recipe for disaster.
The 737MAX pilot who wrote "Missing A Great Deal Of Context" made some GREAT comments, but I think he misses the point that the pilot(s) should NOT be responsible for making up for a bad design -- they have enough on their plate. There is NO excuse for bad engineering in a safety-critical product or system. None.
I give this documentary eight (8) stars for getting the gist of the story correct.