Reviews

The Ramen Girl is a poorly written film that relies on cliché, stereotype, and laziness on the part of not only the writers and director, but of the audience as well. I am surprised they didn't fit in an onsen scene to boot.

The scene of becoming emotionally overcome at tasting Abby's ramen is a blatant ripoff from the great 1960s film Tampopo, and it made me angry at such intellectual theft. It is also hard to imagine that someone who graduated Phi Beta Kappa, as Abby claims, would be so clueless regarding manners, customs, and social expectations expressed in Japanese life and business.

You won't learn anything about ramen or Japan from watching this movie.

If this is the series finale...

the wrap up of loose ends was executed very well. We knew before season 6 started that Neflix was not renewing the show, so we had time to get used to that sad fact. The writers closed the series plot lines, but left open some intriguing threads that if another production company was interested in picking up Longmire, there would be ample material to continue in a similar vein. Too often, really good shows end too quickly for resolution, and the audience is left hanging without resolution. Thanks for the nice wrap.

Oh, and what is the song at the end? It is so difficult to find music credits. I just discovered that the song at the end is Ends of the Earth by LORD HURON, found at https://www.tunefind.com/show/longmire/season- 6/54752. Apparently, this song is used in several other shows, too.

I have waited out the reboot series in hopes that what I am about to write would not end up being true.

However, we have now enough data points to posit a conclusion that is inexorable.

JJ Abrams is anathema to the ethos of Star Trek. He has been pushing Trek to be more like the far inferior series called Star Wars.

Star Trek used to be driven by story, narrative, and peaceful resolution. Now it is a disorienting miasma of cinematic tricks.

I cannot any longer watch anything with which JJ Abrams is associated. RIP Star Trek, I will miss you.

This is not, nor was it meant to be, an "entertaining" movie. It is about a serious issue that crippled the world and all economies, and it is happening again. This is an important film because no one else with as much cachet has ever attempted to deal with financial markets on this scope. The performances by A-list stars are impressively real.

That this movie even got made is like a fantasy, as I cannot imagine anyone involved thought it might make back the production costs, even if the big stars took only a percentage over scale wages. Thus, it comes to us as an offering of social responsibility from the principal actors, and to them, I SALUTE YOU ALL.

The stock market, the housing market, the banking system, are all fundamentally corrupt. That is not the spoiler. If you don't already know that then all of your assets are ripe for taking. The spoiler is that the same behaviour is ongoing and no one is even attempting to regulate it except Senator Elizabeth Warren, and that should make us all rather indignant.

If any film deserves to be taught from 6th grade through graduate school, this is it. Great production values and stellar performances.

Lake Bell and Simon Pegg seem to have a schizophrenic chemistry with one another, On the one hand, you have to wonder why she is so seemingly insecure as if having to have a man in her life is so important. And on the other hand, why would a twit like Simon Pegg attract a woman like Lake Bell. What mere mortal wouldn't turn to jelly in the presence or either her or my wife?

But Simon is so very self absorbed.

Well, without the suspension of disbelief, we would not have any romantic comedies, so deal with it!

It was obligatory to see Simon's mate Nick as the room server, or some other role.

What really put this over the top for both my wife and me was the final car scene and then the chase with the kids from the party. Well, and then the schmaltzy speech.

Great fun, and a reminder to carpe diem.

This defiles all the conventions of good science fiction.

There should be no unresolved paradoxes that do not arise naturally from the story line.

At 2 and a half hours, this is a turgid mess.

Matthew was competent enough.

The writers were not.

What was the Anne Hathaway character doing in the story? It was not for artistic merit.

The quintessential sci-fi movie is Blade Runner, of course.

But if you want a great British movie then you should see Local Hero

I've never seen "The Sopranos" so I don't have anything to compare the performance of Steven van Zandt, except as a musician. Thus, when I saw the name i the writing and producing credits I did not make the association. On the one hand, with all my Norwegian friends, I am appalled at the corruption, but on the other hand, it is intriguing as to how the blackmailing process is executed. We also like it that the Norwegian characters answer in their native language and that everyone is so polylingual. This is a great series that American audiences could use as an intro to European sociology. The scenery of Norway should also be included in the credits, as it is beautiful. If Trond (Torgeir) is excluded from subsequent episodes, I will be severely disappointed.

The basic premise of this movie is how the mortgage backed securities packages that were collateralized into tranches led to the collapse of the economy in 2007.

The company could be Bear Stearns or Lehman Brothers (probably the latter), and follows what they did to precipitate the crisis.

However, the writing of the script does not make the linkage to actual events, which is a fatal flaw.

If we are to learn from the failures of the market, we need to have a more direct connection between the events and the consequences.

It seems the writers wanted to be allegorical, but this begs to be more historical and factual about how the trading offices actually work.

I knew Allen Ginsberg. There is a famous photo of us together. I have handled the roll of the typewritten copy of Jack Kerouac's manuscript, housed in the Lilly Library at Indiana University, and have worked with many of the people in his milieu. The focus on the sex in this film is SOOO distorted. At the time in the late 40's and early 50's, the sex was only about 10% of the focus, whereas in the film it is about 90% of the focus. What is important about the era is the rise of the beats, which is short for the "beatific people", gentle, peaceful souls who gave rise to equal rights for black people, women, and LGBT people.

What is shortchanged in this film is the intellectual dialog that took place, the framing of the questions, the fact that drug experimentation was in it's infancy and there was not the border established then that we (fairly sober people) today recognize.

Jack was a reporter on the beats. Allen was a beat. Neal Cassidy was not. He was the outside edge that was beyond the pale, as was Wm Burroughs.

There are characters that give a positive shape to the direction of our cultural evolution, and there are characters that provide the cautionary tale of overreaching, like Icarus. Jack's writing was of the former. His end is of the latter.

This is one of the worst movies ever made and I like a lot of the cast, just not here.

This is such a horribly written movie that the screenwriters should half to sacrifice a pound of flesh.

There is nothing to recommend it.

All the moves are telegraphed, Adam Sandler has never been worse, which, for him, is saying a lot.

This movie banked on the names. They should have put more money into the writers.

I don't know why I have to write more to pan such bad movie, but that is what is required.

Star Trek has always been a franchise of intellect over action, not that action hasn't been a necessary element in storytelling. I fault JJ Abrams directly for this disappointing, and least effective, addition to the TREK pantheon. The cast was wasted on a storyline that had been told twice before--Khan and his ubermenschen--and a total waste of the great Benedict Cumberbatch.

If this movie had been cut to 1 hour 30 minutes, it would have been much better. For instance, the airlock-to-airlock sequence went on far too long with the dodging of debris and the faux tension that they wouldn't make it, let alone the cuts to Scotty (Simon Pegg) on the hangar deck; the gratuitous lingerie scene between Kirk and Carol Marcus; the race to realign the reactor and subsequent saccharin dying scene stolen from a previous film; all of these signs of a lazy director.

Fie on you JJ. I had thought perhaps you would elevate the Star Wars movie you were directing, but no, you demeaned TREK. You damaged the franchise, and it will be difficult for it to regain credibility after your disastrous mismanagement of "Into Darkness". I should have been so much better, it had the cast and elements of the script that could have made it so. This was a clichéd POS, and only because it is Star Trek do I give it a rating as high as 5.

Harrison Ford approaches Leslie Anne Down with a funny line.

"Do you know how to get to Buckminster Castle?" This has always struck me as funny.

To me, that is a meme that ought to enjoy wider hilarity.

On the whole this was a very forgettable movie.

It wasn't bad, it just wasn't very compelling.

It seemed to only be marking time, and perhaps banking on Harrison Ford's new stardom in the Star Wars mess.

The writer/director Peter Hyams has made some films worthy enough to merit attention.

"2010: The year we make contact" a sequel to 2001: "A Space Odyssey" was decent.

"Outland" with Sean Connery was pretty riveting.

One thing that seems to run consistent is that the scripts are pretty lackluster.

As always, and as it should be, writing drives any story-telling vehicle.

Guy Ritchie is the wrong director for this character.

We saw this at xmas and while it was entertaining, and there were some very useful inventions in the cinematic experience, many scenes were overwrought with CGI.

To wit: the fight scene on the bridge totally lacked continuity and was, as a locus and so obviously CGI severely detracted from the story and was, in my opinion, unnecessary.

To his credit, however, the scenes where Holmes maps his strategy in his mind's eye and it is preplayed on the screen, were positively genius.

Robert Downey, Jr. is indeed a worthy, nay, necessary embodiment of Holmes, and Jude Law is a believable Watson.

There is no doubt this film is positioned as a franchise with as many iterations has Doyle had stories, and a prequel would be most satisfactory.

This is an awful movie. It doesn't start our that way but you are going to be disappointed by this piece of dreck.

We had high hopes because we found it in our library under "French Cooking" and there was nothing to warn us.

I am warning you now. This is slow, dark (as in underlit for cinema) and without a payoff.

This takes place during the French revolution where the guillotine plays a major role. An English criminal disguised as a monk comes to a French estate in a crate and becomes a Roux. No nudity. Then he serves his paramour at a banquet before meeting his fate.

Blame the writer and the director for this abysmal mess.

We liked this movie because it was about relationships.

You really believed in the family relationships and the friendships.

However, I can see through some of the plot holes in this film.

It is sweet, but the script is not very deep or strong.

One of the redeeming qualities it the nudity, without which this movie might be a bit tedious and untrue to the era which it was trying to depict (1968).

It did not escape my attention that it was supposed to take place in Eilat, before detente with Egypt, which was then a backwater hoping for the tourist trade, which now has come to pass.

The most salient feature is that it highlights some of the tensions between some of the immigrant communities that helped to populate Israel, some policies relating to that have dispossessed Palestinians from their homes.

However, let me be clear, this movie shows a part of bonding amongst the many different parts of diaspora Jews, and that is probably the best thing.

Having been a scholar of the period, I find that this film represents a much more plausible explanation for the source of the Arthurian legend. The general plot is historically accurate, although the fleshing of the characters is no more realistic than the next best historical treatment, namely Excalibur, by John Boorman, which I find to be a much superior cinematic experience.

My greatest quibble with King Arthur is the presence of and performance by Keira Knightly. Who doesn't adore her? I certainly don't. But she is miscast here, and has absolutely zero chemistry with Clive Owen, who is superb in the role and in the many stunts he performs. I would say that Keira is not feral enough for the plot, or that she could have been invested as a successor to Merlin to explain her presence as a Pictish princess worthy of dynastic union. The ending wedding scene is quite contrived, though foreshadowed, and ultimately unbelievable.

The stunts and fight scenes are first rate. The camaraderie of the knights is believable, as is the "Sarmatian" element as a plot device. The interjection of Pelagius, and his doctrine, which is the evocation of free will, is perhaps the most redeeming quality of the script (see the wiki article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagius).

Idea: 10 Script: 7 Director: 8 Producer: 5 Cast (except Keira): 10

I adore Keira, but this just was not her vehicle--but remember, too, this was when she was 17 and her first film after "Bend it Like Beckham".

What a wasted cast.

This is one of the most disappointing films I've seen.

Usually Roger Ebert does not let me down, but I feel cheated after seeing this movie.

The only thrill is seeing Elizabeth banks in her bra. That is a sorry statement about this movie. It held so much promise, but it was like dry humping a transvestite.

This is self absorbed tripe.

I cannot express deeply enough my bitterness at having sat through this movie, and hope I can forewarn you of the same disappointment.

It wasn't until I saw Sidney Pollack in the picture that I ever connected him to this film. This is his worst possible movie. Absolute dreck. The dialog is wooden and unbelievable, the plot is unbelievable.

Kristen Scott Thomas is wasted in this movie. There is nothing about her character that makes you even want to believe in this story.

Harrison Ford is like on Valium. There is no life in his eyes.

I blame Sidney Pollack for the failure of this movie. The script is awful, and he is too smart to not see that. So it smacks of some kind of payoff, whether of a studio obligation or something else, but this is just BLOODY ROTTEN!

This is simply one of the worst movies ever made, and certainly the worst food related movie ever made.

The performances were wooden, the plot contrived, and there was absolutely no chemistry between the leads.

I am sure the great Patricia Clarkson, the only shining aspect of the film, is embarrassed.

This is a blot on her otherwise outstanding performance record.

There was nothing believable about the film.

Sarah Michelle Gellar looks like she cannot even boil water, let alone command a kitchen.

The best line of the film, when it is discovered that Gellar's food is magical, is by her sous chef. He says, "Make all the women fall in love with me and make the men give me their wallets." This film wants to be an urban "Like Water for Chocolate", but fails so miserably that it will make chefs weep with futility.

The vignettes of Lake Wobegone are woven into the fabric of the screenplay but not explicitly portrayed. The Virginia Madsen character was, in my opinion, a stroke of shear genius that cements the story line of the movie and weaves in the ethereal quality of the Lake Wobegone tales that Garrison tells.

Kevin Kline, as an alter ego, is so comically wonderful with his pratfalls and self-absorption, yet he brings subtlety and nuance to the role.

Tim Russell is absolutely magnificent in his role as stage manager and deserves consideration for Best Supporting Actor, as does Tom Keith for his sound effects. His "off stage" antics were just a riot--as if his "idiot savant" gift were his only means of communication.

The only clinker in the ensemble was Lindsay Lohan. Clearly this is the best performance she has turned in to-date, but her talent is just not in the same league as any of the other actors and her inclusion is the reason why this movie does not score a 10 in my rating.

I've never been a fan of Meryl Streep, but I must say that her performance here, as a singer and as a character, qualify her as a true national asset. She is mesmerizing as Yolanda Johnson and plays off and with Lily Tomlin with such brilliance that she deserves another Best Actress nomination for this role.

Garrison Keillor, writer, actor, professor, has written a masterpiece. Radio is important. Every show is your last. Get on with it. This is a truly brilliant, wonderful script.

To his credit, this movie seems to have more Garrison than Altman. I don't know what Robert Altman's motivation was for doing this film, but I am glad he undertook the project, for I fear that no other director could have given it the breath that has been achieved. There were the satisfyingly long one shots and not a lot of jump edits that are hallmarks of Altman, and (although I did not look for it specifically, but rather intuit) good tracking shots that give the viewer a sense of depth to the picture.

We saw A Prairie Home Companion in a packed house at 2:30 on a Sunday on opening weekend. The audience skewed a little older but there were many families with younger children in attendance, too. I hope every listener sees the film, and I hope every viewer of the film becomes a listener. This is a very special movie.

I had the chance to see this again recently on cable TV.

Harrison Ford was very wooden and not convincing as a driven, business only mogul.

Julia Ormond was charming and very emotional. She carried the movie entirely, while Greg Kinnear provided a wonderful foil. However, his about face in the last reel was unbelievable.

I cannot see a woman who was treated as the Ormond character was ever forgiving the manipulation that she endured.

I did not expect a director of Sidney Pollack's caliber to let the movie slip so badly, as I have high regard for him.

I wasn't expecting much from this little movie but was very pleasantly surprised by the themes explored in the script.

In many ways it is very formulaic: however, the execution was very above par and had me laughing and chortling quite a few times.

I would love to know how Ed Decter got so many of the great cameo appearances of A and B list stars to poke fun of themselves in their roles.

Zoey Deschanel looks so young in the film--great makeup crew.

Two great scene gags of Patton and Braveheart.

Don't expect a lot, but be amused.