Reviews

My family have all been fans of Harry Potter, books and movies. My wife recorded all seven books on audiotapes and our grandchildren have listened to them repeatedly. Now they are college students. We all looked forward to this film, the penultimate in the series. I found it hard to follow, and totally boring. My wife said you have to have read the books. I expect a movie to TELL me the story. Perhaps it was too much Thanksgiving turkey the day before, but I actually fell asleep during the movie. Will "DEATHLY HALLOWS Part II" be any better? We can only hope.

SPOILER AHEAD... Harry and Hermione engage in a sensuous dance scene, she nearly exposing tantalizing skin. Oh NO! A sex scene in a Harry Potter movie?! Unthinkable. I am not a total prude, but I found this scene inappropriate and totally out of place. It is after all a children's movie.

My wife has read Books 1 & 3 of this trilogy, and "The Girl who Played with Fire" is Book 2. I have not read any. At first the film was a little out of focus (was this just the projectionist, or an attempt of the filmmaker to be "arty"). Not a good omen. The the lead girl appears wearing nose-rings, quite off-putting for me. A little difficult to tell the bad guys from the police, adding to the confusion. Where and how did the lead girl learn martial arts? Not shown in this film. And of course a Swedish film - mandatory sex scenes, conventional and lesbian. Overall, lots of tension and suspense, I conclude the film is worth seeing (but in my book rates only 6 out of 10). In the end, the big blond heavy simply disappears. Was he hit by the multiple gun shots, did he escape unscathed? Stay tuned for the next film in the series.

A well made movie with scenes of the Great Wall of China and the Forbidden Palace. No complaints at all about the acting. The pretty Chinese girl who makes up the love interest (well, puppy love) lights up the screen when she smiles.

Now the complaints. (SPOILERS AHEAD.) Jaden Smith in the role of "Dre" with shoulder length hair in braids made us wonder through much of the film if he was a boy or a girl.

Mr. Han (Jackie Chan) who meticulously rebuilds a smashed up car, then demolishes it with a sledge hammer each year, only to start all over again. We eventually learn he was driving, missed a turn while arguing with his wife (he can't even remember why) and his wife and young son were killed, and so beats up the car on the anniversary of the accident each year. Irrational behaviour, and doesn't compare with Karate Kid #1 where Ralph Machio discovers the secret of Mr. Myagi (the excellent Pat Morita), a Congressional Medal of Honor he won in WW II fighting for the United States (against the Japanese!) Dre (Jaden Smith) is insolent after leaving Detroit to live in China, and is disobedient, leaving his jacket tossed on the floor and disrespectful to his mother when she repeatedly asks him to pick it up.

Mr. Han, the apartment janitor and maintenance man (Jackie Chan) agrees to teach Dre Kung Fu to defend himself against the class bully who beat him up. We do not have Mr.Myagi's "Wax on, Wax off" in polishing his antique car collection, we have "Jacket on, Jacket off, throw it down, hang it up", and repeat, over and over. Made no sense. The "Wax on, Wax off" routine was soon applied to essential karate moves and training. "Jacket on, jacket off" was just silly with no application to his training in the martial arts, nor apparently to teach him to be respectful to his mother.

The Kung Fu matches were dramatic but some of the body somersault moves were unbelievable and clearly created by stunt men with artificial assistance and/or CGI filming.

The major omission however was that the sadistic sensei training his students to give no quarter and to maim their opponents never gets his comeuppance unlike Karate Kid #1 where the diminutive Mr. Myagi gives the arrogant instructor of the opposition a richly deserved physical beating (effortlessy, it should be added).

In KK #2, the Sensei tells his student in the match vs. Dre (Jaden Smith), "Break his leg!". Poetic justice demands that Mr. Han (Jackie Chan ) deliver a severe physical beating, and if that included breaking his leg, the audience would have stood up and cheered! Still, over all, a movie worth seeing.

While my car was in for routine service, I took in a movie, Michael Moore's latest oeuvre, "CAPITALISM – A LOVE STORY", a painful two hours.

Opening with vignettes of people being evicted from their foreclosed homes, in one case 7 police cars pull up to a home with four occupants who show no evidence of resistance or violence. At another house the man complains to the sheriff that he was told he had 30 days to vacate. "No," says the sheriff showing him an eviction notice effective immediately.

In Pennsylvania two judges are sent to jail (HURRAY!). They ordered a county owned juvenile detention center demolished. It was replaced by a new private detention center. Owners received handsome remuneration from the county for each inmate. The judges began an express train of juveniles sentenced to serve time there. Juveniles who were interviewed in the film said, one had a court appearance lasting a total of 2 minutes, another 4 minutes. No defence arguments were heard, no mitigation of the crime or misdemeanor allowed. One girl was sentenced for 6-9 months. Keepers were allowed to extend a sentence without a hearing. She was kept there for 18 months. The judges got a percentage of the take.

Moore goes to Wall Street asking for an explanation, "What are derivatives? What are credit default swaps?" Traders brush him off. Consulting academic experts, one professor fills a blackboard with mathematical formulae that would befuddle Einstein.

He interviews the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, asking where are the billions of dollars Congress gave financial institutions to prevent economic collapse of America. She says, simply, "I don't know!" "But," says Michael, "You are the Chair of the Senate Finance Committee!" She answers, "There was no requirement that financial institutions respond to inquiries or provide financial reports!" And now for the really SCARY part. Captain Sully Sullenberg, hero of Eastern Airlines Flight 1549, the pilot who landed in the Hudson River January 15, 2009 saving the lives of all 155 passengers, the man who checked the isles of the aircraft (TWICE!) as it was slowly sinking to be sure no one remained on board, testifies before congress. His main concern is airline safety. Not unrelated is the problem of continuing cuts in pilot salaries, to the point where pilots are telling their sons and daughters NOT to choose their father's profession. (Much like doctors.) By this time, a large number of congressmen have departed, leaving a nearly empty hearing chamber. A tragic case in point was the small computer plane which crashed on landing in Buffalo NY killing all 50 passengers and crew. Recorded on the approach was the conversation between the pilot and co-pilot commiserating on low salaries, a senior pilot now earning LESS THAN THE MANAGER OF A TACO BELL! The co-pilot, a young woman earning $14,000 to $16,000 a year (depending on overtime), says she has a second job after finishing her flight working as a waitress in a café. Terribly sad and plain frightening for us as passengers.

I have published this capsule review to save you time and money. The film, unlike "Sicko" and his other movies, is almost devoid of his usual brand of humour. Any lighter moments seem merely retreads of his previous patterns and lame by comparison. So it is heavy going and depressing.

My cell phone rang. My car was ready. If it had been done sooner, I might have walked out earlier. The movie gets one star (out of 10) for entertainment.

For a strong, frightening and painful dose of reality, 10 out of 10.

I continue to marvel at the art of motion pictures. The scenes inside the Vatican are enormously impressive and beautiful. I can't imagine the Catholic Church granting permission to film this anti-religious movie within such Holy sites, so the movie sets to recreate the interior scenes are amazingly authentic. Having visited the Vatican, I am impressed. The crowd scenes in St. Peter's square are also convincing though I can't believe hiring all those extras. If these are stock footage scenes, they blend seamlessly into the film.

So that leaves the enormously far-fetched plot. (I had not read the book.) So many holes and implausibilities leave the viewer perplexed and completely unsatisfied. Great detective stories, a la Sherlock Holmes or Agatha Christie, at least conclude with revelations that explain a convoluted plot. Not Angels and Demons. Leaving the theater, you wonder why. But only for a few minutes, as it is not worth the effort.

E.g., why go to the effort to steal a container of anti-matter from CERN, evading tight high tech security and murdering a scientist, all for the purpose of planting a bomb in the Vatican. Wouldn't just a load of common explosives, much more easily attainable, have achieved the same goal??? Oh, OK, it is a matter of volume. Sorry, that just doesn't fly.

A well made movie. A silly and unsatisfying convoluted plot and script.

Daniel Craig was a poor choice for the next Bond. James Bond will always be Sean Connery (and vice versa). Subsequent replacements were mere shadows, but nearly all had style, class, and savoir faire. Craig is just a gritty street fighter. I don't recall a single smile or lighter moment in Quantum of Solace. The gadgets are missed (they were all fun). The clever quips are missing. Bond's and the villain's clever dialogue. E.g., Bond is strapped to a table, legs wide apart, with a laser beam coming up toward vital organs. Bond: "Do you expect me to talk?" "No", replies Goldfinger, "I expect you to die, Mr. Bond." The introduction looking through a gun barrel was discarded. It was a very bad idea not to include a sequence from "Casino Royale" with the death of Bond's love, Vesper Lynd. No one in the audience remembered this loss or why he may have been seeking vengeance.

And, finally (a spoiler). The hotel is engulfed in flames. The villain, Vesper Lynd's killer, is hanging onto a balcony with his fingertips. Bond pulls him up (seemingly by the hair), saving him from falling into the fiery pit.

In the next scene, Bond releases the killer in the middle of the desert, saying his people (the villain's) will catch him and do him in, and then tosses him a can as he drives off. What was in the can? Beer? Pepsi Cola? We learn as the movie concludes, the villains body was found, an autopsy performed and his stomach contained motor oil!? Yeah, sure, parched and burning from the sun in the middle of the desert, he will (somehow having found a can opener), drink the motor oil in desperation to relieve his thirst. About as stupid a bit of screen writing as ever seen. If he was going to knock him off, why didn't Bond just drop the villain into the roaring fire with a clever bit of repartee??? No, he just pulls him up, and sets him off in the desert for a slow (but uncertain) roasting, telling him his wicked confreres (the villain's) will find him and punch his ticket.

We go to see every Bond movie (and have seen them all) because they are hugely entertaining, exciting, and enormously amusing. All in all, just plain fun. Quantum of Solace was just grim, and lacking in all of the above. Some of the stunts were good, but stunts alone do not a story make. And finally, what makes a great movie is a great story. This one is a complete miss. We walked out of the movie sorely disappointed.

Oh, yes. Other reviewers have also complained, but I must add that the intentionally choppy camera work (a la the Bourne movies) demands a huge cry of outrage from viewers. What are they thinking??? Is this supposed to add to the excitement of the action? It does NOT. This is just some demented filmwork that film-makers think makes them artistic. It just makes them damn fools, and if we put up with it, add us to the list. Not a single one of the Sean Connery films required extra "juice" to add excitement. The story, the action, the stunts, all were outstanding and plenty exciting. When these nitwits get the idea that a good movie does not need silliness, they might just possibly return to making good movies. QOS should be condemned to the dust heap.

This is a scary film. When you see the fervor of religious fundamentalism of all faiths, one fears for the future. I quote from an earlier reviewer above, "You may have chills running down your back as you listen to Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Arkansas), sitting in his Capitol office, speaking about his belief in Creationism and the literal interpretation of the Bible. You don't need to be a Christian to be offended (and amused) by the commercial Jesus impersonators Maher interviews, and you may feel a bit sorry for the Pentecostals speaking in tongues. (Gov. Palin and John Ashcroft, neither featured in "Religulous," are members of that church.)" A candidate for VP of the United States (not seen in this film) wants to teach creationism in the schools, wants to personally censor books in her town library, God help us. (Oh yes, forgot, I don't believe there is a God.) Bill Maher did not have to mock religion. The people seen in this film did a fine job of mocking themselves. A husky Latino impeccably dressed in a $4,000 suit with accompanying bling leads a large congregation who appear to believe him when he tells them "I am Jesus Christ returned!" He seems to believe it himself when asked directly by Bill Maher.

And "Holy Land" in Florida? An audience watches in awe as the Crucifixion of Jesus is re-enacted. People are shedding tears, hands clasped reaching to the heavens, praying, (Oh yes, and rushing up to take close-up pictures as Jesus is led to the cross.) But wait, we are not finished. Believe it or not, there are dancing girls! Mel Gibson must have missed a bet when he made his film "The Passion of the Christ" when he did not make it into a musical. Never a believer, I always thought many hymns and all Christmas carols were beautiful, but I think this wonderful music is degraded when actually linked to scenes of Jesus being put up on the cross.

Yes, true believers will be offended by Bill Maher's movie. Those who need to question their beliefs the most, will not. Atheists and agnostics can only shudder at the religionists seen in this film.

Bill Maher deserves maximum credit, when at the end of the movie, he says only, "I am just left with doubt."

My wife is a dog-lover (I am not). We raised pugs for many years and they are all gone to doggy heaven now. When I saw a film preview that included a pug, I just had to get my wife to this movie. (She will rarely go to a movie - many are just plain bad). We had a GREAT time. It is a comedy, so let's not worry about the misplaced geography which I did not notice until reading some of the negative views here. I am a great admirer of the film-making art. The freight train episode is an amazing piece of film work. The attack of the mountain lions is quite convincing. Both of the latter we found quite convincing. Every pooch in this film deserves an Oscar as do the humans and the writers. This is a fine family movie, for both children and adults. Don't take it seriously. It is a comedy. It is an entertainment, and we just felt we needed something like this to get away from the depressing news - economic disaster in America, fires in California to the North and South of us. This film is just what the doctor ordered for an evening.

If you wish to see a psychopathic monomaniacal killer with a peculiar choice of weapons dispatch his victims in a totally cold blooded way without a trace of humanity, then you might enjoy this film. I went because I enjoyed Tommy Lee Jones in "The Fugitive" and he has been reprising that role ever since. I did not like "The 3 Burials of Esqui-somebody, and I did not like this film where he simply coasted and accomplished absolutely nothing. As the sheriff, he did not solve a single crime, did not make a single arrest, and never came to a face-off with the killer. In the end, a pointless tale. Big drug deals gone bad, and big money gone astray corrupt everyone they touch. We know. What else is new. I cannot recommend this film. I have ordered Cormac McCarthy's book of the same title as I am curious whether Hollywood script writers made major alterations in the story. Hollywood script writers are presently on strike. Based on recent movies I have seen, they should just all be fired and a whole new generation of writers given a try. They surely can do no worse.

All of the ingredients of a great western - stagecoach hold-up, townsmen forming a posse, wonderful horsemanship, rugged scenery, and an Indian "attack". I deplored the ending, and the incomprehensible turn-about of the villain (Russell Crowe). I immediately got the 1957 original with Glen Ford as the villain. A great actor, but he appears too clean-cut in the role, while Russell Crowe appears much more ominous though cultured, a fine sketch artist and bible scholar.

There were some definite improvements over the 1957 version. SPOILERS to follow - please see the movie first before reading these comments.

The film (both versions) opens with a stagecoach hold-up. The stagecoach driver seizes a gang member and holds a gun to his head, telling the robbers to ride off or else. Ben Wade (leader of the gang - Glenn Ford/Russell Crowe) instantly shoots his own man through the head and then shoots the stagecoach driver.

Wade is later captured and a half dozen men deputized to take him to the nearest railroad town where the 3:10 will take him to the penitentiary at Yuma. Rancher van Heflin/Christian Bale, desperate for money to save his ranch, agrees to join the men for a fee of $200 offered by the owner of the stagecoach line.

Rancher van Heflin's wife comes roaring into town on a horse and gig to plead with him to give up his suicidal mission. In the 2007 film, this is much improved upon. Crowe's 14 year old son (Logan Lerman) pleads to accompany the men taking Crowe to the town where the 3:10 train will bring him to the penitentiary, saying, "I can ride better and shoot better than any of the men." Of course his father (Christian Bale)refuses. On one of the several occasions where Crowe bests his escorts, he has seized a shotgun holding it on the men who would take him to prison. Unbeknownst to his dad and the others, Logan (the 14 year old)had been trailing silently all along and steps up behind Rusell Crowe holding a pistol,to his head, saving the day and the lives of his Dad and the other men. A fine touch, far better than the wife coming to town in the 1957 version.

Taking a shortcut, the men choose to ride through Indian territory, although advised strongly against it. Sure enough, they are attacked in the night by Apaches. Russell Crowe, having obtained a gun, crawls out into the darkness and dispatches the Indians, ALL THREE OF THEM (?!) In all of the western movies of the past, the Indians attack in hordes. Crowe later explains he did this to save his own skin.

Encountering railroad tracks being laid by Chinese coolies, Wade is nearly shot by the gang boss who recognizes him as the killer of his brother in an earlier robbery. Managing to escape, Christian Bale and Russell Crowe in a well timed feat of horsemanship and shooting toss a bundle of dynamite into the tunnel, setting off an explosion by accurate marksmanship ending the pursuit.

Ben Wade's gang are relentlessly following the posse to prevent them from putting him on the train, and the inevitable shoot-out follows in the town. Just as in High Noon, the townspeople at the last minute abandon the escort refusing to risk their lives. When the sheriff steps out and lays down his guns on the ground, holds up his hands in the air, he is ruthlessly shot down by Wade's second-in-command, a vicious killer wearing an old Confederate Civil War tunic.

Crowe, having failed to buy his freedom from rancher Bale, runs along with him to the train. Just as his gang is about to free him at the very train tracks, he turns and shoots each of them dead. Not surprising since he readily killed one of his own men at the beginning of the movies. (So why were they all so dedicated to saving him???) And then, Ben Wade and the rancher (van Heflin in 1957) run for and hop on the train which has started moving and picking up speed. The rancher, puzzled as to why he so willingly ran along and hopped on the train, asks Wade to explain. Wade simple says, "I've escaped from the Yuma penitentiary twice before." As they stand in the cattle car, van Heflin's wife (1957) arrives on the scene and smiles in relief that he is alive, that he has made it and that he will collect on the promised $200. At that climactic moment, the rancher, about to lose his ranch and cattle due to a prolonged drought, the heavens open up and heavy rains begin, van Heflin waves to his wife as they break out in smiles, as does the audience.

In the 2007 version, the rancher (Christian Bale) is shot to death in the rail yard. What a depressing ending to (until then) a terrific western movie.

We enjoyed the movie but Daniel Craig is no Sean Connery. Sean was suave, urbane, witty, and had savoir faire enough for all the other would-be James Bonds. He had class and style.

Daniel Craig is gritty and adequate. We missed all the gadgets - they were preposterous but fun. The prolonged torture scene in this film was uncomfortable, unsettling, preposterous, and NOT fun. As a physician, I can tell you no man would remain conscious and capable of making jokes after repeated blows to where it hurts most. No man needs medical training to know what transpires is beyond belief. Nor would the victim be capable of engaging in sexual acrobatics (as seen in this film) thereafter for a very long time,IF EVER.

Bring back the clever gadgets, please! And knock off the graphic and painful parts with no redeeming content.

Eva what's her name was OK, but incredibly young and unbelievable to be a serious auditor and financial controller for huge amounts of the British treasury, sent by M to oversee and grant or withhold approval for James Bonds needs (as far as money is concerned, that is).

The plot twists as to who are the good guys and who are the bad guys are trite and commonplace in movie scripts. The far fetched plots in Goldfinger, Dr. No, and all the Sean Connery films were so much fun, it just didn't matter if they were beyond belief. When you left the movie, you knew you had a good time. That is what counts. This film just rates barely an OK on that score. We can recommend it, but not heartily. It pales in comparison with ALL prior James Bond movies.

A great disappointment. Save your money and skip this movie. Two rival magicians appear to be one trick ponies. An audience will easily guess the secret behind their apparent magic. The romantic entanglements are entirely unconvincing. Interweaving of characters, the movie viewer never knowing for sure who is who, leaves the film-goer in a muddle. In the end, it is not worth working out the details. A waste of my time, and yours if you see it.

Actors are all fine. A bitter rivalry between Nikola Tesla and Edison over direct current or alternating current as the best means of transmitting electricity has just a bit of a mention without all the drama it took in real life. Tesla surprisingly well portrayed by David Bowie. Edison does not appear but sends thugs to burn down Tesla's laboratory. (Highly unlikely.) Too bad the writers did not see fit (or did NOT know) to show the first use of AC in the electric chair to execute condemned criminals was touted by the Edison camp as showing how dangerous AC current was. I would certainly have written this into the script as it would fit nicely with the plot as it developed.

I liked "The Illusionist" better as a film about magicians performing on stage, a better portrayal of the Victorian era, and a much better love story. This film never revealed the secret of the magician's tricks, a far better decision thins in "The Prestige".

My wife and I found this film to be highly unsatisfying. While the plot keeps you interested and busy wondering just what is going on, when you leave the theater, there are just too many loose ends that make no sense at all. (SPOILERS AHEAD) Christopher Plummer, enormously wealthy head of a NY bank has a terrible hidden secret. Profiting from WW II deals with the Nazis and hiding loot stolen from Jews, he keeps the evidence (including diamonds and documents with the Nazi swastika) in a safety deposit box in his bank. Why? If he wants this never to be revealed, why did he not burn and destroy the documents years ago? And the diamonds? Obviously, he does not need them - why keep them rather than dispose of them? How did the bank robbers find out his secret? How did they know to zero in on this very safety deposit box #232? Ace detective Denzel Washington also discovers bank records show SD Boxes No's 231 and 233, but no #232. Curious. He meticulously found time somehow to do an exhausting search of bank records to unearth this one curious fact. All the while dealing with a red hot hostage situation and bank robbers threatening to start executing them momentarily. Wow! Talk about super powers for a detective.

The bank robbers leave behind millions of dollars in loose currency in the vault they have opened. They take only the contents of SD Box #232, ostensibly for the purpose of blackmailing the bank president. This defies any rational attempt at a logical explanation for what the film depicts as a criminal mastermind, or for his henchmen with lesser brains.

Jodie Foster, using her political connections with the Mayor of NYC, gains permission to enter the bank which is under the control of the bank robbers while holding many hostages. She offers the chief bank robber a deal to buy back the documents he now has in hand, but he ain't interested. So what's his point (if any?).

My wife was offended by the arrogance of all the players, Christopher Plummer (Bank President), Denzel Washington (ace detective), and Jodie Foster, crack trouble shooter for high-powered problems.

The last Jodie Foster movie I saw, "Flight Plan", was also riddled with holes that made no sense at all. I thought I liked Jodie Foster, but I will probably avoid her future films.

Now my problem is that I can rarely persuade my wife to go to the movies. I cannot disagree with her on this one ... "A WASTE OF MONEY, AND A WASTE OF TIME." Be forewarned. A well crafted film, fine actors, lousy script writing.

I liked the Bourne Identity. Bourne Supremacy has just made my list of the 100 worst movies of all time. A choppy hodge podge, it appears to have been patched together from outtakes of the first movie. They should have left them in the trash. Wasted 2 hours and my money. Save yours. (SPOILER: A totally unbelievable car chase in Moscow with CIA, Russian police and Russian secret service killers in hot pursuit. Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) risks his life - for what? To tell a little girl her parents did not die by murder suicide as reported in the press, but were killed by him. She sheds a tear. End of episode. He risks his life, kills a Russian in the car chase, and for this? Stupid beyond belief.)