Reviews

The film is almost literally a redux of the first Star Wars... flying down a canyon/ flying down the trench on the Death Star. Hit a small exhaust port....both films. Missile batteries on valley walls/gun emplacement on the Death Star. Don't think/use the Force Luke.....I mean, REALLY?

The film is entertaining to be sure, and seeing the first one is not a prerequisite to seeing this one per se. But don't expect high entertainment...it is a good escapist film, nothing more.

The Scarehouse - Well, it has its moments - otherwise....meh.

SPOLIER ALERT

Two girls - Corey and Elaina - are pledging a small sorority - 6 girls total. As part of the selection/initiation process, Corey and Eliana have to drug some guy named Brandon and then take selfies with the guy and post them on social media. Whoever gets the most likes gets into the sorority. Unfortunately, the guy chokes on his own vomit while unconscious and dies. Corey and Eliana are sent to jail for involuntary manslaughter. The sorority girls concoct a story to keep them free of responsibility and punishment. The movie bulk is Corey and Eliana torturing and killing the six sorority girls for revenge.

There are several obvious issues with the film. Some can be overlooked like it is obviously low budget and the actresses playing the girls seem a bit old for college students. There are obvious continuity errors - one particularly noticeable one is when Corey blows a party horn in the face of one of the sorority sisters - Katrina - when she is tied up - Corey puts the horn down - but in the next scene, which is shot at a different angle, Corey has the party horn again. The plot has several holes in it - like why would the crime get so much news coverage - including when Corey and Eliana get out of jail. And what crime would the remaining sorority girls be charged with?

The bigger holes are basic script flaws. First, with one exception, the sorority girls aren't really evil enough to deserve death. One of the deaths seem stupid and unimaginative - like two sorority girls being forced to fight to the death using pillows filled with some kind of powdered acid. And the sorority president - named Jacqueline - is a full blown evangelical Christian who starts quoting the Bible when she is being tortured - actually put on a sort of trial by Elaina and Corey - but why would such a girl be a president of a sorority with a bunch of hedonistic girls, let alone being in the sorority to begin with?

One of the biggest plot holes is with Corey - throughout the entire film she comes across as being a completely hard, only worried about winning - including the backstory/flashback scenes that tell what happened the night which eventually lead to Brandon being drugged and dying - EXCEPT when they are outside Brandon's apartment/dorm room - when Corey starts saying "THIS IS A BAD IDEA - WE COULD GO TO JAIL" - which makes no sense for the character. And - warning - BIG spoiler here - Eliana and Corey have a suicide pact at the end - they hang themselves - but Corey has rigged her rope so it breaks/releases - so while Eliana strangles to death, Corey makes it look like Eliana stabbed her - so she lives. Corey somehow makes Elaina responsible for getting her into this situation - Eliana is an awkward person throughout the film, and for Eliana to suddenly find courage while Corey chickens out seems weird.

Indeed, the only scenes I find compelling are the ones with Corey, Eliana and Katrina - one of the girls who is being tortured and killed. Katrina oscillates between defiant and begging for forgiveness - and she seems to be the only one who really deserves punishment. The dialogue in these scenes is pretty good and the acting supports the dialogue. Otherwise, some of the "crimes" the other girls committed seem to been not talking to Corey and Eliana while they were in jail - poor, to be sure - but hardly deserving of death. Some of the dialogue between Cory and Eliana is interesting as well. The Eliana character is actually interesting - she is obviously a bit awkward and flawed, but she has regret on the killings.

There is also an element of the 7 Deadly Sins in this - one girl is anorexic, one is gluttonous, one is promiscuous, one lies a lot apparently.

Oh - if the Corey character seems like she has been given too much in the film. The actress - Sarah Booth - cowrote the film with her husband - who also directed. So.....worth a watch - once - maybe - several of the clips are available on the web and you'll get the basic idea, and the full movie can be streamed - so.......

The review title pretty much says it all...don't get me wrong, the film has a lot going for it - but........

SPOILER ALERT

Here is the thing - there are two main characters - Don Shirley - a world class concert pianist who basically is the Miss Daisy. Then there is his chauffeur, Tony Lip - the lower class Italian who gets a temporary gig driving Don Shirley around. In the course of their road trip, the two interact and wind up changing each other - sound familiar?

So the movie alternates between serious scenes and more whimsical scenes. The thing is - Don Shirley comes across almost like Sheldon in Big Bang Theory with times of extreme arrogance and needing things to be just right during the whimsical moments. Really, if you are a fan of Big Bang Theory, you will see echos of Sheldon and it is distracting as all get out.

The movie becomes serious when it talks about race relations in the 60's in the US. Don Shirley is a highly talented black person in an environment where a black is expected to be uneducated and eating fried chicken - like Hidden Figures, it becomes necessary to break that stereotype. These scenes are powerful and meaningful - but we have the same sort of conflicts we have seen in Hidden Figures and The Help - basically black people trying to do things like use the bathroom, eat in certain restaurants and stay in certain motels (the title - Green Book - refers to a guide to establishments that allow black people to use their establishments). OK - I get it - this was actually the way things were and it is an easy way cinematic way to bring the discrimination up the but this is getting well tread.

And as I write this - it becomes obvious that I don't talk about Tony Lip much. He is really a foil for Don Shirley - but taking that out - he is a stereotypical uneducated Italian - hooked up with the mob apparently, smokes and drinks, and will throw a punch in nothing flat.

At the end of the day - OK - we got a necessary history lesson about race relations in the Sixties...with well acted performances to be sure - but it is still a largely formula buddy/road film. Certainly worth a look, but don't expect too much you haven't seen before or new if you are familiar with race relations in the Sixties....

Like most guys, I went with my wife/date/girlfriend. Frankly, I was expecting to either cringe in my seat or fall asleep - neither happened. Still, when it was over, I enjoyed it but it was also largely formula at its root..

SPOILER ALERT Let's face it - at it's root the story is your basic uber rich dude who falls in love with common girl.We have been down this path before - think Love Story (1970), My Fair Lady (1964), Pretty Woman (1990), Sound of Music (1965) and even Batman Returns (1992). As such - the questions becomes what is the surrounding story and what are the twists and turns, if any, from the formula and how well do they work.

Well, the movie introduces several subplots. Most notable is the problem the main character's sister, Astrid, is having with her marriage - which basically reverses the main plot - rich girl marries a commoner - who has an affair because he cannot deal with feeling secondary to his wife's fame. It is an interesting subplot and commentary to thee main characters.

The main plot involves Nick, the rich son, Rachel, the commoner girlfriend,and Nick's mother, Elanor. This turns into the somewhat standard "parent doesn't approve of child's choice of partner so child has to choose between family/wealth or love" story. Here the story takes some interesting turns. Nick does propose to Rachel, who turns her down - and Rachel's explanation as to why, to the mom, is a psychological bomb going off - the scene is really quite good.

Where the movie breaks down are the other people Nick's family is associated with. They are all gaudy rich - and they act like something out of a cheap novel or reality TV show (Kardashians maybe?). Everyone appears to be engaged in petty games, mind tricks and even some over the top cruelty (there is one scene where they leave a dead barracuda in the hotel room of Rachel...I mean, really?) .I am not sure if this is to keep the story focus on Nick and Rachel, heighten the good character of these two by providing an extreme contrast, or......,

Indeed, the only characters outside of Rachel and Nick I really warmed to were Rachel's friend, Peik, and her family. They are so over the top, and yet Peik is so generally wise, that I found myself loving the scenes with them, if for nothing else to get away from the constant backstabbing atmosphere of everyone else. Frankly they keep the movie from drowning in its own drama......

So it is enjoyable - the ending is somewhat predictable, which you'd expect - everyone goes home happy, more or less. So if you go, either by your own volition or because your significant other drags you to it - well, you won't be disappointed.....

First, at the outset....if you are not a big ABBA fan, and/or haven't seen the original movie....don 't expect much. Here's why.... SPOILER ALERT The movie is basically the back story of a woman named Donna, who was the Meryl Streep character in the first movie. As such, the movie is a series of...well...flashbacks...except the movie switches between a recently college graduated Donna and her adult daughter as the movie progresses. Donna was killed off in the first film, so for the first time watcher, that is confusing because most flashback movies are between a future and past character, and it takes a while to get your head wrapped around this different presentation.

The writing is actually bland. It really is just a vehicle to get in the full catalogue of ABBA songs...ok, I get that...so really the story runs like a series of music videos strung together. None of the main characters has any lines that are memorable...indeed, the best lines come from this motherly owner of a bar and a Green customs official. And there are two pretty good sized holes in the plot...first, Donna sleeps with 3 different guys within a span of about three weeks or so...and manages to get pregnant with what will be her adult daughter in the film, so the daughter runs around talking about her 3 dads....but why did Donna have so much possibly risky sex? And she seems to have money to spend on ...oh, I dunno...food, clothes, lodging...where did this money come from?

Also, Cher and Meryl Streep are both advertised as being in the film....but be advised their screen time is rather short. Both show up towards the very end of the film. Cher is on for 10 minutes....and while she does sing, her voice sounds heavily processed. Meryl Streep shows up for the final flashback, which is actually very moving...one of the better musical sequences in the film...but her screen time is limited. This is almost bait and switch.....

So hardly a memorable film. If you are going with a ABBA fan...they will enjoy it... you.... well, don't think about it too much.....

I understand that what I am saying may seem contradictory - but here is why -

Spoiler Alert

The movie concerns a socialite singer - Meryl Streep - who due to disease is in declining health and talent. Her husband - Hugh Grant - lovers her but still manages to have a little side action, although the relationship falls apart when he tries to defend his wife. Finally, there is piano accompanist - Simon Helberg - who seems out of place in the entire weird situation.

The problem is the script. Large chunks of the movie are concerned with showing one gag. The gag, albeit serious, is the Streep character - Florence Foster Jenkins - cannot sing. That is OK, but for some reason the movie spends a ton of screen time with Streep singing poorly. Indeed, probably a third of the movie is just Streep singing poorly. Yes, we get it - she cannot sing anymore, her husband is trying like mad to screen her from negative experiences in order to help her stay happy - but the movie spends so much time on this and other lengthy bits that don't add to the overall story that it feels almost like padding. There are some interesting bits in the film - for example Jenkins carries a briefcase constantly that contains her will - but the case is made a big deal early in the film and when the secret is revealed it is basically a 60 second sequence that falls flat - no explanation as to why she carried it constantly.

The individual performances were fine - Helberg's especially - but they seem wasted in the movie overall.

So a disappointment overall really - too bad, because I like Streep and Helberg.

Every time Hollywood uses old material they have to make a choice - do they update the material to modern times, to make it relevant to new audiences? Or do they stick with the old stuff, which makes it a rehash of already seen material?

Frankly, it does both - and in my opinion, rather successfully.

Obligatory Spoiler Alert

First the storyline unfolds over a full school year, as opposed to dedicated to a particular season like Christmas. And yes, it involves his crush, as it where, on the little red head girl. As such, there are references to the old, and much beloved frankly, Peanuts specials. These are typically brief - for example, the famous group dance sequence from the Christmas show is included. We get references to all the other shows as well - Snoopy's dogfight with the red Baron, including his standing up and saluting his opponent when he was shot down for instance. These are there, but they don't occupy the whole film.

The rest of the movie involves Charlie's trying to get the red head girl to notice him. Here we find the Charlie Brown character at his best - trying hard, but sadly loosing through bad luck/fate. But he always chooses to do the right thing - helping his little sister out during a talent show when her act dies on stage for example, or admitting his test was not his in front of the assembly to celebrate his perfect score when he accidentally signed the wrong test.

And he is rewarded by the little red head girl at the end for these qualities for honesty and effort.

The movie voice talent mimics the original series very nicely, and there is the music from Vince Guaraldi of course.

The movie is not perfect - they updated the character animation to be more 3D textured, but Schulz typically used a Picasso type eye placement - and often times they eyes don't fit with the 3D texturing, particularly on Snoopy, which is distracting.

Still, overall the movie is very good - well worth it for adults and kids alike!

Frankly, I gave it an 8 because I thought the 7+ rating given by the users at large is accurate - not bad, but not high art either.

Spoiler alert

The movie is basically a satire of other spy films, especially the earlier Sean Connery/Roger Moore James Bond era. The film involves the search for a miniature atomic device, which was a lift from Thunderball and Never Say Never Again for example. The movie also seems to take inspiration from an old TV series called Search in that the McCarthy character seems to have a photographic memory and is linked to a headquarters by wearable sensors.

Melissa McCarthy - yes she is heavy - but she represents an anti- hero - someone who we think is incapable of doing what she does because of her weight. I realize that most people do not think she is capable of doing these things but remember she does do her own stunts which are quite physical.

The film uses a lot of swearing - frankly, swearing is absent from James Bond - and the characters are somewhat more realistic because of it.

Still - it has a lot of action and is pretty tense at times. It's enjoyable to be sure.

Well, I am watching the premier episode of Museum Men - another "reality" series from the History Channel folks. Right now I am very disappointed.

Why? At least in the first episode - it looks like they are focusing on the personalities and basically ignoring things like techniques and the piece parts of the creative process. It feels a lot like Storage Wars - not surprising since it is from the same production company. We see hard cuts and cliff hanging moments that break into commercials.

I wish they would speak more to HOW they are building things - they show polystyrene foam - they don't talk about how they are forming it, painting it, making it LOOK good. I realize they have to make the show appeal to a large audience - but they could of at least said - We are drawing the image on the foam, we use hot wire and shaping tools to make it take the shape, we paint it with urethane based paint...nothing serious, but maybe they could of inspired someone to pick up some foam and tools and try to make something.

To be fair - they do some nice educational bits in the show about the displays they are building. But it could be so much more.

Overall - maybe it will get better - but I am not hopeful......

UPDATE - I just watched a couple more episodes - my original opinion remains the same. It is mostly about personalities, and very little on technique.

Also I am having a very hard time believing that all these museums have 30 day turnarounds for projects. I have spent a great deal of time working as either a volunteer or a professional in museums and I cannot conceive a situation where this happens. Either a bunch has incredibly poor planning or else something has been dramatized........

OK, the wife and I went because of Steve Carell - frankly the theater only had a handful of people in it on discount night.

The film is formula 60's Disney - 2 dimensional likable characters, sight gags that are largely slapstick, and a family oriented theme.

SPOILER ALERT

OK, the family consists of 6 folks - father (Carell), mother (Jennifer Garner) and 4 kids, of which Alexander is number 3. He feels he is always on the short end of the stick when it comes to luck and accomplishments especially compared to his family. His family does not seem to relate to this well - so he wishes on his birthday they would have a fall apart day - and TA-DAH, they do.

The characters are 2 dimensional - not difficult to act to but done with competence nonetheless. The gags are largely telegraphed unfortunately - the film opens with the end of the day, and because of how the characters are dressed several of the gags are already set up and largely used. For example, the oldest boy shows up at the beginning of the film in a light blue tux - all we have to do is see how he winds up in this tux for prom night. Incidentally, his girlfriend is incredibly shallow and the boy shows maturity by dumping her when she dishes his family - predictable, done before.

The film has a happy ending - everyone is successful, Alexander gets a good day he wants, all is tied up in a nice little bow and you go home feeling good.

High points are some cameos - Jennifer Coolidge, Megan Mullally and DICK VAN DYKE - one of my favs and it's good to see him on the screen again in a Disney film, even if its only for about 10 minutes.

So, yeah - it is a safe film to take the kids - it is designed for a younger audience - preteen and young teen. It really IS vintage Disney. I rated it 6 stars only because it is largely formula.

OK, let me be up-front with this - I am a Star Trek fan. Nonetheless, I was expecting something more or different with the re-boot.

SPOILER ALERT

I understand the Star Trek reboot makes a lot of wink-wink/nudge-nudge references to the original series - for example, when Spock is being rescued from the volcano, McCoy/Bones tells him over the communicator "Shut up Spock, we're saving you!". This is similar to the classic line in "The Immunity Syndrome". For Trek fans, this is enjoyable.

The problem I had with the film was that towards the end it became a redo of "Wrath of Khan". We have a character yelling "KHAN!" - although it is Spock, not Kirk this time - and a character gets killed saving the ship by fixing the engines at the last second - except it is Kirk, not Spock. The scene in the air lock between Spock and Kirk is extremely reminiscent of the same scene in "Wrath of Khan". For people who remember "Wrath of Khan" - admittedly, Wrath is over 30 years old - this is somewhat disappointing since it makes the road the film is taking familiar.

This is not to say the film is not without merits. Benedict Cumberbatch is WONDERFUL as Khan, easily rivaling and surpassing Ricardo Montalban's performance in Wrath of Khan. The acting from Chris Pine (Kirk) and Zachery Quinto (Spock) are also quite good, as the film does center around them; the remaining actors, to be honest with you, can pretty much be average in their performances without affecting the move much. The special effects are quite good as well without overpowering the film or making it look stupid.

And there is some good old fashion Star Trek moralizing - except this time it is about the use of drones to kill folks without a trail.

But the familiar/predictable end of the film that knocks what could of been a great film into simply good.

Let's be honest with ourselves - this is a love story in the same vein as Romeo and Juliet and, well, Love Story.

OK - spoiler alert ahead

The move concerns two teenagers who are both fighting cancer. The girl - Hazel - has a cancer that is slowly destroying her lungs. The boy, Gus, lost a leg to cancer. Hazel starts out as tragic, but learns to live again by her relationship with Gus. Gus is an unusual character. He refuses to be overwhelmed by his cancer, or at least tries to make his mark on the world.

This is pretty much the film. It would be just another piece of mindless fluff designed for a female audience (and to be honest with you, there were about 20 women to every guy in the theater)except for the teenagers' wit. A classic line is when Gus, Hazel and a third boy, Issac (he lost both eyes to cancer) decide to egg the house of Issac's ex-girlfriend. When the mother of the girlfriend comes out, Gus announces that between the three of them they have 5 legs, 4 eyes, two pairs of working lungs and the mother had better get back in the house.

There is also a meeting with an author of a book that holds great significance to the teenagers. They arrange to meet him in Amsterdam. Not surprisingly, to me anyway, the guy turns out to be a total jerk.

Still, the film is not without some heavy handed references to living in the face of death. While in Amsterdam, the kids go to the Anne Frank museum. Obviously, Anne Frank is a teenager who faced death at a uncertain time. While in the museum, some quotes from Anne Frank that are relevant to the film are conspicuously presented.

Nonetheless, the film doesn't drag, thanks to the humorous bits nicely spaced into the film. It is largely formula, to be sure, although having the boy die instead of the girl was a bit of a surprise. So while it is good, it really is not anything spectacularly special either.

I saw the sub-titled version of the film in a large screen theater. Frankly I am not sure what to make of it.

First it is a Japanese film and is designed for Japanese audiences. As such we see some definite WWII Japanese trends in it - self sacrifice for example, when the main character does a suicide run on an enemy ship to destroy it. Ditto early in the film when one character sacrifices himself and his ship/crew to allow the Capitan to return to earth.

Along these same lines - there is a speech in the movie where the Acting Captain exhorts the crew by saying that WWII Yamato's last mission was a symbol of hope for the Japanese people. This was operation Ten-Go, which was deliberate suicide mission for Yamato to try and slow the Allied advance from Okinawa. This is when the ship was sunk - but somehow taking the imperialistic intentions of WWII Japan and twisting it around like this is odd, although not unusual for Japan - American audiences will find it disturbing.

Beyond that - the movie itself is not bad, although the last 20 minutes gets a little too melodramatic for American tastes I am sure. For most of the film, we get some good, anime style acting - along with an occasional burst of humor to keep things from getting too serious and keep the film up-beat.

The film also bows nicely to the original - IQ9, for example, starts out as an Smartphone sized piece of gear but assumes the characteristics of IQ9 towards the end. Also there is a nod to Robotech with the introduction of a Veritech fighter. The sets model the anime series pretty faithfully.

And they don't waste much time before using the wave motion gun - always a favorite. Still, I like the anime series build-up better.

Still, it was an enjoyable experience, but not particularly up-beat at the end.

First, let's be honest about this film - it IS about PL Travers. The involvement of Walt Disney in the film is rather minor. Seriously, Tom Hanks probably has about 25% of the total available screen time. Most of it is taken up by Travers' soul searching, her back story, and her interactions with her driver, Ralph, and the film composers and writer.

This is not to say that the film is bad - it is VERY good - but that is due to Emma Thompson's performance and a very strong script and supporting cast.

So if you're looking for an expose about Disney - forget it. Hanks only had to come up with a mild southern drawl for this role - nothing that would stretch his acting abilities. If anything, Disney is soft peddled in the film. The only part when the film shows Disney as being spirited, if that, was when he did not invite Travers to the premier.

Also, if you have any cherished memories about Mary Poppins - and I do - they may wind up getting skewered by the film. Frankly, Travers comes across as total witch - something that biographers apparently agree was a true portrayal of her. It is hard to tell, however, how much of here quirkiness was real and how much was fabricated for the film (her actions with the pears for example).

So, if you want to see a good film with some drama and interesting characters - go.

OK - I saw the film with my wife as usual - and really, it's just a bit of mindless fun fluff that should not be taken too seriously! I rated it a 7 - frankly I think it should be higher than a 7, maybe a 7.5 - but it isn't an 8 either.

Frankly it's a remake of Beverly Hills Cop in that you have a stiff cop (Bullock) and the rough and tumble street cop (McCarthy). And yes, we get the usual plot line where they adapt to each other's worlds. Many of the bits have been seen in these Odd Couple films numerous times, as well as some of the cop bits.

Really, though, McCarthy really dominates this film, not Bullock. Of the two characters, I like McCarthy's the best - maybe because she feels real - over the top, to be sure - but she wants to get the job done and protect her family. It is a MUCH better film than Identity Thief - better writing to be sure and it must of been designed with McCarthy in mind.

Bullock plays a VERY stiff cardboard character that is hard to warm up to. She is presented as arrogant and very formal as she comes into McCarthy's decided earthy world. There is enough back story to make the characters interesting. Both have back stories that are sad - Bullock was a foster child and loser/nerd, while McCarthy came from a stereotypical dysfunctional Boston family.

However,the on-screen chemistry between the two seems real enough. McCarthy (and yes I am a fan of hers) stated that she and Bullock got along pretty well, and it seems to reflect in the movie.

The film itself is violent, to be sure, and as a who-done-it, it didn't telegraph the bad guy too readily, although it became fairly obvious about 2/3 of the way into the film. Some good dialogue is present.

So, it is what it is! A typical Odd Couple/Cop film except the characters are female. Park your mind in neutral and go see it - it has enough action to be well-paced and enough humor to keep it light hearted.

My wife and I both just saw The Great Gastby - and we both were not all that impressed with it, even though she is a Leonardo DiCaprio fan.

SPOILER ALERT - Mild spoiler anyway The problem with the film is that while it is done as a period piece, and there are some wonderful sets, the film has an almost surreal quality about it. To be fair, it has been a long time since I read The Great Gatsby, so I cannot comment on how well the movie follows the original book. I am not sure if the book was intended as a surreal picture of the Roaring 20's or not. Nonetheless, the surreal quality of the film kills a lot of the believability/buy-in factor for the audience.

Also, as much as I like Mr. DeCaprio( and the film has gone through about 45 minutes of its length before he shows up, I felt I was once again watching either J. Edgar or The Aviator. It is almost as if Mr. DiCaprio is now pigeon holed into a particular role type - strong yet misfit individuals. Certainly this would mirror his role in Titanic.

Other than the role of Carroway, played by Tobey Maguire and really serves as the movie's main character since it is told through his eyes, the rest of the actors are unknown to US audiences. This is not altogether bad - certainly the actress playing Daisy, Carey Mulligan, did a fine job in her role. The thing is, the characters are meant to be shallow/two-dimensional, so really the performances don't need to be particularly deep or emotional.

So, really, the film doesn't get the audience to feel comfortable in its world because of the surreal quality. To me anyway, this kills a lot of the enjoyment aspect of it - it is almost as if the movie had a fairy tale/morality quality about it. Again, I am not sure if it was the intention of Fitzgerald's book to be this way - but it didn't play well to me, and hence my low rating of it.

I went to see the movie with my wife, who is a Melissa McCarthy fan because of Mike and Molly - she sort of liked, I spent most of my time looking at my watch.

SPOILER ALERT Here is the problem - the movie is a muddle. As others have noted - a lot of screen time and good talent is wasted. Melissa McCarthy's character comes across as a character you initially want to hate, but then feel sorry for - and yes she pulls it off. Jason Bateman comes across as a nice guy who has been screwed by the system - and he pulls it off. The rest of the movie, which involves Bateman bringing McCarthy home, is basically a lift from Rain Man, except it is so full of plot holes that it ceases to be believable, and there are elements thrown in that are frankly wasted. For example, McCarthy has these two crooks who want to kill her for selling them bad forged credit cards. They show up briefly in initial part of the flick, give the bounty hunter a hard time - but really don't do much. We have no good explanation of why McCarthy is is so much trouble with these folks. We have no explanation as to why there is a 50,000 bounty on McCarthy. And really, Bateman's character has forgiven McCarthy by the end - but let us think about this - he is making a relatively small salary, if he fails to clear his name he gets fired from his new job and could get a criminal record - do you really think that someone who works in the financial industry would risk having a criminal record and a shot credit rating? Sorry, if it was me, I'd feel sorry for the woman and be willing to say that she had a hard life and be lenient on her - but as far as letting her go - no, no way...And as far as his ex-boss making false accusations about Bateman that led to a criminal investigation, which was obviously for revenge - don't you think that would be grounds for legal action? I mean, really......

Overall, the movie fails miserably because plot fails the believability test. While it is true that movie goers suspend belief, there has to be a certain amount of buy-in to the plot - and the movie fails in this regard.

When the film was announced, I was worried that it would flop, since Disney would try to "modernize" it. Turns out I worried needlessly! SPOILER ALERT! The plot was announced as someone trying to reunite the Muppets after a long absence. OK, typical enough - but how they did it surprised me. Basically, the person trying to bring the Muppets together is the brother of Segal's character, who is a Muppet himself, although he doesn't realize it. They inhabit a place called Small Town - which has every movie stereotype from the Fifties that you can imagine, including a nice little song and dance routine.

Segal and Adams travel with Segal's Muppet brother to LA to see the ocean, and visit the Muppet theater. They find the theater is in the process of being bought by an oil man who wants to drill on the property. To stop him, the Muppets have to raise 10 million dollars within a week. The rest of the story revolves around getting the Muppets back together to put on a Muppet Show telethon to raise the money.

The film continues to poke fun at old movie conventions. For instance, when they are traveling, one of the Muppets says that they are running out of time, so to speed things up, they say - "Oh, let's do a Montage".

One example, that I think most people would miss, is when Amy Adams is is singing in Mel's Drive in. She takes a piece of bread, breaks it in half, puts forks in th pieces and does a dance routine with them on the table. This is straight of the classic Chaplin film "The Gold Rush".

The resolution of the situation at the end of the film, while happy, arrives at that point through a somewhat convoluted means. It adds to the fun really! My only complaint is that the Muppets are voiced by new actors. They don't sound exactly like the old crew (Frank Oz, who did Fonzie bear and Yoda, was replaced for example) - but time does have to move forward.

So, all in all, a fresh film for the Muppets. I am glad to see them back. To be honest with you, when they start the telethon, they open with a rendition of the old Muppets show opening number. A tear came to my eye as I remembered the joy that show would bring me.

Kermit at one point muses "I guess we have been forgotten." No, Kermit, you were never forgotten. I am glad to see you back. And, judging from the from the popularity of the film, so are a whole bunch of others.

I just watched this on cable - and really, it has held up rather well over time! Sure, the effects are dated - remember, this was an early version of computer graphics, and was done on a Cray XM/P supercomputer, so it looks rather quaint by today's standards. But really, the film doesn't take itself too seriously - there are wonderful bits of humor that float up that keeps things entertaining.

SPOILER ALERT! The film revolves around a young man - Alex - who is stuck in a backwater trailer park with his mom, brother and an assortment of folks. Alex has dreams though, but when he tries to realize his dreams, he keeps getting stuck. His main escape is playing a video game called "The Last Starfighter", which is located at the trailer park. Alex excels at gameplay.

The thing is, the game is actually a test to find creatures who are capable of being Starfighters. The film takes off from there.

Really, what makes the Last Starfighter exceptional is the writing and acting! The premise of the film is that you have a person who suddenly finds himself in the middle of an alien culture - and I do mean ALIEN - and rather than completely freaking out, which I am sure most of us would do - he manages to go along with it using a sense of humor. And the audience can suspend belief and go along for the ride. Look at the memorable quotes section - there are others that were missed - for example, when the robot unit that has substituted for Alex is making out with Maggie, he is an absolute klutz at it - Maggie is disgusted, and the robot's tell her - "I am not familiar with these glandular games".

So, watch this - it is better than a lot of modern movies and its low score.

I went to the movie with my wife, who is a devoted Tom Hanks fan. She was entertained by it. Me, I wasn't particularly impressed. Here's why Spoiler alert Tom Hanks plays an ex-Navy cook who is apparently divorced and has no kids. His character is a simple, affable man, similar to his signature Forrest Gump. He was laid off/fired form a mega-store because he does not have a college education. Basically he goes back to school to rectify this.

At school, he takes a class from the a professor, played by Julia Roberts (he also takes another class from a maniacal professor played by George Takai of Star Trek). Julia Roberts recently split from her husband, who sits at home and writes blogs while looking at porn and comes across as a complete dolt.

The two develop a love interest - somehow. What is very strange about the film is that Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts don't interact much. Why do they form a relationship, other than he treats her with a modicum of respect? Really, this is weird.

Much of the film instead revolves around Hank's character and the relationship he has with a much younger female who happens to drive a scooter. She invites him to join a scooter gang, for lack of a better term. The scooter gang helps him transform from a somewhat stiff Gump like character to someone who is comfortable in his own skin.

So, really, it's an OK film - a bit of fluff that will have a relatively short run and then head to cable and DVD/Blu-Ray. You may want to wait until then. Or, it is a good date flick if you're older.

Like many other reviewers, I had high hopes for this film. Like many other reviewers, I was disappointed.

It is not that the film is "dark". Tim Burton's dark side is sometimes inspirational, sometimes powerful - indeed, Edward Scissorshand left me in a funk for about a week, an experience that others have had from what I have gathered.

But this film, with the exception of the last few minutes, falls flat. It generally meanders along for some reason.

This is not to say that there are some decent moments in it. Certainly Johnny Depp is fun to watch, although I get the feeling that I am watching Jack Sparrow. Helen Bonham-Carter is interesting as the Red Queen, and Mia Wasikowska as Alice is fun to watch. A high point is Crispin Glover's portrayal as the Knave - I found myself interested in the character. But Anne Hathaway as the White Queen was a disappointment, initially coming across as a being an air head rather than a genuine regal character.

My other complaint is the general setting. Yes, it's CGI - but it feels a lot like World of Warcraft to me.

So, like others - I was disappointed.

To begin with, let us review the history of the franchise. The original Astro Boy was a Japanese anime that appeared in some US markets in the early 60's. Since that time it appeared as a revamped cartoon in the 80's and now a movie.

The character itself has endured in Japan - indeed, the Japanese have put a great deal of effort into building humanoid robots (think Honda's Asimov) partially as a result of the popularity of Astro Boy. So, having said this - how does this compare to the original? Well, frankly, it's disappointing. First the movie is nothing more than an expanded version of the first Astro Boy cartoon. In the original Astro Boy is built to replace a human boy who was killed in an auto accident. He is rejected by his father, and in the original, he winds up in a robot circus. He is given his freedom (along with the rest of the robots) as a result of saving humans when the circus tent catches fire.

In the movie, we see somewhat the same plot. Astro is built, rejected, winds up as a robot gladiator, and then is redeemed when he saves humans from a bad situation.

Where the movie departs from the original is in Astro Boy himself. In the original, Astro is very much aware he is a robot. He has some emotions, mostly loyalty to his fellow robots, and generally doing good. In the movie version, Astro doesn't appear to understand he's a robot. He doesn't have any indications about his ability to fly or his weapon systems for instance. I find this odd and is really a disappointment .

The movie also departs from the original in that it does have strong ecological and peace overtones and messages. These messages were largely absent from the original.

To give the movie credit, it does stay true to the original in key aspects. Professor Elefun is portrayed in a manner similar to the original. There are bits of fun thrown in from time to time – most particular, when the giant evil robot at the end walks up to a microphone, taps it, and asks – "Is this thing on?" And Gourdski makes an appearance – he was a running gag in the original, being a large jug shaped object with pig-like figures who would appear at odd places – in the movie he is on the side of a building at the end.

Overall, then, I find the movie to be disappointing. To be sure, it is directed at juvenile audiences, and for people who are not familiar/interested in the original, it's a reasonable piece of entertainment. And to be sure, the movie underwent a difficult birth if I recall correctly. The concept of the movie changed constantly, with directors coming in and leaving – most notably Genndy Tartakovsky (Dexter's Lab and Samurai Jack), who was associated with the project and then left.

So, I'd recommend this to anyone with kids – but if you're looking for a re-image if the original – sorry, it isn't and you may want to give it a miss.

A Christmas Carol – let's face it, this is one of the most powerful ever tales written, and has well withstood the test of time. With good reason, the story has been told many times both in live action and in purely animated forms (there is an animated version starring Mr. Magoo that is actually rather good in my mind). The challenge each time is to tell a story that follows the viewer's expectations of the story while trying to be fresh about it.

Thus, we have the most recent incarnation, done using motion photography of actors which is converted into animated video. So, how does this version stand up?

Well, it isn't the best, and it isn't the worst either. Zemeckis has taken an old story, stayed true to it, and created a somewhat unique version of it.

Now, I saw the 3D version of it. Frankly, with the exception of a couple of places, the 3D added a minor amount of interest to the story. To give Zemeckis credit, he generally didn't shove the 3D into the watcher's face.

Nevertheless, the problem with the film is that much time in spent in pure spectacle. Some was OK – when the Spirit of Christmas Past takes Scrooge back in time, the flying sequence is short, exciting and adds some interest. However, when the Spirit of Christmas Future takes Scrooge, there is a long chase sequence that is reminiscent of the 3 Stooges and Saturday morning cartoons. This disrupts the flow of what should be one of the most serious and scary parts of the film. Character portrayal was uneven. Certainly, Carrey's Scrooge is quite good, as was his portrayal of many of the characters. I will admit, Carrey has come a long way from such movies as Ace Ventura. He demonstrates a good range of acting in the portrayal of the various Dicken's characters.

But the portrayal of some of the other character's left me scratching my head. In particular, the animated version of Bob Cratchit reminded me of Mad Magazine's Alfred E. Neuman for some reason. And the movie's end seems sudden and left some ends loose. For example, Scrooge sends a turkey to the Cratchit family, but then there is no follow-up – what happened when this massive bird suddenly appears at his doorstep?

So, overall, a decent enough film – but with flaws.

As the director himself stated, doing a new version of Star Trek is fraught with land mines - there is a reasonably large fan base that cannot be alienated, and yet the film must have a fresh approach to to entice those outside the fan base.

In this regards, the film succeeds very, very well. In this movie, we have been introduced to legendary characters who we have pre-conceived notions, and yet the directors and producers have managed to break with the past by establishing a new timeline, as it were, in this Trek universe, thereby freeing this new series from the burdens of having to follow the old, classic series.

Sure, there are throw away references to the old series in a kind of, wink, wink, nudge, nudge way. For example, early in the film Kirk is making it with a green skinned alien - part of the somewhat humorous legend and lore of Kirk. We get the classic lines - Bone's classic "Dammit Jim, I'm a doctor, not a physicist" returns. We are introduced to Capt. Pike, who is eventually confined to wheel chair after being horribly burned.

Still, this is not the Trek of old. Vulcan is destroyed, Spock's mom is killed. Roddenberry's approach was to present his Captians as cool, consummate professionals, which was (largely) followed by the original Kirk and Piccard. This Kirk is much more temperamental. Spock in the original series is shown as virtually without emotions (one exception - original series A'mok Time, when Spock seems positively overjoyed to see that Kirk is alive). Spock and Uhura seem to have a thing going one. There are some more obvious sexual innuendo comments going on.

Some minor quibbles. I had the feeling I saw Capt. Noah's Romulian ship somewhere else. The set didn't make sense to me - lot's of wasted space (from the acknowledgments at the end, I hazard a guess that much of it was filmed in a brewery somewheres).

I recommend it highly - it's not a 10/10, it's not meant to be. Still, although the film is NOT high art, it's a return to basic Trek - lots of adventure, lots of action, and relatively flat characters - Space Opera, pure and simple. I enjoyed it (and I am obviously a Trek fan), my wife enjoyed it (and she is not a huge Trek fan). So, go!

Marley and Me - it's a good film, not a great film. It's falls into the classic tear jerker genre.

We all know the story. The film, however, seems less focused on the dog than the lives of the owners. Marley stands as comic relief, as a means to move the story along, as a way to mark the passage of time. (although, most of the funny scenes are in the trailer).

Will the film make you cry? If you're a dog lover, it will, most definitely. Dog owners have to confront the fact that at some point, we may have to have put our beloved animals down. If you care about your animals, this is not a decision to be taken lightly. One of the final scenes where Grogan is with Marley while he is being put asleep is emotional and hard. I am not sure if I could do that with mine.

Still, this is not a challenging film to act in and it shows. One gets the feeling that Wilson and Anniston are just doing their thing. Really, some of the best acting comes from the actor playing the oldest kid at the end and his dealing with the loss of Marley. Also, the most interesting character (to me anyway) was the newspaper editor played by Alan Arkin.

Some of the film shows a lack of attention to cinematic detail. Owen Wilson's character doesn't age. He is wearing the exact same hairstyle throughout the entire movie. Also, when Wilson picks up Anniston at the airport during a rainstorm, we see people in the background calmly walking around with no umbrellas or anything. Small stuff, to be sure -but distracting.

Overall, it's good - not great - but good. If you're looking for a date flick, this may be the one