Reviews

These types of "alternate history", or perhaps 'alternate future history' movies usually intrigue me. And, on that level, the movie was worth the time. At least it wasn't an MCU superhero fantasy.

It's not a spoiler to say that it is supposed to be a warning against the course that America is on, at least with polarized politics. But what this movie really is about is the ethics of journalism. It joins many other War Correspondent films such as The Year Of Living Dangerously and Salvador, with a bit of Whisky Tango Foxtrot. This one, Civil War, features the perspectives of 4 main characters with a smattering of others for comraderie.

Placing the war WITHIN the USA while covering it as an almost foreign conflict is jarring, however. Allusion is made to the recent events of Charlottesville in 2017, and the White House attack of January 6th (2021). In that way, the story seems to extend into the inevitable outcome of the current social trajectory in America which could come to a head during the 2024 election battle between Biden and Trump (if it does come down to those two).

I am in Canada, and despite our own political disenchantment, there really is no parallel to this sort of civil unrest and violence, given the comparative lack of guns in civilian hands here, and our cultural milieu that diverged from the US when it had a Revolution against British rule and we stayed a colony within the Commonwealth, at least in spirit. Canada has "Peace, order, and good government" (supposedly) whereas America champions "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness".

I did not find this movie worked as a realistic scenario, however, in how journalists behave under fire, risking their lives. Kirsten Dunst was very good as the lead, and a short sequence with Jesse Plemons (her real-life husband) was excellent, and the only.15 minutes of the movie that I thought was accurately prophetic.

Therefore, I can only rate it a 6, and was a bit let down from my hopes for a rousing action-drama that made sense.

Even though Capra didn't spend much time in the courtroom, he made being a lawyer look very fun - he was much more of a private eye in his methods and daily routines, however.

This was one of the best, and unfortunately short-lived, series on the NBC roster in the Fall of 1978. The only other one that I recall was David Cassidy: Man Undercover (following the excellent Police Story episode the previous Spring). But Cassidy wanted that show to end as he hated being back in a TV series.

The rest of the slate - all of them - were cancelled by Fred Silverman when he was hired to revamp NBC's Prime Time programming, so instead we got Supertrain and Hello, Larry in the Spring of 1979 and Capra only ran just 13 episodes through to early January. There were some very good episodes, featuring the usual roster of current character actors appearing in many shows produced by Universal Studios, as well as a smattering of semi-retired or washed up has beens getting one more paycheck to bolster their retirement expenses.

Some have criticized the casting of Baggetta as the lead, but I always thought he was a compelling actor, having guest starred all over the place in the 70s, and with a later very memorable role on Hill Street Blues as a vicious detective.

Anyway, Eddie Capra got cancelled, and I became a cop, not a lawyer, after a stint as a private eye myself. But real life is much different than television. Yet, the Capra series was a brief flight on what could have been a long-running mystery/detective show in much the same vein as Columbo, except that we were tasked with figuring out the murderer(s) along with Eddie. A shame it disappeared so quickly.

Melissa McCarthy does not always deliver, but she is at her best here in a well-written, ultimately 'feel good' movie with fine supporting players - particularly. Paapa Essiedu whom I was previously unfamiliar with. He reacts well to McCarthy's schtick.

The other films that I liked McCarthy in were The Heat with Sandra Bullock (who also played the straight foil), and Can You Ever Forgive Me?, which was a drama.

I gave this film a 9, as I found it always entertaining, funny, and unpredictable. I tried to guess where it might end up based upon the usual storylines, and was pleasantly surprised.

I avoided seeing this for over 40 years, though I had lived in Northern B. C. in 1978-79 near where it was filmed. In fact, much of the cast had telephones hooked up to their rooms in Stewart, B. C. for the duration of the shoot, and therefore when the new phone books came out in 1979 they were listed under their well-known names (but, of course, the lines had been disconnected by then).

Anyway, I found this to be quite a good movie and better than most other Maclean adaptations. Certainly the production values, direction, editing, sound, and cinematography are all very good.

The acting is at times questionable, but depends on how much you like the actors: I have never found Donald Sutherland compelling.

This has to be one of the lowest rated episodes, of a Season (4) that saw sharply declining ratings. HOWEVER, it was a change from the typical plot outline, and pretty much a parody. To include the Police Academy actor who played "Capt Mauser" as the main villain only enhanced the buffoonish story. Further, 'Hannibal' took an acting role that was far beyond anything he'd done before.

I think the episode is worth watching just for the more relaxed and cartoon-like atmosphere, though I guess you'd have to be in the mood and catch it on a day when you're receptive to seeing something other than the A-Team building a tank and taking on a biker gang.

This is BAD.

Aykroyd, other than in The Blues Brothers (1980) and Ghostbusters (1984), has never risen to any level of acting skill. Here he is his typical self. Not entirely unwatchable (that would be Nothing But Trouble, from 1991), but not as good as he was playing the antagonist in Neighbors (1981).

Candy is a whole other level(s) of comedy and pathos. He excels as the doofus in Uncle Buck, Planes Trains and Automobiles, and many other excellent supporting roles such as in The Blues Brothers, Stripes, and National Lampoon's Vacation. He also maintained a streak of semi-leading roles in lesser known or successful features like Armed and Dangerous (1985) and a few others thoughout the 80s and early 90s before his untimely death in 1994.

Anyway, this movie sucks.

The last time I saw a production this good, it was David Mamet's Spartan (2004, with Val Kilmer). I could have sworn Mamet must be involved here (he isn't), but the writers did an excellent job adapting a Thomas Perry stand alone novel which I have not read.

The actors, naturally, are superb. I'm sure glad Jeff Bridges is the most fit 70-something this side of Clint Eastwood, clothed appearances to the contrary. Lithgow, Brenneman, and some lesser know actors deliver great performaces as well.

Most surprising is the directing, which is excellent as well considering the past experience of the director was some CGI-laden Spiderman movies. This guy knows how to do his job very well! So well, you must turn the sound off on a repeat viewing if you want to truly notice it - the sure test of a solid movie (though the soundtrack here is very complimentary).

An absolute 10/10 from me. While familiar enough not to lose viewers, it is necessary to pay attention, especially when few words are spoken. There is some necessary exposition, and requisite action and violence, but this is so far removed from the normal "ex spy" tropes that it is rewarding for fans of the genre. If you like Amazon's Jack Ryan, this ain't it....

I love the Bourne movies, even though the "plot" is continually Who Am I?

There was one with Jeremy Renner that DID elaborate on the scenario, and it is my favorite.

This movie, teaming 2 of the best actors working today, as well as terrific supporting actors like JD Pardo who don't get nearly enough visibility or screen time, is like the Bourne movies but with a plot - even if it is not very original itself.

The movie also has numerous impausibilities and breaks several rules of covert operations and tactical assault in its portrayal of that supposed world. I won't bother to elaborate: Hollywood seems to keep replaying all its tropes and only looks to itself for "facts".

However, in the end, an entertaining story much as all recent entries in this genre (think The Equalizer as another example) all are.

Update: watching it again today, after just having re-watched my favorite international intrigue movie, Ronin, I can also see several similarities to that excellent film, but won't spoil it!

I saw the 2-hr version on Amazon Prime just now (not in 2020), and as a movie I think it holds together tightly. I can see how incremental bits online would not seem as gripping.

Obviously, the story is as old as the hills, the book dating back to 1924 and having been made and remade in various forms dozens of times. Supposedly it is the most reproduced tale in the English language. I would've actually thought that a Shakespeare like Romeo & Juliet or Hamlet would have that honor, but who really knows?

This modern take changes things around quite a bit, while keeping the ultimate outcome mostly intact. The acting, directing, and the whole production are first rate. It is as good or better than any action thriller on offer currently.

So I cannot fathom why some here are saying negative things and giving low scores? Have you watched any Bruce Willis movies lately? Or even one of the umpteen Fast and Furious series?

The most enjoyable parts involve a few of the antagonists, but I won't give anything away. I was greatly amused right to the end. A solid 10/10 from me.

After waiting a long time, and running through the entire Bosch series 4 times (my favorite!), I decided to give this a chance, being a fairly good fan of the Jack Ryan books, up until the 9th one anyway. And I liked all the films except the Chris Pine one.

Unfortunately, this series took its cues from the Chris Pine movie.

First, though I like Krasinski well enough on TV and in movies, he is wholly miscast here. As are many of the supporting players, esp. Wendell Pierce.

Worse, though the books were hardly Shakespeare, the writing here is subpar and full of scenes we have had repeatedly in every "hero" action tale. I'm convinced that Hollywood writers (unlike the very insider view of Clancy himself) have never spent a moment in the World they write about. They just watch other writer's movies and repeat the implausible fiction.

Awful. Note: the music score is the only really good part (same guy as Westworld).

True stories have one advantage: the truth IS stranger than fiction, so true stories can contain almost any bizarre narrative as long as it is fact, and remain "plausible". Were this some writer's fantasy, then it would only be worth watching for the production values alone. Ted the Unabomber as a character is too repulsive to engage with. But as a character study - almost a documentary or biography really - Sharlto Copley's portrayal is as fascinating as it is schizophrenic (paranoid schizophrenia being what Ted Kaczynski was diagnosed with). I have no idea whether his portrayal of Ted is accurate, as to mannerisms and such, and probably neither does Copley, which is good - the entire movie is an interpretation of the Unabomber based on his writings alone. As such, we hear his mind speak without ever truly getting inside it (would we want to?), and while the film attempts understanding of Kaczynski it never asks for sympathy. Given that this man was a multiple murderer, that is the correct goal.

The directing by Tony Stone is as good as I have seen: the best of this decade so far. Photography and music are equally good and make the film a complete 10. Copley richly deserves an Academy Award.

It is interesting to note that had Kaczynski not resorted to violence, his thoughts and desires would not be much different than 100s of 1000s of other eco-warriors. In fact, large portions of his Manifesto are ingrained into the mission statements of environmental groups - at times themselves resorting to violence. Kaczynski himself was no fan of leftists and communists however, with their need for socialism, nor did he look kindly on conservatism which he felt hypocritically manifested technology while bemoaning the loss of traditional life. In short, he was an anti-social Libertarian who sought to live off the land. He was also, before the term became recognized recently, an early model for the anger-driven Incel personality, with its inherent sexual frustrations. It is impossible to know if Kaczynski had simply gotten laid while attending university too early at age 16 whether he would ever have begun on this path with his life. That moment of consideration aside, Ted Kaczynski is a killer and violent extremist who is presently eeking out his final years in a maximum security Federal prison. As he justly deserves.

I won't add a single spoiler by describing the plot at all.

This is a stunning film in that it is first movie I have seen in many years where I was, literally, on the edge of my seat. It builds the suspense so well, with scenes of violent action throughout, that as you near the finish you have no idea how it is going to end. While you empathize with the main character - or at least are meant to - you have no idea exactly what he might do next to achieve his somewhat fluid goals.

The acting is excellent throughout, from all parts big and small, not only the lead actor. The writer - director shows great skill here with a low budget that this is even more gripping that most fast paced action films.

He went on to make Hold The Dark, with Jeffrey Wright, that itself is highly unusual as a suspense film: if you have not seen that one, do so.

I will be watching this again, and recommend it highly. 10/10.

Apperently you don't need $300 Million to make an engaging film.

Start with an original slice-of-life tale, good enough acting, and overall decent direction (though done in a cinema verité style, so feeling more documentary in form than slickly edited), and you have a movie with an emotional heart - much more than a superhero blockbuster.

I call the story original because I didn't know what to expect in the upcoming scenes. While the framework might in synopsis seem like an old cliche, the movie was just so evenly paced from beginning to end that you could almost call this a "reality motion picture" since you just step into one man's life and his experiences. You quickly feel that you know these people - or at least see them in your community - and with such intimate observation you may even begin to care about them, and hopefully want their lives to improve.

I might even give it more than an 8 except that it is so low budget (reportedly $40,000 Canadian) that aspiring filmmakers will feel that they could readily make this themselves on their smartphone with home computer editing - and they'd be right.

But they'd need a story worth watching first. And that this is.

Rockford has been my favorite show since 1974. But as with all episodic series (incl. Star Trek!), there is a spectrum: 1/3rd are each excellent, good, and "average" or less. This is an excellent one. But it is probably the most atypical episode of the whole run.

I won't rehash the story, but it is an excellent showcase for Bo Hopkins who replaced Gretchen Corbett as Rockford's attorney, but only appeared in this and 2 other episodes (one also excellent).

Some of the subject matter is very dark, even for the 70s, and I was 12 when I first watched it. TV violence was under fire and that would soon change late prime time shows such as Starsky & Hutch dramatically into more family friendly viewing.

Despite the grimness, there are some touching moments and all characters have the actors involved giving very deep performances.

Still, though I would not want to view this along with my mother, it was in the top 1/3rd of the Rockfords.

Who knew that it was possible to cast someone as Reacher, and get the tone of the novels just right? Additonal cast, and the writing, are spot on. This is the first time since Michael Connelly's Bosch was adapted for the small screen that a series has carried it out well. Finally!

First, all the actors are excellent. Even the biggest name, Willem Dafoe, deftly keeps his presence appropriate to the story and does not overplay his hand. Some have criticized Tiffany Haddish for her demeanor, though in fact she kept to the director's insistence that she not be "comic", and I feel she is wonderful here. I need say nothing about lead Oscar Isaac, one of the best actors working today (sometimes I confuse him with also excellent actor Sebastian Stan). Finally, Tye Sheridan, a young actor I have previously found unappealing, but fits in here perfectly. His part was originally cast with Shia LaBouef, and while that probably would have been okay too - though at 10 years older than Tye, his age would not have worked as well - in this movie I think Sheridan joins the ranks of A-list young actors. I will actually say something about Isaac: he is 40 years old, yet is made to look much older for the present-day character, and is convincing.

But the movie belongs to writer-director Paul Schrader. Well known in the industry as a peer of Scorcese and that 70s era (Spielberg, Lucas, Coppola, de Palma), this is definitely him at his best.

The final note goes to the soundtrack, with original songs, by Robert Levon Been that, unlike the maudlin compositions often found with unknowns, fits neatly and is appealing. Credit is also given to Giancarlo Vulcano for what I believe must be the "orchestral" parts, and they are powerful as well.

This movie is well within my Top 5 of 2021. More to the point, nobody - except Paul Schrader - makes movies like this any more. Perhaps no one else ever did.

The source material, a 2014 post-apocalyptic novel, was excellent and one of my favorites of the genre, so I had high hopes for this Miniseries. The first episode (of 10) did not disappoint, and set the stage for great production values, good actors and acting, and the intriguing premise. After that, the episodes started deviating from the book in significant ways while jumping all over the place in the 20-year timeline from the start of the pandemic (ostensibly 2020) to the "present" (2040). The novel had taken a linear format, and where 2 of the main characters stories diverge, brought them together at the end in an unexpected 'twist' revelation to the plot that gave the whole thing some poignancy and weight. The miniseries decided, however, to be far more expository, and even changed much of the character development and motivation, leading to - in my opinion - far less tension, and little emotional payoff. While the time jumps are currently in vogue on television (the recent The Stand miniseries comes to mind, also based on a linear novel over a long time period), and adds to 'the style', it is frankly confusing, even for those who are intimately familiar with the story. I can't imagine what it is like for a person unfamiliar with the background narrative. Ultimately, a large mistake. And, while many have praised Mackenzie Davis in the leading role of Kirsten, I found her miscast, though I suppose she fits in with the woke-ness being displayed in this revision. Same for the actors portraying the different ages of the antagonist Tyler. Hamish Patel, and the actress playing young Kirsten (Matilda Lawler) are excellent, however, as are much of the rest of the cast. In the end, it all looks good, but like the last season of The Walking Dead is slow paced and ultimately pointless and boring, as well as implausible. Read the book if you like the concept - it does not disappoint.

I love the Bourne series, even better than Bond, though there is actually no real plot: Bourne keeps wondering who he is, so what? The government trained an assassin. That makes him no different than Bond, except with amnesia.

That the government would have such a program is also no real surprise. And not entirely "illegal", especially if used outside the country.

But, like all action thrillers, there are convenient plot holes. Like for one: can you imagine any spy or intelligence agencies that would have offices with big windows where people can look in? And monitor their conversations as well?

Nope.

Like "The Manchurian Candidate", this story is preposterous. Yet, exciting enough as pure fiction to hold one's interest. In 1974 when it was made, the country was paranoid and anti-authoritarian enough that this and the other conspiracy thrillers (Three Days Of The Condor) played right into the public sentiment.

Is it possible the government has assassins? Sure. And that politicians are assassinated? We know they are.

But what is not plausible is that such an organization doing this would ever recruit Warren Beatty, a hippie reporter, and that they couldn't find out his actual identity very quickly. Such indoctrinations obviously come through military service where recruits are already molded and have a mental predisposition suited to killing on order.

Beatty is a pretty boy, and like Robert Redford, makes a convincing reporter - and action star avoiding being killed by a grander conspiracy. But he does not look or act like anyone who could ever get close to real killers.

I won't bother to re-hash the plot. Perhaps someone thought to take a ripoff of The Manchurian Candidate and have it make no sense.

There are a slew of heavyweight actors in this episode, which is the only reason that I even give it a few stars, since they try their best to make the most of the thin, bizarre material. By over-acting.

And it is bizarre. Ludicrous from start to finish. Completely illogical.

Other than some great aerial photography, especially over the mountains (which gets this movie 5/10, so halfway there) this is completely implausible garbage. Nothing that occurs INSIDE the plane is interesting, and the action outside is mediocre - after the collision - and makes no sense. Most of all, no one could in the cockpit for very long with a huge hole, at 350 MPH and at about 10,000 feet (given that the peak of the Wasatch Mtns is 12,000). Since I don't want to give away any spoilers, I won't analyze any of the rescue attempts.

I will say though that the non-stop sexism, inherent up through the 70s certainly, is ever so more hard to take 4 decades later. Charlton Heston does not help a bit in that regard. He's as bad here as he is in Earthquake (from the same year).

The special effects are actually so-so acceptable, but anyone can see that the rear projection is off - when another air force jet is flying parallel to observe damage, when see through the cabin windows it is flying at about a 10 degree angle the whole time. That's physically impossible.

Karen Black really almost entirely disappeared after this large hit movie and The Grteat Gatsby (also 1974), I wonder why? HER acting and solid performances have never been a disappointment, in Easy Rider and Five Easy Pieces among others. I'm sure most don't realize that she died almost a decade ago from cancer.