Change Your Image
cmayerle-41064
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Killer Elite (2011)
Really good action flick
Fortunately, there is enough plot to keep the movie interesting but not get in the way of the action. Likewise, there is enough action to keep the movie moving without overshadowing the plot. Honestly, this is a difficult thing to do in this genre of movie and I'm surprised that Gary McKendry hasn't been given another chance to direct a movie.
This is a good vehicle for Jason Statham, who seems to take too many over-the-top, beyond-believable movies. The action here is pretty darned good and the plot is plausible but, despite the claim of being based on a true story, is not necessarily fact based. Not to give away too much, the story is basically good guys (sort of) performing impossible mission against their will while being hunted by secret government agency who are bad guys (sort of) and nobody really knows why until the end. Fortunately, everything is wrapped up by the closing credits.
On the plus side, Dominic Purcell and Clive Owen gave a much better performances than what I'm used to seeing from them, maybe from not having to fake American accents. Robert De Niro, though, clearly is in his mail-it-in years.
Diggstown (1992)
Never gets old...
I've seen this movie several times over the years and it never gets old. Gossett, Platt and Dern are terrific in their respective roles, but Woods takes every scene with his white suit and smarminess.
However, what really makes this movie great is that despite knowing how it ends, it still draws you in and makes you laugh, feel empathy when it wants you to and hate who it wants you to. It's successful at this despite the characters and situations being stereotypical: the soulless Dern, his privileged but innocent son, the Italian mafia, the hayseed Southerners (or wherever this is supposed to be set, it was filmed in CA and MT), the corrupt cops, prison guards and warden, et al. And somehow Michael Ritchie makes it all work, no matter how many times you see it.
In the year this was Oscar-eligible, David Paymer (Mr. Saturday Night), Jay Davidson (The Crying Game) and Al Pacino (Glengarry Glen Ross) were nominated for Best Supporting Actor. Gene Hackman won for Unforgiven, but I'd say Lou Gossett's performance was at least as good as him and better than the other three (does anybody remember any of those performances?). Jack Nicholson didn't win for A Few Good Men and Pacino won Best Actor that year.
Glass (2019)
So hard to rate....
I loved the ending, but overall I just liked the movie, which makes it incredibly hard to give a star-rating. I settled on 8 because of how well it combines the other two movies of the trilogy without compromising either story.
So, what's not to like? As in Unbreakable, Shyamalan has the characters explain the comic book genre and how it is playing out within the movie itself, but he does it way too much, giving the audience little credit for being able to figure things out for themselves. At times, it really seems forced rather than a natural part of the dialect.
Also, if you're looking for wall-to-wall action, this movie is not for you. It's more like Shyamala's other movies that are more about building up to the reveal than inundating you with action. That is a positive in my book, but it's not for everybody.
However, Shyamala is back with clever plot twists that he advertises without the audience quite picking them up. For the first three-quarters of the movie, I thought, "Well, this is a bit farfetched," only to have a perfect explanation of that in the last 20 minutes or so.
All of the actors really performed well except Shyamala in his brief scene (his acting was pretty awful) and Jackson in a couple of later scenes. So, this is definitely a movie worth seeing to the end and hopefully it marks a comeback for Shyamala after his less than stellar efforts that nearly killed his whole career.
IO (2019)
Who green lighted this load of crap?
As many others have pointed out, this is a slow and dull movie. The whole thing could've been done in less than 30 minutes, but even a shorter version couldn't make up for the insipidness of the plot and dialog.
On the bright side, the acting is pretty good, especially considering they had nothing to work with.
Aquaman (2018)
When Jason Momoa is the best actor...
Jason Momoa has on on-screen charisma that might've been able to save this movie, but the dialog was total garbage and the other actors/actresses just phoned in their performances. Wan seemed to want some sort of memorable catchphrase for Aquaman, but all of the "Yippe Ki Yay" lines were just dull and unimaginative. Add to that a plot that just careens from one useless hazardous situation to another and a My-Little-Pony excess of luminescent colors and you just have a 2-hr headache.
To be fair, Temuera Morrison delivers a great performance (hey Hollywood, this guy needs more work) and so does Dolph Lundgren. But these guys don't have a whole lot of screen time.
A Star Is Born (1954)
Better than the original and the remakes
The original A Star Is Born is great for its time and still a very good movie. This version is great for its time and still great movie. The omitted and "restored" parts are certainly distracting, but I think still a good addition (read the Trivia section for the full story on these parts).
So, what makes this great? The camerawork is terrific. The script was improved from the original. Ultimately, though, it's the characters/acting that set this one apart. James Mason was at the top of his game: sophisticated British accent that is still understated, expressive body language and the ability to make you feel both sympathy and bewilderment at how his character can be so talented, caring and self-destructive. I cannot imagine this movie without Mason, who was way down the rolodex of actors offered this role (see Trivia section for those who passed).
Judy Garland, of course, is the star being born in the death throes of Mason's dying star. His admiration of her talent and love for her innocence seem very real if not ironic considering Garland's already downward trajectory due to her real life demons. Although 13 years his junior, she looks as old as Mason due to hard living and her voice was already cracking. Charles Bickford's comments to her at the end of the movie about how Norman Maine's talent was ruined by alcohol are tragic and ironic to a woman already notoriously difficult to work with and unreliable due to drug dependence, who died at 47 years old due to a drug overdose.
Having said that, Cukor got the most out of Garland, sometimes retaking scenes so many times it was emotional torture. However, Garland was rarely challenged, being cast mainly in musicals and light-hearted comedies.
The rest of the cast were reliable character actors like Charles Bickford, Jack Carson and Tommy Noonan. Bickford probably deserved a Best Supporting Actor nomination in a role much heavier than his Song of Bernadette nomination and in a year where three actors were nominated for On the Waterfront.
Besides Gaslight, maybe Cukor's best movie.
Bright Leaf (1950)
Like Giant, you don't know where it's going
This film is so much like Giant in a lot of ways: self-made millionaires who feud with their neighbors; men who make their money on the leading edge of emerging industries. However, Giant does just enough to keep you interested until the end when you finally realize what it is actually about. Bright Leaf, on the other hand, makes you think you know what it's about until the end when you realize that you didn't.
Every actor and actress delivers great performances, but this seems like Curtiz's best work other than Casablanca. The camerawork is better in this movie and the acting is on par. But Casablanca's story is better.
Billy Liar (1963)
In the end, pointless
Schlesinger is one of the most overrated directors in history. This was a young, but very capable, cast who couldn't salvage this pointless story from his direction. Look at what David Lean could do with Courtenay and Christie in Dr. Zhivago to see what competent direction looks like.
By the time you get to the end (if you last that long), you'll know that Billy Fisher is lazy, self-centered and dishonest, but a lot of women like him. But why would any woman like someone who constantly glowers, seems like he's just had another nervous breakdown and treats everybody like crap? Oh, and he also self-sabotages when he does have a good prospect. There is nothing that makes him relatable much less minimally likable.
Liz, played by Julie Christie, comes off as if she were either stuck at age 12 or another figment of Billy's imagination. What a waste of talent in this role.
The supporting cast are all good actors and some of the imagination sequences are pretty funny. But it's like Schlesinger jammed 20 minutes of plot into an hour and half, then just forgot what the ending was. By the end of the movie, you just want it to end. And that's all it does. There's no real meaning, no payoff.
Operation Finale (2018)
Ben Kingsley nails Eichmann
Ok, nobody alive can attest that Kingsley's portrayal of Eichmann is accurate, but he does come off as creepy, manipulative, and sophisticatedly evil. The rest of the cast hold their own, too. I was surprised at how well Nick Kroll acted. You always think of him as a real smartass. He has some understated comic lines, but he can do drama, too.
I was afraid this movie, like too many recent ones like it, would traipse down the moral equivalency path. But it didn't. I also feared that it would be too much like Argo, adding suspenseful action that never occurred. It didn't seem to, at least not too much.
So, the film is not really an action movie. You're not going to walk out there and think of all the shootouts (there are none), car chase scenes (none) or 10-minute hand-to-hand fight sequences (once again, none). It's about how the Mossad found, captured and extracted Eichmann from Argentina. A great deal of the movie is like the original 3:10 To Yuma in that it focuses on one of the agents developing a rapport with Eichmann. That agent's book was the source material for the film.
The director has admitted to compressing some timelines to add some suspense but says the movie is very accurate. I believe him and really enjoyed watching this spy movie.
The Formula (1980)
Could be remade today
The plot could be recycled today without a lot of revisions to the script or even a sequel. Lets face it, the energy sector is just as important and just as screwed up (at least in perception) and everybody loves a good conspiracy.
Having said that, this movie suffers from the type of cinematography in the early 1980's. The direction, camera work and most of the acting was plain uninspired. Brando was a good baddie, but he's not seen too much. Scott is pretty good for the most part, but when he stumbled over a couple of lines, the director decided not to reshoot the scenes. One of the difficulties of acting in a foreign language is that its hard to emote. And the cast here have that problem, unfortunately.
After the Thin Man (1936)
Best screen chemistry of all time
William Powell and Myrna Loy had the best screen chemistry of all time. His smug, half-drunk wandering coupled with her chirpy grace perfectly complement each other. Others have pointed out that their onscreen marriage was often mistaken in real life, and if you watch any of their 14 collaborations, you'll know why. It's hard to fathom that Loy was never even nominated for an Oscar.
The plot is so-so but the dialogue is excellent. The direction and camera work are pretty standard for the day, which often makes the film feel like an adaptation from a play. The overacting (even from Jimmy Stewart) reinforce that feel.
What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (1962)
If you want to see Davis and Crawford at their most glamorous...
This ain't it. Davis plays the aged has-been who has had to take care of her invalid sister, another former star. Half the time I was shaking my head saying, "I can't believe Bette Davis agreed to look so haggard and crazy." Joan Crawford is pretty awesome, too.
Aldrich does a good job with the timing and giving you just enough information to keep you watching. I doubt I could've just watched crazy, mean Bette for 2 hours, but Aldrich keeps you just enough intrigued. The end is more than worth it.
In This Our Life (1942)
Good Bette Davis flick
Great role for Bette Davis and she knocks it out of the park by coming off as really unlikeable. This could've been just another potboiler melodrama, but Huston got the most out the script and the great cast despite them playing stereotypes. Charles Coburn doesn't have a lot of screen time but plays his standard avuncular self. Olivia de Havilland is second lady again. George Brent plods through his lines like he always does. But it all works.
Huston really went thick with the music, too. But, again, it works. There's some heavy handed social messaging. It works, too.
Mission: Impossible - Fallout (2018)
Been there, done that
Probably because the other MIs were so good (except for 3, which was just awful), this movie seemed like it was rehashing old ideas and trying to tie up too many loose ends from the whole franchise. Sometimes it's better just to let characters and old plot lines fade into memory.
Not that Alec Baldwin was a bad choice to play the bureaucrat, but McQuarrie went too far in trying to make him a badass fighter. Ving Rhames, at times, just seemed like he was trying to get over with his scenes. Pegg and Monaghan overacted while Cavill tried too hard to underact his role as superspy colossus. Vanessa Kirby made a great addition as the White Widow and pretty much stole every scene she was in. Angela Bassett, likewise, makes a much better hardened bureaucrat than Alec Baldwin. And Tom Cruise was Tom Cruise (not an insult or compliment, you either like him or not).
Mile 22 (2018)
Best action flick of 2018
That may be a low bar since Mission Impossible is probably the second best action flick that year. I tend to like Peter Berg movies and this is his best by far. The "shaky camera" a lot of people complain about has been a staple in Hollywood now for 2 decades and is no worse than the early Jason Bourne films. The plot is somewhat far-fetched (no more so than MI) and the action sequences don't go over-the-top. In fact the martial arts scenes are great. For some reason, Berg decided not to really use Rousey in the hand-to-hand fights.
The characters are rough and sarcastic, kind of like the military in real life. All of the acting was good. Rousey especially impressed me, not that she was challenged to do some light romcom. But as some 90's martial artists (think Norris, Van Damme, Segal) proved, merely kicking and punching your way through a movie doesn't qualify as acting.
So, who is this movie for? Do you like Peter Berg and Mark Wahlberg? Are you willing to overlook some far fetched plot elements for some realistic action? And like the other movies I compared it to, this is the first installment on what they hope to make a franchise from.
The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp (1943)
Reminds me in many ways of Giant
So much so that I wonder if George Stevens watched this movie more than a few times. The plots are quite different, but they're both stories of the adult lives of men whose genuine greatness isn't really revealed until the end. It also amazes me that this was filmed during WWII with references to real battles.
Powell is one of those forgotten directors of yesteryear but his films are enjoyable, right down to how he does the credits. And he wasn't afraid to poke fun at stereotypical British-ness. This film is in turns mildly humorous, sentimental, a little philosophical, but mostly a character study. Deborah Kerr plays three separate roles-maybe her best acting, certainly my favorite movie of hers.
The Hit (1984)
Why doesn't Frears do movies like this more often
When you watch a movie like this or Dangerous Liaisons, you just wonder why Stephen Frears doesn't do more movies like this. The Hit is a road trip film through the beautiful and sparsely inhabited Spanish countryside with some offbeat humor and too-deep philosophy, delivered mostly by Terrance Stamp. It's not fast paced and it has long periods where there's little dialog even. However, it's timing is impeccable and Stamp, Hurt and Roth all give great performances. Essentially, I think it shows off Frears' talent much more than most of his recent arthouse movies.
The ratings for this movie are all over the place, which suggests that it's not for everyone. So, who is it for? Shallow philosophers who like just a very little bit of violence and gore, a plot that's not hard to follow, and great actors/actresses who have 2 hours to watch the movie through in one sitting.
The Sin of Harold Diddlebock (1947)
Not Sullivan's Travels, but still very good
Sturges made so many great films. This one falls somewhat short of his best, but is still entertaining in its own right. I recommend d_fienberg's review because it is very insightful. Briefly, this is a standard Preston Sturges plot with one of the icons of early Hollywood.
Lloyd was much better than I was expecting (maybe I was thinking of Norma Desmond's assessment of silent film stars, "We didn't need dialog! We had faces," or the difficult transition depicted in Singing in the Rain). Lloyd had terrific facial expressions and maintained his impeccable physical comedy from his earlier days; some of the early stars who did their own stunts were pretty beaten up in their later years. However, he also executed his dialog like a true comedian.
It's too bad that this film wasn't commercially successful because the copies are in poor shape. The audio is pretty good, though.
Ryan's Daughter (1970)
Interesting that this movie won two Oscars
Considering this was a critical and commercial disappointment, I was surprised to find out that it actually won two Oscars and was nominated for others. First rate acting (Mitchum and Mills, especially) and directing coupled with a great script make this a real classic. Makes you wonder why it fell flat at the theaters?
Hobson's Choice (1954)
My favorite movie
Really, it is. It's quick, clever and cute with great acting and directing. This is what movies were before over-reliance on CGI, over-the-top action ridiculous plot necessitated by one sequel/remake/comic book movie after another.
Is this the greatest movie ever? No, not even close. It is very loveable, though.
Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018)
Just reaching for a plot, any plot...
This probably could've been a pretty decent movie, but it asks a lot of the audience to accept why the main characters are going back to the island. Dinosaur Rights groups is just plain silly and the entire movie seems like a trailer for some upcoming video game.
Pratt and Howard do have good on-screen chemistry, but the other characters are two-dimensional, retreads of better played characters from the previous movies in the franchise, stereotypes, or just unnecessary.
If you want to see a popcorn flick without thinking too much, there are better options out there.
Now, Voyager (1942)
Not Bette Davis' best movie...
This is Bette Davis' highest grossing movie, but I'd say it's not nearly as good as All About Eve, The Little Foxes, Dark Victory and Of Human Bondage. Davis' acting is great as usual as are Paul Henreid's, Claude Rains' and Gladys Cooper's.
The plot is somewhat odd and reflects the moral standards time period it is set in. I applaud that the author Olive Higgins Prouty looked for a way to have a tragic love story without morally compromised characters. Henreid was also on leg of the love triangle in Casablanca, making his role here comparable though not exactly the same.
Before I go on too long criticizing the movie, it is still well directed, well written, well acted and certainly worth watching.
Sicario: Day of the Soldado (2018)
Falls just short of the original
This is the rare sequel that doesn't screw up the original movie in the franchise. Like the first, it is well written and very well acted with the exception of Matthew Modine (playing a single dimension stereotype). It is an action movie, but really it is about making tough decisions and doing questionable things in a world that has terrorists and drug lords. What will get you to sell your soul? And what happens after the mayhem you've done in selling it?
It is a completely different storyline and could be watched without having seen the first.
Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018)
Zero charisma, pointless plot, doesn't fit the original movies
The cast has no chemistry with one another, much like Episodes 1 through 3, which dooms the movie. Ehrenreich does a good job emulating Ford's facial expressions and voice, but he can't make up for Emilia Clarke's lack of acting ability nor Harrelson's poorly played Beckett. Glover wasn't all that bad but couldn't channel the original Lando played by Billy Dee Williams.
The plotline doesn't help one bit. It's just stupid. Why introduce the needless plot hole of Darth Maul? Why make Solo an Imperial soldier when he never brings that up in the original 3 movies, which would be germane to the plots there? And the marauders ultimate role seems to be utterly lost in the future movies, so needlessly added here.
If you're a SW fan, skip this tripe. If you're not a SW fan, this is no place to start.
Doctor Zhivago (1965)
One of the greatest movies of all time
In a list of greatest directors, David Lean should be on everybody's short list and this may be his best movie. The leads are all perfect for their roles--strange to say with an Egyptian playing a Russian doctor, but Omar Sharif seemed perfect in any role. Strangely, the weakest portrayal may be Alec Guiness with his patent British accent.
The pacing is typical Lean, deliberate with many pauses to take in what you've seen and set the stage for the next scenes. This may make for poor viewing at home, where you can be more distracted than in a theater or take too many breaks. Too bad, you need to watch it all the way through to really feel the emotions.