joe_the_movie_goer Reviews

Blade Runner 2049 (2017)

Slow

[7 October 2017]

They went for the original feel. They got it. With a strong start it didn't take long before the story really slooowwwwweeddddd down. Way too long for the story that was told. Cinematography was excellent. However, that doesn't tell a story. Special effects and cinematography is great. It enhances the story. However, this film seemed to use the story to justify the cinematography. Finally, the ending left you with a sense of how were you ever supposed to put that together. You should be able to put the pieces together and the final reveal shows you were right or wrong. Nope. More than one couple left muttering about how slow the film was. Unless you're a cult fan wait and borrow it from a friend once released or once available for video streaming watch it then.

Grilled (2006)

Hmmm, Never made my mind up

[23 July 2006]

5 out of 10

That is because I just couldn't make up my mind if this movie was good or bad. It had a lot of classic humor. The problem was that while watching a movie which stars two of the biggest sitcom actors / comedians you expect BIG laughs. It doesn't have BIG laughs. It has "Hmm that's funny" laughs.

I reserve this film for the "if you have seen all the big hits" and just want something different, then this is for you.

It's a decent flick and I will leave it at that.

Enjoy the show.

Casualties of War (1989)

Sean Penn

[10 February 2006]

Ahh,

I must admit that I was very young when this film first came out. At that age, Sean Penn who? At this age Sean Penn. What political stance is he taking now. This film is early in his career, and is a eye widener as to what he would/is up to in his older years. The film itself if hard to believe. We all know that war is hell. But some things we just don't do everyday. No one is saying that what happened in the film didn't happen. But, if it did (and is a small part might have), in no way was it normal business, despite media showings. War is War. No One Despites This. War SUCKS.

My Point Is That No One Knew At The Time Sean Penn's Views. And, for some one who says he isn't anti-American it is straight up strange that his early roles are'nt straight up anti-American military. Everyone that follows him knows that he has consistently taken up anti-authority roles.

Film is a big political media. Anyone who says that it isn't is ignorant. Case in point would be Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Whole political views were formed per that film. So no one should say that film doesn't impact. At one point BOOKS had the same impact, case in point would be the CIVIL WAR (UNCLE TOM'S CABIN.)

Point: SEAN PENN, political actor. Don't listen to him. He is an ACTOR!

Munich (2005)

Spielberg does it again

[1 January 2006]

Wow. A great film. Spielberg does it again. The biggest controversies about the film are coming from political figures in the news and radio talk shows, not critics. Liberals are saying, "See! We should not be in Iraq." Conservatives are saying, "See! Hollywood's getting involved where they shouldn't."

Great actors. Great acting. I loved watching the characters struggle with their duties, but still performing them and then dealing with the emotions afterwards. War. The humanity felt in the consequences of war were shown so well in this movie. Excellent.

I would love to know how Spielberg was able to make this film without anybody mentioning that even though it is good it is also a remake. The book that it is based on, Vengeance, was already put to film in Sword of Gideon (1986). While Spielberg is getting the credit of a great film, which it is and he is entitled to, how can he be credited for something groundbreaking. It is a remake, and almost to the scene. I give him credit though. The movie definitely comes closer to the reality of world events, and therefor more emotional.

Great job. But, lets watch out on giving to much credit.

The Honeymooners (2005)

What the heck is going on here

[10 December 2005]

A remake, or movie version, of a TV show is nothing new. However, lets keep some similarity here. The first big change in "artistic" change that I noticed recently was Dare Devil where The Kingpin was played by Michael Duncan. I love his work, but Kingpin was a huge WHITE GUY. Now we have The Honeymooners in which the families are BLACK. What the F***. Even in this day of political correctness how can they expect us not to notice that. Even in all the other comments I looked at no one mentioned this. Come on! Enough is enough. This would be like re-filming Patton with Morgan Freeman. But, given that no one seemed to "notice" the characters of this movie are of the wrong race I would be willing to bet no one would say anything if Freeman was portrayed as Patton. And, with that I say lets make a movie about President Lincoln, played by Bill Cosby, proclaiming slaves are free, and they can be played by Philapinos.

Over There (2005)

Good entertainment ONLY

[27 August 2005]

The show is entertaining. Past that, there is little to no military accuracy at all. While some other comments have said it doesn't matter, it does. I have even read commmentary on how BASIC and AIT does not prepare soldiers for COMBAT. I say that the person who wrote that was a VERY junior person in the military. All BASIC and AIT does is teach a new soldier how to react in a combat situation, that is BASIC(as the title implies)! True combat reaction comes from experience, but the training is the DECIDING factor. The show also shows back talking to superiors' orders. This does not happen, and is harshly punished when it occurs, though rarely. I do believe this show is the first of its kind, meaning it shows a conflict that is currently ongoing. M*A*S*H, for instance, was twenty years after the Korean war. Same goes for China Beach (Vietnam). Of course, both of these also were trying to show the futility of WAR. That being said, I would like to see this show be the first of its kind in one other aspect, show the realism of the actual professionalism and dedication of the troops as a whole. Meaning, not just focusing on a couple of bad eggs, as there are always admittedly some, but the true soldiers. The troops as a whole are respectful to their leaders and each other. And, most importantly, they believe in what they are doing. They KILL the enemy to protect themselves, their fellow soldiers and the American people at home. They do not hesitate on whether or not they can live with killing the enemy. As a matter a fact, about the only factual thing I saw was an episode where the service members resented an embedded journalist for depicting their unit as incompetent. That struck home the most. The media wants to portray what they want. Not always the straight truth, but how they want to twist it into something they truly believe is the truth, from a certain point of view(to barrow a line from Star Wars: The Return of The Jedi). My Point is to be aware that this show is not the true perspective on what is going on "over there." It is a show only, being written by writers and advisor's who most assuredly have NOT BEEN "Over There."