Change Your Image
msbensley-44529
Reviews
Oppenheimer (2023)
A Terrific Film Nearly Vaporized By Special Effects
The acting in Oppenheimer is outstanding, from the top of the cast, through supporting actors, to the nearly and actually uncredited.
Unfortunately, Christopher Nolan felt it necessary to remind us that the film is about The Bomb every three minutes. The special effects were very well done, but maybe deserving of its own Oscar (who's going to out-soecial-effect an atomic bomb?)
Apparently Nolan didn't trust his cast enough to carry the film, which was a huge error. Nolan's direction of the cast, and their performances would have been enough to win a Best Picture without any more than a single flash of light and a BOOM. Let's just hope the incessant booms and overexposures don't wear out the Oscar committee.
La Brea (2021)
3 for the concept, everything else, eh!
This idea had some potential, but the writing, acting, CGI don't add to the score.
The decisions made by characters make "Let's hide behind the chain saws!" look brilliant.
As far as acting, there's more mugging here than in Central Park after dark.
The CGI is on the level of The Clash of the Titans (1981).
Apparently, they've made five episodes. We'll see if they all air.
The Midnight Sky (2020)
Not Star Wars, doesn't need to be
I'm saying this doesn't contain spoilers. It doesn't have any specific spoilers, but some descriptions may give you generalities to expect. Stop here if you don't want to know them.
A space story only by setting; it could be almost any where or any time.
This actually shares a lot of plot devices with another Clooney movie, "Gravity", but it's mostly about isolation, lost chances, and an opportunity.
Acting is good if not great, with the exception of the little girl, who is great.
Special effects are outstanding, but only crucial to the movie due to the setting.
There are a couple of scenes that don't hold up to either real science or the science imagined in the movie, but are easily overlooked unless you stress over them.
If you're looking for lightsabers, ray guns, or other space opera, take a pass. If good drama and a good story are all you need to be happy, watch this.
Clarice (2021)
I was gonna say "Meh", but someone already did
This is based on only the first episode. I' ll try to watch more, just to be fair.
The director/cinematographer seems to feel a need to compensate for terrible characters. The flashbacks and splintered photography are more distracting than helpful and would be unnecessary with better writing.
The acting is OK. The lead (Clarice) is on the high end of OK. All the acting is unchallenged. The characters suffer from a version of Jessica Rabbit syndrome: "I'm not two-dimensional; I'm just written that way."
Grant (2020)
Excellent series, too many whiners
I felt a need to review Grant because so many reviews focused on the HULU presentation, with apparently many commercials, and not actually on the series. That's like reviewing a car and complaining about the number of traffic lights on the road test.
This is based on seeing Grant on the History Channel.
The series is excellent, on a par with Ken Burns' Civil War, but with about 50% reenactment plus interviews and old photos and illustrations.
The reenactment appears to be educated conjecture for the most part, with a few actual quotations and without sensationalism. The acting is solid, but the only moderate depth of character is Grant himself, as well-done as possible when limited to brief vignettes.
I'd recommend this to anyone who wants an overview of Grant's life. TV is great for giving you a few inches below the surface. For more depth, read a book.
A slightly homorous aside: among the historians interviewed, there are a number who have the appearance of Southern grandees, with closely manicured mustaches and goatees.
(Based on episode 1)
The Union won.
War for the Planet of the Apes (2017)
We Want War! or Humans are animals!
Other reviewers seem to fall into two categories.
First are the haters, who feel cheated by the lack of war. It ain't war unless there's a LOT of bangs and booms and blood: "I wanna see killing! Heaps of dead, burnt bodies! Kill! Kill! Kill!"
I can see how this would be disappointing.
Sometimes war only isn't about death. Try Caine Mutiny.
Second are the lovers, who are fulfilled by the portrayal of apes as people and people as animals.
"Ape good, human bad," sums it up. I won't say the movie bends over backwards to be PC, but you might need a chiropractor after seeing it.
Now, for the movie.
First, movies should entertain. This was OK, but it often panders with set pieces such as the little girl, the gorilla, and the flower.
4 stars.
Second, the movie needs a plot. This movie seems to have been strung together with pieces of "Josey Wales" (revenge), "Two Towers" (quest in the dark land), "Apocalypse Now" (crazy loose-cannon commander), "River Kwai" (commandant vs. head prisoner; POW camp labor), and "The Great Escape". The biggest hole in the plot is where all the apes came from; there's not enough time for natural increase. Pacing is s-l-o-o-o-w.
5 stars, at least they picked good parts to emulate.
Third, a movie needs good acting. Woody Harrelson is not at his best, but certainly not at his worst. Andy Serkis was at about his average, but, for an actor who never shows his face and acts solely through voice and posture, is in the top 10% of acting.
7 stars.
As far as the Boulle book and the Heston movies...
We live in an age where we look for the "why" and the "how" as well as the "what".
This trilogy functions as a reasonable explanation of how the world of the book and the Heston movies came about. This movie is the weakest of this trilogy.
As the weakest, it's still far superior, in all aspects, to the Heston movies: acting, special effects, script. The ONLY thing superior about the Heston POTA is the Statue of Liberty scene, but they ruined that with his raving.
The book is the best, but it's far too late to say read the book first.
King Arthur: Legend of the Sword (2017)
Derivative, and from the wrong original
*** I watched the first 5 minutes of this and turned this off. ***
The director probably read (had to) l'Morte d'Arthur in high school and saw the Lord of the Rings and Hobbit movies when they came out, then did this movie totally from memory.
There were no dragons in Camelot, except in the bragging of the knights.
Arthur never battled elephants, normal or five times their normal size.
I realize that, even if he actually existed, Arthur's legends or tales are works of fiction, so there should be some leeway for interpretation.
I also realize that there are certain limitations in portraying elephants and dragons, but both in the opening seemed to have been lifted completely intact from LOTR and the Hobbit.
I felt that if you're going to go way off story, and you can't do it in an original fashion, I' m not going to waste any more of my time.
No, I didn't give it much of a chance, but I wasn't given a good reason.
Get Up! (2018)
Replaced Sports Center with this?
If I wanted start my morning watching a bunch of loudmouths sit around a table yelling at each other, I'd watch one of the b-team political stations.
When you get right down to it, sports is entertainment, and sports reporting should be entertaining.
Get Up is just a hot mess. The only highlight is Stephen A. Smith, in small doses.
Mike Greenberg is one of those hosts who thinks the show is all about him and he monopolizes the airtime. He needs to learn that an interviewer's best talent is to listen.
Aquaman (2018)
Origin story copied
I haven't seen this yet, but the origin story sounds very suspiciously like "The Sword In the Stone".
I hope they gave credit to Thomas Malory and T. H. White.
I'll write a full review after I've seen the movie.