Spider-Man: Far From Home
Toy Story 4
Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Sign up here
and the Terms and Policies,
and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and Fandango.
Already have an account? Log in here
Please enter your email address and we will email you a new password.
No user info supplied.
Seriously?!?! This made over $300 million in the US alone, AND got a 90+% Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes???!!! Woah!!! This was one of the worse films I've forced myself to sit through!!! Hemsworth is always game for the Thor role, and did what he needed to do (and he looked good with his hair cut). ;) Hiddleston can do nothing new with Loki, so his storyline is telegraphed well-before it even arrives; and, when it does, it's so like a big PLOP! Even Ruffalo's Hulk was a thundering bore! OMG, and Blanchett...???!!! I think this might be her nadir as far as film roles goes! She's done this role far too many times, and it, too, is VERY stale and tiresome. I'm thinking this was the worse Marvel film I've ever seen -- and I've seen 'em all.... Get me the hammer...! :P
Simply awful with no redeeming entertainment value, whatsoever. Butler is far-removed from his awesome "Spartan"/"300" days, as his career careens into depths of B-grade (barely above C-grade) check-payers, apparently! And Jim Sturgess ... Oh, my...! That frantic, bug-eyed, borderline coke-induced, hysterical character interpretation was a stunning mis-read! Such a charmer in "Across The Universe"; years later, he looked like he needed a fix. Loaded with mumbo-jumbo dialog, stupefying scenarios, and tawdry special effects. Well, all I can say is Mr. Butler's initial promise of leading actor status has really gone south. That said, no doubt beggars can't be choosey, and he has to pay bills like everyone else. Essentially, Geostorm is a big-budget made-for-SyFy channel movie. Perhaps if it shows up on SyFy one day, I might find it more interesting as background distraction while I'm in the kitchen cooking, or vacuuming the house.... ;)
Spielberg films are always overly-produced; always well-done; always beautifully shot. Always well-acted, too. Nonetheless, this was one of those rare times when both Streep's and Hanks' performances were too over-cooked for me; I saw both stars as "actors," not "actual people/characters." (Streep and Hanks have got their roles down-pat.) Spielberg has never been one of my favorite directors. His films are (almost) always quite obvious and follow traditional storylines; all bear that Spielberg "cadence" that doesn't excite me (on the whole). Naturally, for someone my age, the first film that comes to mind to make any comparison with The Post would be the far superior Alan Pakula film, All The President's Men. Even knowing the outcome of both films' storylines (as they were true events), the scenario depicted in the latter was really exciting to see it unfolded; whereas (for me) in The Post, the direction was ham-fisted in the last third, and a bit overweening. That said, The Post is a very competently made film, with some very fine acting all-around. Good, but nothing I would see again.
I thoroughly enjoyed the first half of the film. However, Rockwell's characterization of Dixon didn't ring true to me, despite the earnest performance; and, too, McDormand's Mildred Hayes (as terrific a performance as she gave) was just a tad too dour throughout the entirety of the film (which, by the way, seemed a bit long, esp. the second half). Unfortunately, there was just too much exposition on Dixon that I didn't find original and perhaps even stereotypical. The molotov scene, too, didn't ring true. It all wrapped up a bit too pat for me. (One too many logic gaps, as well, that I couldn't get past.) That said, the cinematography and production design was splendid, and the overall acting really fine. And, too, I did like that ambiguous coda to the whole shebang.... :)