TheFman said:

RodeoSchro said:

What do you do after the Super Bowl? That is, if you're on a mountain top in northern New Mexico and still at the mercy of your 2005-era Dish TV?

Why, you watch the most-Oscar-nominated film of 2005!

After a thrilling Super Bowl victory by the Kansas City Chiefs, we navigated around the channels and settled on "The Aviator". To be honest - or as they say in Cosmopolitan magazine, TBH - "The Aviator" was to be a 30-minute placeholder until "Back to the Future III" started. But it was so good that we stayed with it.

Speaking of Cosmo, have you read it lately? Unless you're 15, I bet not. You are, of course, wondering why I read Cosmo. Well, I have a good reason!

I was in the car, bored.

My wife was in the grocery store.

It was sitting in the side door pocket of the car.

So.......

Man, was it bad. Every article is written like a text message. I will bet you $1,000 there isn't one person at Cosmo that spell the entire word "seriously". And I mean that srsly. Yuck.

Back to the future....errrr, movie.

"The Aviator" centers around Howard Hughes's exploits in aviation. Hughes was an incredible man, Even though he was more or less born into wealth (the drill bit his dad patented did OK when Hughes's dad was alive, but made Howard Hughes, Jr. very rich later on, when the oil boom exploded), he was an incredible businessman and engineer and made $$$millions or $billion on his own. The guy did everything, and did it as well as anyone.

My favorite story that illustrates Hughes's drive and focus centers around golf. Hughes was a scratch golfer, meaning his average score was even par, or generally 72. But he wanted to be good enough to win the US Open, which meant he'd have to shave a few strokes off his average. He played golf with the best golfers in the world and one time he asked one of them (I think it was Gene Sarazen, but I could be wrong), "Am I good enough to win the US Open"? The pro said no, and Hughes immediately hung up his clubs for good. If he couldn't be the best golfer in the country, he didn't see any point in playing any longer. I don't know if that story is true (I suspect it is), but it's awesome.

Hughes loved aviation and revolutionized many aspects of flight. "The Aviator" focuses mainly on his attempts to: (1) build a couple airplanes for the Army (before we had an Air Force); and (2) expand TWA Airlines into European routes. Hughes had secretly bought controlling interest in TWA, ultimately owning 100% of it.

The Army stuff didn't go so well. The spy plane that Hughes built was cool and Hughes took it on its maiden voyage. That voyage went great for 105 minutes but in the 106th minute, all heck broke loose. Hughes ultimately crashed into some houses and was seriously hurt. The Army decided not to buy that plane.

They also decided not to buy the Hercules, which was mockingly called the Spruce Goose because Hughes couldn't get any aluminum and had to build it out of wood. The plane was late and wasn't finished by the time WWII ended, so the Army cancelled that one, too.

The TWA episode pitted Hughes against Pan Am and its CEO Juan Trippe (played with the usual excellence by Alec Baldwin). Back in the day, air routes were controlled by the government and Pan Am had some senators in their pocket, which gave them an exclusive right to fly from the USA to Europe. Hughes didn't think that was fair, and fought them.

You have to know that at this point in our history, Howard Hughes was the richest man in America. So he could afford any fight he wanted to engage in. And he was smart enough to separate Hughes Tool - which made him a billionaire and just literally rained money on him all day, every day - from all his other ventures. So you could try to bankrupt his TWA Airlines but even if you did, he was still going to be richer than you were.

Pan Am's main senator was Maine Senator Owen Brewster, played by Alan Alda and he was nominated for an Oscar for this role. He deserved the nomination, too. Brewster was the consummate dirty Senator, and thought he had Hughes over a barrell from which he could force Hughes to sell TWA to his buddies at Pan Am.

Brewster made the mistake of subpoenaing Hughes for a televised Senate hearing. Let me say this about that - the movie is good, but this scene is GREAT. Leonardo DiCaprio totally fries Alan Alda, and it's a thing of beauty.

One of the ways Hughes obliterates Brewster is to divulge that while the Army paid Hughes $40 million to build the Hercules, Hughes paid for its completion out of his own pocket. Furthermore, Hughes announces that if the Hercules doesn't fly, he'll leave the USA for good. With that, he tells Senator Brewster that the hearing is over, and leaves to thunderous applause.

The Hercules (or Spruce Goose, as mentioned above) was a sea plane. It was designed to take off and land on water, so it was ferried off the California coast, where Hughes got it airborne for 26 seconds. He landed it and retired it.

A lot of the movie focused on Hughes's Hollywood exploits and his women - notably Katharine Hepburn and Ava Gardner. One of lesser scenes is a trip Hughes and Hepburn make to Hepburn's parents' estate in Connecticut. Man, is the Hepburn family obnoxious! They are shown to be the very definition of "Eastern snobs" but my research tells me that's not the case. In reality, the Hepburn parents were dedicated to getting their children to help the less fortunate. We'll give director Martin Scorcese a little literary license here, but it's good to know the Hepburns probably weren't the aloof jerks they were portrayed to be.

There's a great scene where Hughes wins the approval to show "The Outlaw", which featured Jane Russell's "mammaries". Hughes brings in a noted professor to measure the "mammaries" of various other actresses. Ultimately science wins out, proving that Russell's "mammaries" aren't any different than any other actresses' "mammaries". Not disclosed was that Hughes had developed a special bra that pushed up Russell's "mammaries". She didn't wear it in the film but I think she was wearing it in the publicity shots, so point to Mr. Hughes. I told you this guy was incredible!

Howard Hughes had such an amazing life that it's hard to talk about a movie that focuses on one portion of it without continually referring to all the other stuff Hughes was doing at the same time. But Scorcese, DiCaprio, Baldwin, Alda and the almost all the Various Britsh Actresses I'd Never Heard Of Until A Couple Years Ago did a great job, which was evidenced by the 11 Oscars that "The Aviator" and its cast received (winning 5).

I give "The Aviator" 3.5 Bottles That Have Milk In Them (as opposed to what the other bottles have) out of 5 Bottles That Have Milk In Them (as opposed to what the other bottles have). Fair skies and tail winds!



.

[Edited 2/3/20 10:12am]

I think you didn't understand the movie.

Please tell me what I didn't get!

Last night was a PERFECT night up here in the mountains. It snowed, snowed, snowed and we had hot, hot, hot pizza and a movie.

Unfortunately............

...we watched the new Netflix offering, "6 Underground".

First, I have to give Netflix props for having something besides Hitler documentaries. They're really trying!

But was it smart to give Michael Bay $150 million?!? No. No, it was not.

Let's start at the start. This thing was written by two of the same guys that wrote "Zombieland - Double Tap". That would be Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick, but not Dave Callaham. So, it kind of looks like rightful blame for "Zombieland - Double Tap" should be placed on Reese and Wernick, instead of on Callaham. I think this is good, because based on his neck tattoos I would not want to meet Mr. Callaham in a dark alley or a lighted sidewalk. Someone please tell him I've removed him from the stench of "Zombieland - Double Tap". I appreciate it, now I can turn off the lights when I go to bed.

The premise of "6 Underground" is good. Ryan Reynolds plays a tech billionaire who fakes his own death so that he can recruit a band of mercenaries and go kill bad guys. So: Reynolds is very funny; you've got mercenaries with unlimited funds; and they're going to do nothing but kill bad guys. Sounds like my kind of movie!

And it would have been, if I had written it. We weren't that lucky, instead getting the drivelings of Messrs. Reese and Wernick.

The movie starts with a voiceover from Reynolds, telling us that he faked his own death. And then they show us him faking that death via acrobatic plane crash - sponsored by Red Bull! I'm not kidding, it was sponsored by Red Bull.

Reynolds explains that he needs 6 mercenaries to help him kill bad guys but the catch is that each mercenarie has to fake his/her own death, so as to not have any strings/have ultimate freedom. Well...OK.

We are then shown the team's first mission, which as Reynolds says was a complete flustercuck. But it was a looooooong flustercuck. They snuck in some high-security operation over in Florence, Italy and took out a guy's eyball, plus they stole his phone. Then, a ten-minute car chase ensued.

And here is where Michael Bay completely loses control of everything.

Car chases are fun, especially when Dave Franco is the driver. But dang! How many cars did the bad guys have? They start out with three; Franco manages to have them crash and kill themselves. But then two more cars appear. The team takes care of them, too. But then two motorcycle dudes show up. They are dispatched. But then, three Suburbans appear. Franco causes them to crash and die. But then, an Audi sedan that we saw as a chase vehicle way back in the beginning shows back up. And so on, and so on.

Five minutes of this might have been fun; ten minutes was just way too much for anyone to believe.

Plus, Dave Franco gets killed. Reynolds has a strict no-name policy and since the names of Mr. Pink, Mr, White and Mr. Blue had already been used in someone else's movie, he gives them numbers. He is number One; Franco was number Six. They bury Franco at sea, so "6 Underground" must not be reference to his non-underground/ocean-residing body, as some people on the internet are erroneously claiming. Someone alert the internet for me, would you?

Now - each team member had a number, but also a description. Two was the Spy; Three was the Hitman; Four was the Flyer; Five was the Doctor; and Six was the Driver. Now that Six the Driver is dead, Reynolds needs a replacement driver.

So he naturally recruits an Army sniper.

WTF? Why give the people descriptions like "Driver" which obviously don't mean anything to the continuity of the film?

Ah well - it's a Reese/Wernick joint so I guess logic and common sense are not factors here.

Reynolds makes a big to-do to the sniper - now known as Seven - about how he has to become a Ghost, which means faking your own death AND going to the funeral so you can see everyone cry over your casket. You'll have to ask Messrs. Reese and Wernick why going to your own funeral is important, because I sure can't make sense of it.

With a new, complete team (albeit with no Driver now, I guess?), Reynolds explains that there are nine bad dictators in the world, and he wants to get rid of every one of them. This movie deals with Bad Dictator Number One (not to be confused with One which is Ryan Reynolds, who also is actually a dictator to his team but a good one) so it appears possible that we are in line for eight sequels.

Yippee.

If Netflix gives $1,2 billion+ to Michael Bay to make 8 more of these unwatchable movies, then we'll know that America is in an irreversible decline.

I used the word "unwatchable" on purpose. Bay seems to believe that no shot should ever last more than 2.5107 seconds. It's a good thing I was sober when I saw this movie; otherwise, I bet I'd have had a seizure at all the loud and bright non-stop shots, coupled with loud and terrible music.

And that's about all the movie has to offer - bright lights and loud noises. I read that 10% of this movie was captured on film; the rest is digital green screen claptrap. Honestly, I'm surprised that even 10% of this is real.

Which is a shame because Two is played by Mélanie Laurent, who is absolute perfection on film. She could play a milk bottle and I'd nominate her for an Academy Award. She needs to quit smoking, though. She's only 37 but her skin is starting to look wrinkled, which is what smoking does to you (among other horrible and nasty things). If you don't believe me, check out the Olson twins from "Full House". They are 33 but 20 years of non-stop smoking has made them look 63. It's not pretty. Oh well.

This movie is the third movie written by/starring the same group of guys. That group consists of Rhett Reese, Paul Wernick and Ryan Reynolds. They made one great movie (Deadpool); one semi-good movie (Deadpool 2); and one turkey (this one). This group has teamed up for a movie version of "Clue". If you've noticed the same progression I have, you will undoubtedly stay as far away from "Clue" as you can - especially if you consider what Messrs. Reese and Wenick did with "Zombieland - Double Tap".

Let's wrap this up, as there are a couple of glaring failures that need to be pointed out.

First, the boinking. Reynolds has put together a group of "Ghosts" who aren't EVER supposed to know each other's names. They can only be referred to by their numbers. Presumably because Reynolds says they're a family, which I can't figure out what one has to do with the other but OK.

One would assume that inter-familial boinking would be verbotten but if it was, no one paid attention to that rule. Various numbers boink each other which begs the question - what did they scream in bed? "Oh Three - give it to me! Go Three, go!!!" Perhaps Messrs. Reese and Wernick don't have much experience in this subject?

Secondly, the concept of being a Ghost also is pretty much disregarded. Three's mother (he's the Hitman) is in an assisted living facility, suffering from Alzheimer's. Three is supposed to be dead but visits his mother, ostensibly because she won't know who he is. But she does! And she knows that he's a hitman! ("It's OK mom, they were all bad guys.") If Three's mom can remember at times that her son is alive, doesn't it stand to reason that she's going to tell the staff? And then the staff will investigate and ask why in the world is a guy who's been declared dead and had a funeral is showing up at their facility? Of course they would but again, Messrs. Reese and Wernick are not sticklers for details such as this.

It gets worse.

Reynolds has a son, who looks to be about six. After the mission is complete, Reynolds travels to New York and watches his son from a cafe. His son sees Reynolds and seems to recognize him. Just before arriving in New York Reynolds had placed some documents in a file. These documents were financial instruments that were to go to Reynolds' son in the event of his (Reynolds) death.

What?!? First of all, who in their right mind has a young son and thinks that faking their own death is a good thing to do for that son's well-being? No one!

Second, if Reynolds has been declared legally dead, then who's going to know if he really dies? And who's going to know where to go to get the documents for the son? One of the other Ghosts? Highly unlikely, since Reynolds makes a giant point of never ever telling them his name. So what gives? I guess Reynolds could have told some/all of the Ghosts, "Hey - there's a file cabinet in the mobile home we use as HQ that you can never, ever look in. Unless I get killed. Then you can look in it and do what it says to do. But don't look at it until then!"

But that's a poor plan because if Reynolds is killed in action, it's highly likely that everyone else will be, too. So now what? Any sensible business person would have left instructions with a third party, usually your lawyer. But Reynolds is dead and therefore would have no lawyer - especially since faking your death is a felony, and being a part of a conspiracy for a faked death is also not only a felony but would mean immediate disbarment for any lawyer who did such a thing. And NO lawyer worth his or her salt would do such a thing.

I just can't stand stuff like this because what I'm getting from the writers/director is a message that says, "We think you're so stupid that you won't notice the ridiculous errors and idiotic assumptions we're going to throw at you for two hours and eight minutes".

The joke's on you, Michael Bay, Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick! I was sober and paid attention, and therefore rate your turkey as 0.5 Parcours out of 5 Parcours. Please quit making movies.

1917 (3.5 of 4 stars) - It wasn't quite the great movie I had hoped for, but I was a fan of the one-shot technique that made it feel that you were there too. I also liked the personal story as well as some amazing cinematorgraphy. What slightly detracted was there were times it felt too much like your typical action movie, which was so unnecessary and seemed to be trite when the other aspects of the movie were creative. Still, definitely worth seeing on the big screeen.

RodeoSchro said:

TheFman said:

I think you didn't understand the movie.

Please tell me what I didn't get!

OCD

you didnt mention it once.

The build-up to its unbearable levels and how to (not) live with it. It's much more important than his money and his toys.

TheFman said:

RodeoSchro said:

Please tell me what I didn't get!

OCD

you didnt mention it once.

The build-up to its unbearable levels and how to (not) live with it. It's much more important than his money and his toys.

The movie depicted his OCD but IMO didn't do much of a job showing how OCD framed his accomplishments. I didn't come away thinking that the movie was a primer on OCD.

This is a first. We watched a movie last night for which I don't think I can say anything funny.

Hey now! Do NOT tell me this isn't a first! I'm kind of sensitive, you know. Humor me.

Last night's offering was "The Good Liar". It's a thriller of sorts starring Helen Mirren and Sir Ian McKellen. It's probably impossible for these two actors to team up and create anything that's not at least mildly entertaining.

And "mildly entertaining" best describes this film.

I don't think I'll give anything away here. It doesn't seem like a good use of my satirical skills, as there's really nothing to make fun of. Suffice to say that both actors do a bang-up job despite a script that, while not bad, isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread.

You could do worse than "The Good Liar". For instance, you could subject your senses to overload with a Michael Bay film. Or, you could waste two hours with something like "I, Tonya" or "War Horse".

If those are your only choices, then watch "The Good Liar". Otherwise, your life will still be complete if you miss this one, but you won't have screwed it up if you invest a couple hours in it.

Since I'm trying to balance a teeter-totter, that must mean that "The Good Life" lands right in the middle. I'm giving it 2.5 Lilies out of 5 Lilies.

RodeoSchro said:

This is a first. We watched a movie last night for which I don't think I can say anything funny.

Hey now! Do NOT tell me this isn't a first! I'm kind of sensitive, you know. Humor me.

Last night's offering was "The Good Liar". It's a thriller of sorts starring Helen Mirren and Sir Ian McKellen. It's probably impossible for these two actors to team up and create anything that's not at least mildly entertaining.

And "mildly entertaining" best describes this film.

I don't think I'll give anything away here. It doesn't seem like a good use of my satirical skills, as there's really nothing to make fun of. Suffice to say that both actors do a bang-up job despite a script that, while not bad, isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread.

You could do worse than "The Good Liar". For instance, you could subject your senses to overload with a Michael Bay film. Or, you could waste two hours with something like "I, Tonya" or "War Horse".

If those are your only choices, then watch "The Good Liar". Otherwise, your life will still be complete if you miss this one, but you won't have screwed it up if you invest a couple hours in it.

Since I'm trying to balance a teeter-totter, that must mean that "The Good Life" lands right in the middle. I'm giving it 2.5 Lilies out of 5 Lilies.

This may be the first time we completely agree about a movie. I even gave it almost the same rating (3 Lilies out of 5).

sexton said:

RodeoSchro said:

This is a first. We watched a movie last night for which I don't think I can say anything funny.

Hey now! Do NOT tell me this isn't a first! I'm kind of sensitive, you know. Humor me.

Last night's offering was "The Good Liar". It's a thriller of sorts starring Helen Mirren and Sir Ian McKellen. It's probably impossible for these two actors to team up and create anything that's not at least mildly entertaining.

And "mildly entertaining" best describes this film.

I don't think I'll give anything away here. It doesn't seem like a good use of my satirical skills, as there's really nothing to make fun of. Suffice to say that both actors do a bang-up job despite a script that, while not bad, isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread.

You could do worse than "The Good Liar". For instance, you could subject your senses to overload with a Michael Bay film. Or, you could waste two hours with something like "I, Tonya" or "War Horse".

If those are your only choices, then watch "The Good Liar". Otherwise, your life will still be complete if you miss this one, but you won't have screwed it up if you invest a couple hours in it.

Since I'm trying to balance a teeter-totter, that must mean that "The Good Life" lands right in the middle. I'm giving it 2.5 Lilies out of 5 Lilies.

This may be the first time we completely agree about a movie. I even gave it almost the same rating (3 Lilies out of 5).

Sky of Love (2007) (Japanese movie) - I give it 6.8 out of 10. Not brilliant, but not bad.

RodeoSchro said:

I give "The Aviator" 3.5 Bottles That Have Milk In Them (as opposed to what the other bottles have) out of 5 Bottles That Have Milk In Them (as opposed to what the other bottles have).

Finally saw Snowpiercer. wow.

Ace said:

RodeoSchro said:

I give "The Aviator" 3.5 Bottles That Have Milk In Them (as opposed to what the other bottles have) out of 5 Bottles That Have Milk In Them (as opposed to what the other bottles have).

My buddy!

Bombshell (2019) - A group of women take on Fox News head Roger Ailes and the toxic atmosphere he presided over at the network.

This was better than I expected it to be. The makeup department did a remarkable job transforming Charlize Theron into Megyn Kelly. 3.5/5

I got hustled last night. At least I only got hustled out of some time. But if you paid actual money to watch "Hustlers", you got hustled out of time AND money.

What a lame movie. It suffers from what I'm going to call the number one violation of RodeoSchro's List Of Movie Violations.

Violation Number One is - making a movie in which there is no one to root for.

There is no one to root for in "Hustlers".

It's as bad an example of screenwriting as you'll find. The only real question is, how deeply do I want to dive into this monstrosity?

Let's start by seeing if it was written by Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick. <Googling> Nope and ZOMG it was written by a woman named Lorene Scafaria! I would have bet money that a dumb man wrote this. How could a woman screw up a movie about women so horribly? And she directed it, too! The mind reels.

"Hustlers" tells the story of some strippers who drug men and charge their credit cards to the maximum amount. Jennifer Lopez - who for some unexplainable reason has to smoke a cigarette in every single scene - is the mastermind of this. She has the unassailable logic of, "Hey, these Wall Street guys screwed America and if we don't steal from them, someone else will!" Well, smoking is stupid and her logic is stupid, so I guess there's that.

Usually in a stripper movie, there's an attempt to portray the most vulnerable stripper as someone who turned to stripping out of sheer desperation, and doesn't like what she does.

Not here.

All the strippers in this movie love being a stripper. Even Destiny (Constance Wu), the only stripper that comes close to being likable (she isn't likable but she's the least detestable of all the strippers).

Their only complaint is when the Crash of 2008 hits and all the Wall Street dudes who were willingly giving them money have to stop, because they don't have any more money to willingly give them.

Nowhere in the movie are the Wall Street dudes shown as bad guys. They don't rape anyone; they don't cop feels; they don't treat the strippers with anything but appropriate behavior. So when J-Lo decides these guys deserve to be drugged and ripped off, most people will say, "Really? Why? What did they do to you, J-Lo?"

Therefore, when the strippers start drugging and ripping off the Wall Street dudes, you never feel a sense of "Yeah! You go, girl! Stick it to The Man!" And that ruins the entire movie.

Of course there are the stripper cliches. The club where they work is overseen by an older woman called Mom. Destiny has a grandmother called Nana she supports. At Christmas, all the girls plus Mom and Nana have a Girls Sing-And-Dance-Along to a soul song. Nana - who's depicted as a saint that raised Destiny after she was abandoned by her parents, yet seems to have no problem with her granddaughter being a stripper - dies.

The women with me hated this movie even more than I did, which tells me this review is right on the money.

"Hustlers" is a complete waste of time. It gets a zero. I don't think even Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick could have made this worse or more stupid.






.

[Edited 2/7/20 10:10am]

Judy (2019) - Legendary performer Judy Garland (Renée Zellweger) arrives in London in the winter of 1968 to perform a series of sold-out concerts.

Having never seen video of her at this stage in her life, I can't comment on its accuracy, but it is an intense and sad portrayal of Judy Garland. I give Renée Zellweger credit for recording the songs herself too. 3/5

The Hustle (2019) The chemistry and acting of this gender-flip remake was horrible and a waste of time. I give this a 1 out of 5

sexton said:

Bombshell (2019) - A group of women take on Fox News head Roger Ailes and the toxic atmosphere he presided over at the network.

This was better than I expected it to be. The makeup department did a remarkable job transforming Charlize Theron into Megyn Kelly. 3.5/5

I have this lined up to watch. Have you seen Russell Crowe in 'The Loudest Voice'?

Goddess4Real said:

The Hustle (2019) The chemistry and acting of this gender-flip remake was horrible and a waste of time. I give this a 1 out of 5

Hmmmm, it seems like we should avoid new movies with the word "Hustle" in the title!

Birds of Prey Nope

I went in hoping to like this movie. I really tried.

The cast is great, but it's so badly put together. It's another film by committee with absolutely no passion by the filmmakers.

We wanted to watch "Blood Simple" last night but it's not available on XFinity demand, and Netflix must be overloaded with Hitler documentaries and bad Michael Bay movies - they didn't have it. However, my son insisted on a Coen Brothers(TM) movie, so we picked "Bridge of Spies".

Now, this is not a full-blown Coen Brothers(TM) movie - it appears the Coen Brothers(TM) main contribution was spicing up the script. According to Wikipedia, the Coen Brothers(TM) specifically worked on the negotiations at the end of the movie. And I have to say, bravo Coen Brothers(TM)! That was the best part!

Also a best part? The prisoner transfer took place on February 10, 1962. That is the exact date on which your favorite Certified Movie Reviewer* turned three years old. And in a happy coincidence, exactly 58 years to that day is today, the day on which this review is being written. How about that?

Longtime fans of mine will remember that my birthday was also found in the movie The Number 23. Since I may not actually have any longtime fans, I'm mentioning this now to all of you future longtime fans.

All of this serves to remind me that the MegaMillions jackpot is pretty big and since this is my lucky day, I'd better buy a lottery ticket on the way to my birthday dinner. (NOTE: Since you heeard no screams of joy in your neighborhood last night, you can rightly assume I did not win.)

Although "Bridge of Spies" has a lot of RodeoSchro-specific coincidences going for it, the movie could have used more Coen Brothers(TM) punching-up. As happens so many times, the real story is more interesting than the movie version.

For instance, in real life Tom Hanks' character - Jim Donovan - only defended Super Spy Rudolf Abel after a bunch of other lawyers turned it down. I think showing how Donovan was the one lawyer who actually believed in the American concept of "everyone deserves a vigorous defense", instead of showing him as a reluctant partner forced to do something he really didn't want to do, would have endeared us more to Jim Donovan.

This, of course, fits right in with RodeoSchro's Movie Rule Number One, which as you know is "Make sure you have someone to root for". Tom Hanks is Tom Hanks and you're always going to like Tom Hanks, but Jim Donovan's real life was more likable than Tom Hanks' version of it. I'm sure the Coen Brothers(TM) would not have let this happen, had the Coen Brothers(TM) been asked to punch up more of the script.

Also, the coolest person in the movie was Super Spy Rudolf Abel who, in real life, was not any kind of Super Spy at all. He mainly lived in America and painted stuff, but he never recruited any Americans to be Russian spies. Why director Steven Spielberg chose to make Abel so cool is kind of puzzling. Abel was so cool that I found myself rooting for him at the end of the movie.

The only other historical inaccuracy that I would point out is that when Francis Gary Powers was shot down, it was way more...interesting than how the movie depicted it. In the movie, the Russians fired 3 Surface-to-Air missiles at Powers, one of which hit him. But in real life the Russians fired more than 14 SAMS, and one of them hit a MIG-19 that Russia had scrambled, blowing up the MIG-19. The Russians shot down one of their own planes! We could have had a Top Gun reference, or maybe even shown a young Bono reading about the U-2 incident and saying, "Cool name, bro. If I ever start a band, I'm calling it Francis Gary Powers And His Incredible Flying U-2. Or maybe just U2 for short".

All that said, "Bridge of Spies" is pretty well done. I really liked the pacing and who doesn't like Tom Hanks? He did an absolutely fantastic job in this role.

But Hanks has set the bar very, very high. This isn't his best movie, but it's better than most other actors' best movie. Still, I'll rate it on the Tom Hanks scale.

"Bridge of Spies" gets 3 of Tom Hanks' Oscars out of...what? He's only won two Oscars? I thought he'd won five. I'm using the license provided to me as a Certified Movie Reviewer* to award him five Oscars, so that the rating is now 3 Oscars out of 5 Oscars.





*By "Certified" I mean "Self-Certified".


.

[Edited 2/12/20 13:05pm]

The Lion King (2019) - After the murder of his father, a young lion prince flees his kingdom only to learn the true meaning of responsibility and bravery.

The realistic animals, as amazing as they looked, don't have the emotional range that the cartoon animals had in the original. 2.5/5

maplenpg said:

sexton said:

Bombshell (2019) - A group of women take on Fox News head Roger Ailes and the toxic atmosphere he presided over at the network.

This was better than I expected it to be. The makeup department did a remarkable job transforming Charlize Theron into Megyn Kelly. 3.5/5

I have this lined up to watch. Have you seen Russell Crowe in 'The Loudest Voice'?

I have not. I'm not sure I'd enjoy an entire series about Roger Ailes.

1917 three stars ***

A solid movie that keep you interested, Mendes storytelling at its best.

My only issue, did you see beatiful foxholes! Our Gang (LIttle Rascals) would have love to have had their clubs house in one of those foxholes. I've never seen gravel and sandbags neatly placed. I'll give Mendes credit he did show a rat or two. There's nothing like a beatifully shot filmed but War isn't neat and these movies with prestine beach and foxholes makes this film look like plastic.

sexton said:

maplenpg said:

I have this lined up to watch. Have you seen Russell Crowe in 'The Loudest Voice'?

I have not. I'm not sure I'd enjoy an entire series about Roger Ailes.

I'd highly recommend it. Russell Crowe plays Ailes brilliantly - I absolutely despised him throughout. In fact the whole casting was superb.

sexton said:

The Lion King (2019) - After the murder of his father, a young lion prince flees his kingdom only to learn the true meaning of responsibility and bravery.

The realistic animals, as amazing as they looked, don't have the emotional range that the cartoon animals had in the original. 2.5/5

Love this movie.

it made a shit load of money so a lot us of went to see it.
I had avoided the original, and just reccently watched it and was reminded why I avoided it. Kinda loud tacky, obnoxious and a tad racist with the hyenas voiced by the minorities.

This one is gorgeous, sweet, but also justly terrifying at moments, in case anyone dare forget about the power of wild animals in the real world.

The mouths? Ehh, I was blown away by all the artistry to be reminded this was not just another cheap cartoon in the style of the recent past. It's not like the original was in the style of golden era Disney.

For a new generation this will be THE definitive Lion King. But I can see how those who were kids in the 90's (the adult reviews today) are struggling with it , because they see the new one by nostalgia tinted glasses.

[Edited 2/12/20 5:47am]

Les Misérables (2019) - A cop from the provinces moves to Paris to join the Anti-Crime Brigade of Montfermeil, discovering an underworld where the tensions between the different groups mark the rhythm.

This movie had me on edge almost from start to finish. There is a brief respite in the second half, but then the intensity doubles down and comes back hard until the explosive finale. 4/5

Honeyland (2019) - The last female bee-hunter in Europe must save the bees and return the natural balance in Honeyland, when a family of nomadic beekeepers invade her land and threaten her livelihood.

Beautifully filmed with a sad lesson about man's greed concerning nature. 4/5

January 1972, New Temple Baptist Mission Church in LA. Hard to find the words to describe this unusual concert film. Raw and powerful come to mind... A must-see for Gospel music and Aretha fans alike. It's a 5/5 from me.


At 29, we see her clear deference for her father, the Reverend CL Franklin, who, on the second day, came in to declaim in one segment. We also see Franklin’s awe for her mentor, gospel star Clara Ward, who was in the audience for the second show. Hanging out in the back of the church are Mick Jagger and Charlie Watts, who were in Los Angeles at the time to record Exile on Main Street. Like everyone present, they got whipped up in the ecstatic devotion of performances like Wholy Holy, God Will Take Care of You and Amazing Grace. Each ambled on for seven to 11 minutes, elaborated by Franklin’s enraptured whoops, cries and fills. Her impassioned filigrees invited empathic responses from the choir, and found stalwart support from the event’s MC, the Rev James Cleveland. At the core of it all stood a singer aloof from the crowd but connected, fundamentally, to the eternal.

https://www.theguardian.c...-backstory

sexton said:

Bombshell (2019) - A group of women take on Fox News head Roger Ailes and the toxic atmosphere he presided over at the network.

This was better than I expected it to be. The makeup department did a remarkable job transforming Charlize Theron into Megyn Kelly. 3.5/5

I've now watched it. I agree 3.5/5. Still preferred The Loudest Voice which I gave 5/5.

Last Rodeo Movie Thread - sucks.