G Kartchner

Rating .5/10 Long and boring! It only picked up slightly near the end with the appearance of Tommy Lee Jones. I had thought that another actor was the lead, I can only think of one or two films in which Brad Pitt delivered an impressive performance, this one can not be added.

6.5 / 10 It had as many entertaining moments as it did confusing ones. Not being a real fan of Marvel Super - Universe, although I have seen most of the movies. So many good actors in this thing, some of which I did not realize were in the film until I saw the credits. So many Super heroes, at times I was not sure who they were and their talents and/or powers. Confusing to a point, with characters popping up that either died or "Disappeared" in their own franchise (I.e. Antman and Guardians) and alive and kicking in this movie. No doubt different timelines???? The death and destruction of the previous movie mostly restored, but ...... Guess I am more a fan of the DC Comic universe, but the diehard comic enthusiasts will get their money worth.

4 out of 10. Others have already noted that this is a negative take on the Superman story. Maybe I missed something, but I saw nothing in the early, boring first portion of the film that lead the alien boy to turn violent and why he targeted his victims. Goes back to the concept of "Nature vs Nurture", there are countless accounts of some form of chemical imbalance or neurologic birth defect that may cause an child to lack all sense of empathy. But does that really lead to overt violence?

Rating 1.5/10. And that is being very generous. This might be the worst Disney related film I have ever seen, considering my expectations were restrained when I opted to see this film. Just as the writer of Mary Poppins, "P.L. Travers" must be still be spinning in her grave with the production of Mary Poppins Returns, poor Walt Disney is spinning even faster with the rework of Dumbo. This movie was Boring and most of the characters were one dimensional. The talent of many good actors wasted in this revisionist version of a classic Disney film. Tim Burton has so many good films to his credit, but, this can not/should not be one of them. So many contemporary film makers are attempting to make movies that are "politically correct" - as Burton did with this offering. This was a period movie filmed with so many current social expectations that the true "flavor" of the time and even the fantasy of Disney original has been distorted.

Rating 9/10 I really liked this retelling of "A Star is Born", I specifically liked that it attempted to update the 1930 version with Fredrick March and Janet Gaynor. This is one of those stories that can be re-imagined and updated. The other two versions with Judy Garland in the late 1950's and Barbra Steisand in the 1980's were more vehicles promoting the stars, rather than a faithful retelling of the original 193O movie. I am a fan of most of Bradley Cooper's work and was surprised at Lady Gaga acting ability.

Rating 7/10. The film lives up to its title. A satire of the many romantic comedies, most have seen. It was very enjoyable for the most part, although a few of the scenes dragged a bit. Elements of it reminded me of the Jack Black movie "Shallow Hall". Rebel Wilson can be fun to watch and she was here. However, at times, she overplays all the cligues ever told or heard about 'big' people. Why did they cast Chris Hemsworth? Solely because he is Australian like Wilson? I have liked him in several of his other efforts. But, almost any other actor, Australian or not, would have been funnier and a far better choice.

Rating 8.5/10. This is a powerful film about a part of the greater American culture that tends to be forgotten or (excuse this term) white washed in our film makers attempts to make only "politically correct" movies. Before this film I was not aware that someone had actually published a book that identified businesses accessible for black travelers in the deep south, although I knew of such restrictions. The actors gave very strong and believable performances. I can envision that one day this film will be a "must see" requirement in either high school or college American History classes.

Rating 2.5/10 I am not a fan of Samuel L Jackson and this film does nothing to change that. When I saw it I did not know that it was a sequel or part of trilogy, or is it? Whatever it was, it should have been filmed in such a way to allow someone, anyone who had not seen the other two, to easily catch on to what was going on. It was not! It was not until the very end, did I get an "minor essence" of the back story of what I just sat thru.

Rating 5/10. Anyone who saw "Saving Mr Banks", can guess how PL Travers would have reacted to this film. Marginally, I would say I liked it, but wished I had seen it as a matinee or on $5 Tuesday. It was an "ok" extension of the Mary Poppins storyline, but the actress portraying Mary this time lack some of Julie Andrews charm. I liked the two actors playing the grown Banks children but the kids of the son were a bit annoying. It was great to see Dick Van Dykes brief appearance.

Rating 10/10 (more if I could!) I would highly recommend this film!!! Probably the best movie I have seen in the last six months or so. This is a film that clearly demonstrates that comedy can be good and does not have to be profane as well, as has become all too common. John C Reilly portrayal of Oliver Hardy was so believable that at times it looked as though they might have been showing actual footage from their performances. It was a Oscar caliber performance for Reilly. (The only other actors who might have been comparable in this role would have been the late John Candy or a young John Goodman). I actor who played Stan was also great, but I can not recall anything else he has been in. It told a story for a part of their career I knew little about - I had always thought that Hardy's last performance was as John Wayne's side kick in "The Fighting Kentuckians". Brings back all the joy from the films I had watched on TV as a kid.