J. Aaron Dunn

Reviews and other content aren't verified by Google

An okay film, not 'Gladiator' but not a total bust. The acting, music, cinematography, locations, etc. we're all fantastic. But, it seemed to lack explanation of why certain events transpired as they did (it felt monotone, choppy, & vague to the point where you found yourself asking, 'why' and 'how' did they get to this part of the story with key plot questions left unanswered or unclear). For instance, they failed to effectively explain how Napoleon evolved to proclaiming himself Emperor when two other key characters that he was mixed up in were also involved in a scheme to do the very same, etc. What happened to his fellow conspirators? Although I don't mind Shakespearean-like films, this one was rather weak & just didn't do a good job with regards to the writing and editing. Plus, it had too many explicit sex scenes that we could have done without and they wouldn't have affected the story in any way. This is a shame because when films, such as this, make history confusing with poorly written storylines pertaining to many different world leaders & events involved at the time in this era, it actually deters people (particularly young folks) from actually wanting to learn more about history, which is counterproductive. It leaves a bad taste in their mouths and that's unfortunate. Would I recommend others to see the film? Regrettably, no. But rather, I would suggest to simply wait until it's available for DVD or streaming services....

Two thumbs way down 👎👎. That's it. We're done. We're not wasting one cent more to see these absolutely stupid, over the top, fake, CGI cartoon-like, poor storyline / written, and joke of a plot films in the theaters anymore. We're completely done. We'd give it '0' stars if we could. The worst in the 'Fast' franchise. They're better off just making it a cartoon anymore because that's all it is anyway: way over the top CGI that looks totally fake. Plus, they kill off characters only to have them 'respawn' somehow miraculously back to life a few movies later. By doing so, they weaken the impact of the previous Fast films (if that's even possible). Proof that they're just running out of ideas, so they'll just reintroduce the same character that has been killed off thinking that we're impressed by that. Very insulting. The Fast films lost any credibility after #4. Focus on quality storyline, plot, better editing, & VERY LITTLE CGI. Til' then. Nope. Not getting one penny from us ever again...

Storyline is just 'okay' in that: he's a grumpy person upset about life, losing his wife, & getting old. It's a reality-like movie. However, it drips with left-wing hidden propaganda. Not that I am against progress or new people entering our country legally (after all, we are a nation of immigrants), but like any book where its author is trying to persuade, convince, educate, and/or sway you, this movie appears to do the same with regards to the following: - Throughout the film, Hanks' character (white male) doesn't like the 'foreigner' neighbors even calling them "idiots," - As the movie goes on, the foreigners aren't that bad after all since they're super nice, have well-behaved kids, they care about you, they bring you food, etc. No doubt to ease your mind about the crisis currently going on at our southern border about immigrants and foreigners passing through illegally, - Half way through the film, a transgender is introduced and the character is 'kicked out of his (her) house' for being different. Hanks' character says, 'well, to reject you as a transgender is stupid.' The audience goes, 'awww.' Again, to generate support & put your mind at ease regarding transgender. Of course, no mention about the ill health complications that come with it, it being forced onto our kids in the classroom as young as the age of 5, etc., - Throughout the film, Hanks' character wants to kill himself and that it's okay to do so without conviction of God, morality, etc. whatsoever. The left-wing democrats today feel no wrong in promoting death and dying, especially with their late-term abortion policies and anti-pro life status by taking God and morality out of the equation, - In the end, Hanks' character dies and he gives everything he owns to the foreigner. Sweet ending, sure, but indictive of society today: Apparently, it's expected of a white male to turn everything over to minorities because: 1.) Whites are purportedly racially evil just because of the color of their skin according to the left-wing agenda & CRT in the classroom, which causes kids at a young age to hate (which, in turn, is also racist towards whites), 2.) Whites supposedly owe minorities. And, if you don't, you're labeled as a racist. So, based on the film, it's actually a 'nice and good thing' to sign everything over to another race. In the end, they get his house, new EV truck (another irony), and they literally ride off into the sunset in it, - And, throughout the film, it's just cold, cold, & cold. No love, no God, no morality, no hope, and no humor. The only glimmer of light was that, in the end, he did a deed to help his neighbors and it enabled him to crack a smile. Yay! Hanks is known for his comedy genre and although I respect an artist to step out and try new things, such as his role in Cast Away, this just wasn't a good film to inspire anything whatsoever other than a quick 'neighbors helping neighbors' moment. As Ben Stine would say, 'wow.' Date night for two people in the hyper-inflation new world in which we live in caused by this left-wing administration is anywhere from $30-$50. Save your money and if you really have nothing else to do at 3am, watch this movie when it comes on TV for free and it'll help get you to sleep...

Nice show, host, and I certainly admire / respect the amount of historical research that they do and have to put into it. Having genealogy myself, I know just how tedious it is poring over old and difficult to read documents, etc. However, the show is biased due to the amount of minorities that they have as their guests each and every week. For instance, every time that I see the show, they're focus is 98% on minorities, how they were mistreated, abused, beaten, sold, etc. by the 'demon white man.' While I certainly understand the background involving the slave trade, what the show DOES NOT illustrate is: 1.) How whites were mistreated by other whites. For example, why doesn't the show talk about the poor mistreated Irish who were also mistreated, abused, beaten, and sold like cattle as indentured servants, etc.? Whites were the first 'slaves' in the new American colonies long before the African was introduced, 2.) The show also DOES NOT explain to the celebrity guest (and to the viewing audience) that the blacks were just as much at fault with the slave trade as the white Caucasian. Reason being, the continent of Africa is not united as, say, the 'United States' in that Africa is made up of a multitude of languages, cultures, traditions, etc. When they warred against each other, they too captured other neighboring African communities, rounded them up, and put them into cages to be sold for slaves like cattle to the Americas just like any other commodity. The English, Dutch, French, Spanish, and yes, the AFRICAN were all involved and just as much to blame for the slave trade in the name of king profit. To make a buck, you think that the African was perfect? No! They too were just as much involved in the trade for monetary gain. This show, though nicely presented with a smoothly talking / finely dressed host, is convincing to sway you that all blacks are victims - which includes reparations' to this day. Truth is: no African alive today was enslaved by any white man - therefore, reparations are null and void. But, the show is just like a book...what is the author trying to do? What is his / her purpose? Are they trying to persuade? Influence? Just like a book, the show is trying to sway you to believe that the African was 100% innocent, which is simply just not true. Granted, I certainly sympathize with the former African slave 200%, but no one was innocent and the show 'Finding your Roots' is biased because it's dividing America in thinking that whites of today are purely evil when we need to come together as a country. The show is a business like any other business because it wants ratings and ratings thrive on dissention and the negative. As the both the Bible and Lincoln once said, "A house divided cannot stand." My suggestion to the TV show, want to discuss the plight of the African slave trade? Absolutely, they too have a right for their story to be told. But, show a fair and equal balance. Everyone wants to be equal, right? Then why not put your money where your mouth is and actually demonstrate equality in your show by demonstrating how no one was innocent (including the African) by having a fair, balance, and equal number of races on your show. And, yes, that means including the poor, abused, and mistreated Caucasians too. As a white male, I'm being targeted as the 'demon white man.' Isn't that a form of racism too towards me just because I am white? Overall, it's a biased and hypocritical TV show...

Eh, thought it was going to be better. Problems: - The whole film was choppy / not directed very well, - They had rap music in the film. I'm pretty sure rap music wasn't in the 50s / 60s, - Speaking of which, if you watch a period movie, it's important to capture the 'feel' of the era to take you back to another time - this movie did not have it. In other words, it didn't feel like you were watching a different time period. It was a blend of 50s meets the 21rst century which took away from the believability of the whole story, - Speaking of the 21rst century, sadly, they put politics in the film. Leave it to leftwing Hollywood to have a political agenda. For instance, they kept emphasizing African American and Confederate battle flag issues. Was it really necessary to go there? Can't you just tell a story and not have to bring politics into it? - The main actor, Austin Butler was just 'okay' as an actor. It felt VERY forced to imitate Elvis. There are actors who are impressionists and there are those who are genuine actors. Butler seemed to force his facial expressions / didn't come natural underneath all of the tan make-up, - They used the same actor (Butler) from when Elvis was a teenager up through his 40s - it wasn't believable to have someone who looked a teenager trying to be 40+ especially one who had a drug addiction. For example, towards the end of the film, the character Priscilla asked Elvis, "Elvis, what are you going to do about your weight?" What weight? There was no artificial weight gain on Butler, lol. It was the exact same young man, who looked like he was 17, pretending to be 40 and he had no noticeable weight issues. No movie magic, etc. to give the appearance of weight gain. - They should have used Butler just during Elvis' teenage years. Then, switch out to another older / more mature Elvis for the final portion of the film. For instance, Google the entertainer & impersonator, Ben Portsmouth who would have been a good candidate, - Tom Hanks' character talked so low and in a different accent you couldn't hardly understand what he even saying for most of the film, - Speaking of Hanks and period films, in general, Forest Gump & Bohemian Rhapsody were films that made you actually 'feel' that you were there and that what you were watching was true to the era. Unfortunately, this Elvis film clearly lacked it, - Way too long and drawn out / poor editing and tons of scenes that were simply not needed. The *only positive was that Butler did 2 'concert' performances (one in a white jumpsuit abut 1/2 way through the film and the other during the 68' comeback special in the black jumpsuit). They were the only 2 highlights during the entire film. Looking back, it's a film simply best to watch on DVD, 🤔🙄...

I agree with some folks in that it started off w/ grit and realism. But, some is soap opera. Overnight, the daughter speaks fluent Comanche (and the Comanches' all speak fluent English), the daughter shoots / ropes perfectly, etc. with no training or practice whatsoever, & the lead actors all have perfectly shaped pure white teeth. Realism for 1883, lol? The daughter is like Rey from Star Wars becoming a Prairie Jedi. It may prove more gritty to see the team leaders of this renegade teach the immigrants 'how to' survive along the Oregon Trail - More grit and realism ~ less drama queen scenes. But, overall, not too bad & two thumbs up for both Tim McGraw and Sam Elliott!