FeatherlessBiped Reviews

Young Lakota (2012)

Gripping portrait of young adults on the rez

[9/10 · 12 May 2024]

This film is a rich brew. It highlights interesting personalities, tough life choices, the effects of politics, and wrestling with the tensions of trying to live in two nations (Lakota and the USA).

After we meet the main characters, we see them go through changes. Some of those changes are inspired by hope and the desire to improve their situation (and the tribe's). Others come from some less admirable (but very common) desires: for recognition, for money, for power.

Their paths contain enough unexpected twists that it's hard to predict final outcomes, which adds unexpected suspense to what is largely a vibrant character study.

I found this film on Kanopy. It doesn't seem to be available on the major streaming services at this time. I recommend tracking it down and getting enmeshed in these fascinating real lives.

One Day (2011)

Tawdry behavior, absurd attachments

[3/10 · 29 April 2024]

Smart, beautiful Emma (played terrifically by Anne Hathaway) develops a many-year friendship (and sometimes more) with Dexter, an utterly reprehensible young man with no redeeming qualities.

In terms of maturity, dependability, and basic common sense, she is way out of his league. No matter how badly he behaves toward her and others, though, she puts up with him and even develops feelings for him. (And he's not the only loser she becomes inexplicably attached to.)

I thought One Day would at least be an enjoyably fluffy rom-com. But instead, it's a mixture of bad choices, senseless relationships, and tragedy. I didn't find it a bit entertaining.

Finding You (2020)

Basically a Hallmark movie

[3/10 · 14 January 2024]

If you like simple cheesy romantic films, you might like this one too; otherwise, I don't recommend it.

We chose to watch it because it sounded like a typical romantic drama in the Irish countryside, with all the lovely scenery that accompanies that setting. Plus, we saw a couple of well-known names in the cast: Tom Everett Scott and Vanessa Redgrave. We hoped that would attest to the quality of the production.

But we didn't realize it would be like a (slightly) glorified Hallmark movie. Unrealistic acting, goofy plotline, actors who look way too old for the parts they are playing.

There was indeed some pretty scenery. But there wasn't much else.

Thunder Soul (2010)

My go-to for "best movie you never heard of"

[10/10 · 24 October 2022]

This highly entertaining, deeply moving documentary has it all:

* hot funk music (by a remarkable high school band)

* inspiration (seeing what a difference one teacher can make in their community and in their students' lives)

* social commentary (showing the society those students grew up in and the world they live in now);

* love (going both ways between the teacher and his students)

I'm not much of a cryer, but before this film ended, I was weeping uncontrollably, and the other people in the auto repair waiting room were edging away from me. That's the kind of power this film has.

Whenever someone asks me to recommend a lesser-known movie, Thunder Soul is the first one I think of. If you have a heart, it will be touched by this terrific film.

Away We Go (2009)

Strong cast, but pointless and crass

[3/10 · 6 September 2021]

"Away We Go" seems to attempt to make us laugh and make us feel sympathy for various characters. It fails in both attempts.

The cast is strong; apart from the leads, there are quite a few notable performers, from Allison Janney and Jeff Daniels to Jim Gaffigan and Catherine O'Hara. But they are wasted here.

From the opening scene's oral sex discussion to the absurd behavior of the friends and relatives the protagonists visit, this feels like a "Throw every dumb idea against the wall and see if any of them stick" school of moviemaking, At various points, nearly every character is yelling "f" this or "f" that, making raunchy sex references, and/or acting in stupid bizarre ways. None of that felt remotely entertaining.

The best way I can sum this film up is to say that if you thought that the total mess of a movie titled "This Is 40" was entertaining, you might like "Away We Go". Otherwise, steer clear.

The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel (2017–2023)

Promising start, went downhill

[6/10 · 6 November 2018]

Fresh faces, lively acting, an interesting premise, a fascinating era ... the first couple of episodes really drew us (my wife and me) in.

As we continued watching, the characters of the fathers started to annoy us, but we could overlook that within an otherwise enjoyable show.

But then it got "heavier," and clashes between characters grew darker. And in a late-season episode when Midge and Susie were yelling "F___ you" at each other, we decided that was enough.

We're hardly prudes, but that just wasn't the sort of light entertainment we'd bargained for. Oh well.

The Big Sick (2017)

Charming movie despite a few weaknesses

[8/10 · 2 August 2017]

This is a feel-good romantic movie with just enough impediments and dramatic tension to make it non-saccharine. Both leads are a pleasure to watch, and discovering that Holly Hunter and Ray Romano play Emily's parents was an unexpected double bonus. Holly always embodies a range of emotions sharply, while Ray can even make ruminations about a tuna sandwich hilarious.

It was also interesting to get an offstage look at the lives of comedians. (Enough actual comedians were involved in the production that I assume the portrait is accurate.)

A few factors kept me from rating this movie even higher. One is the massive profusion of "f-bombs" thrown around by the actors. A few curse words can add flavor; endless repetition of them is just lame. Another weak point was the portrayal of doctors and medicine. My date for this film happened to be a doctor, who told me that the medical terminology was nonsense and the doctors seemed horrible. Finally, I thought Kumail's family was shown in very stereotyped ways; some of this was clearly for comic effect, but they seldom seemed like flesh-and-blood people rather than caricatures.

Those objections aside, this is an often-charming film with many enjoyable performers. Better than most of what I've seen in recent years.

Sing Street (2016)

A few too many "mysteries," but still a cute and rewarding film

[7/10 · 30 December 2016]

I like this movie, and I'm glad I watched it with my family (spouse & teen-to-young-adult kids). On a rainy day, it beat splashing our way to the multiplex to catch the latest mass-market whatever.

However, it fell short of excellence, partly because of some plot mysteries (see below) and partly because the lead character isn't fully engaging and believable. He seems to have a slightly flat affect, showing very little excitement in scenes where his character has things to be excited about. That results in less emotional urgency. Also, I was left wondering whether he was naturally creative, in terms of writing lyrics and such, or whether he suddenly transformed into that type of person just to try to win the beauty's heart.

Among the mysteries (I don't think any of these would count as spoilers):

* When he's forming the band, a couple of guys who competently play the instruments he needs in the band just happen to appear.

* As the band develops, the members start wearing period "costume" clothing (such as the hats popular among pop stars in those days), but they're an indigent lot, and there's no telling how any of them could afford this.

* A motorboat gets driven around multiple times, with no indication of how fuel is obtained for it.

* When the lead character makes odd and cutting remarks toward a bully, the bully doesn't do what a bully would normally do.

* Well into the school year, an elderly teacher not only lacks any control over his students, but apparently doesn't even know what subject he's teaching.

Quibbles, I guess, but there are enough of them to make the viewer uncertain that such a tale is believable.

Despite that, I did (as I wrote earlier) like the movie. As someone who was heavily into '80s music, I enjoyed most of the soundtrack cuts. And some of the supporting characters add flavor well. So - see it, but don't expect the production to be more polished than the teenagers' band.

Star Trek Beyond (2016)

Stark Trek "Too": too much, too little, too bad.

[4/10 · 23 July 2016]

The word "too" best describes my feelings about this movie. Too much CGI, too much exaggerated hand-to-hand combat, too many chase scenes where I couldn't tell who was chasing whom, or how, or why, or which spacecraft each character was in. The plot was too weak, the characters were too chatty and introspective with deadly dangers around, and too many characters from far-off worlds spoke halting (and sometimes weirdly not-halting) English.

Furthermore, the writers went too far in trying to wring humor out of references to characters' behavior or dialogue in the original series. One example: isn't it funny to get the dry-and-serious Spock to say a bad word? That scene was a little nauseating, and not one-tenth as funny as when he said "damn" in The Voyage Home.

The young actors have too little gravitas compared to the original portrayers of those roles. McCoy's acting in particular is painfully amateurish (I don't know whether to attribute that to the actor or the direction).

I could have given this film less than 4 stars, but hey - even though it was confusing and shoddy, it wasn't very boring, and it's always nice to see the Star Trek crew. However, I certainly won't be watching it again, and you won't miss much if you skip it.

McFarland, USA (2015)

Nice performances & scenery, cartoonish plot touches

[6/10 · 5 December 2015]

I had read the story of Jim White and the McFarland cross country team long before the movie came out. I was glad to see it made into a feature film, but Disney's heavy hands keep it from being fully satisfying.

Most of the actors playing larger roles acquit themselves well. Yes, Kevin Costner is his overly familiar world-weary self, but there's always a certain charm in seeing him inhabit that role. Many of the young men portraying McFarland's runners are both charming and believable, and some of the quirky townspeople (such as the mother of three runners and the owner of the local variety store) add nice depth to the story.

In addition, the scenery is interesting, from the running trails to the fields where the McFarland runners pick crops.

One real turnoff was when, repeatedly, opposing runners were shown talking smack before the start of races, and opposing coaches made snarky comments about the McFarland team. I've coached youth sports for many years and am accustomed to seeing much better sportsmanship than that. The movie makers apparently needed to set up cartoonish villains so that the audience would root even harder for the good guys.

Another clunker came at the first race, the "Palo Alto Invitational." The race director was surprised when McFarland showed up - but if it was an "invitational," then either they'd been invited (so he shouldn't have been surprised) or they hadn't been (in which case they had no business going to the race).

This was a generally pleasant two hours, and it was good to know that the basic heartwarming events took place in real life. Could have been better (or at least less bad in some parts), but it was OK. I recommend you find the story "Running for Their Lives" by Gary Smith, the captivating real-life tale of Jim White and McFarland (told as only the brilliant Smith could).

Pawn Sacrifice (2014)

Minor flaws & a couple larger ones, but true in spirit

[8/10 · 26 September 2015]

I'm a chess master who grew up playing the game during the "Fischer boom" of the early 1970s, so I know Bobby's story well. This movie had an accurate ratio of genius to madness, and Tobey Maguire and Liev Schreiber gave worthy portrayals of Fischer and Spassky.

Too many chess bits were nonsensical. Some examples:

*Bobby playing a couple of absurd moves on the board while copying a master game from a book

*Bobby plotting which defense to play with the black pieces in his first-ever game against Spassky, but then being shown playing the white pieces

*his second, Bill Lombardy, saying Bobby wasn't playing his usual Sicilian Opening in a game where Bobby had the white pieces, when the Sicilian Defense is an opening that black plays

*Bobby making a move on the board when that move had already been shown on the TV feed.

The moves from the Fischer-Spassky match were generally correct, though Bobby didn't resign game 1 until more moves had been made than were shown in the movie.

My biggest quibbles with the movie, though, concern two major influences on Fischer's career. One, the priest (and chess grandmaster) Bill Lombardy, is very different in real life from the way Peter Sarsgaard portrayed him. Rather than a slim, sharply groomed, drily philosophical figure, the real Lombardy is and was a beefier, more unkempt, more plainly spoken common-man type. This difference reminded me of how Ben Kingsley, in the film _Searching for Bobby Fischer_, played chess teacher Bruce Pandolfini as a stern, acerbic authority figure rather than the warm and humorous guy Bruce really is.

The second influence is not misportrayed, but left out altogether. How can a film on Bobby Fischer not mention his long-time chess teacher Jack Collins, who turned young Bobby's primitive but promising chess style into a well-honed weapon (and did the same for Lombardy and some other leading masters of that era)? I know a movie can't include everything, but Collins was the greatest contributor to Fischer's meteoric rise.

I give the movie makers credit for providing insights into Bobby's complex persona - and for refraining from pandering by showing more real footage of the crazed older Fischer at the film's end. A little more attention to chess accuracy, and the inclusion of a realer Lombardy and the unjustly neglected Collins, would have considerably polished this rough gem.

A Walk in the Woods (2015)

Tries for zany slapstick; sometimes cringe-y

[3/10 · 5 September 2015]

The book _A Walk in the Woods_ is a literate contemplation of some of life's big questions, spurred by a hike along the Appalachian Trail. It contains plenty of Bill Bryson's trademark wry humor.

The movie _A Walk in the Woods_ is entirely different. It throws lots of exaggerated slapstick scenes at the viewer, trying for cheap laughs rather than anything deeper and richer.

I found Nick Nolte's character overdramatic and consistently annoying. Meanwhile, Robert Redford portrayed Bill Bryson as a taciturn parody of the actual person; we've seen this sort of world-weary loner performance from him more than enough in other films. And, as others have pointed out, Bryson was in his mid 40s when he attempted to hike the Trail; Redford is nearly 80. This gives the story a very different flavor.

Minor characters were used to add sparks, but they generally made goofy impressions before disappearing. Mary Steenburgen (a favorite actor of mine) depicted a motelkeeper who appeared oddly smitten with the much older Redford. (There was a theme here; Redford's wife was played - over-emotionally and under-sensibly - by Emma Thompson, who is vastly younger than him.) I kept expecting other characters to reappear, but almost none of them did; the movie is so short that I wonder if some reappearances were filmed but edited out.

This film was obviously not meant to be an accurate translation of the book. But I liked reading it a lot better than I liked watching it.

Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) (2014)

Talk about "sound and fury, signifying nothing" ....

[4/10 · 7 March 2015]

I won't add a blow-by-blow criticism of this film, as plenty of other reviewers have already provided those. My overall impression was summed up by one scene, where Michael Keaton's character goes to buy booze and we hear someone yelling lines from Macbeth's most famous soliloquy ("To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow ... full of sound and fury, signifying nothing"). Like that moment, _Birdman_ consists largely of hyperdramatic dialogue, delivered caustically, and without an obviously redeeming purpose.

That doesn't mean I'm blaming the actors; I think they work at a high level in fulfilling the director's vision. Unfortunately, that vision is almost relentlessly tawdry, depressing, and lacking in basic human warmth or decency.

This is probably some sort of paean to the nihilism of the acting world. Not being inside that world, all I saw and heard was an ugly, noisy mess, full of obscenities, lies, and bad behavior. It may be wonderfully self-referential if you're an actor or director or producer, but in my world, it just isn't entertaining.

The Imitation Game (2014)

Wonderfully acted but too false and trite

[7/10 · 3 January 2015]

My main problem with based-on-reality movies like The Imitation Game is that the reality was so much richer than the movie.

Turing was a genius, which could have been shown in entertainingly accurate ways. However, he wasn't anywhere near solely responsible for making a machine to break Enigma. And there wasn't just a small clutch of codebreakers at Bletchley Park - the British devoted huge manpower to this crucial effort.

The screenwriter added a collection of largely one-dimensional foils for Turing: the cruel patrician supervisor who cared about his pride more than about beating the Nazis; the handsome cad of a chess champion who abused Turing and assaulted his machine; the detective who broke rules to conduct an obsessive investigation into a burglary of Turing's home that just didn't smell right.

Perhaps the most jarringly absurd moment came when Enigma had been broken. Immediately, someone assembled a map of all ships and submarines in the North Atlantic or whatever (based on Nazi messages) and one of the codebreakers blurted out that a group of U-boats was only 20 to 30 minutes away from attacking a British convoy. Well, sure - doesn't every mathematician know what speed a U-boat pack makes relative to a ship convoy? And then one codebreaker had his watch-me-act-and-break-your-heart moment, when he realized his brother was aboard one of the boats that would be attacked. (This did not really happen, of course.) Ugh.

Cumberbatch led a wonderful cast that pulled all the levers to make the audience feel sympathy, and the production values were terrific. But so much of it felt like a paint-by-number exercise ... it's a pity that a "realer" version of Turing's amazing life couldn't have been devised.

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014)

One word: travesty

[3/10 · 21 December 2014]

Before seeing _The Battle of the Five Armies_ today, I told people, "The first two films lacked fidelity to the book, but this one should be better." I figured Jackson wouldn't have to add lots of extraneous invented action scenes because the final third of the book contained plenty of action.

Boy, was I wrong.

Unnecessary invented characters from the previous films continued to take up screen time in this one, and many new ones were added. Tolkien wouldn't recognize a bunch of grand-scale evildoers or various "good guys" whose relationships were supposed to tug at our hearts, though they turned my stomach instead.

The additions included plenty of trite dialogue. When one invented character, in a scene made from whole cloth, was shown weeping over a loved one and asking "Why does it hurt so much?", I just about tossed my Junior Mints.

Meanwhile, a character largely responsible for turning the tide in the book's Battle of Five Armies (note the lack of a "the" before "Five") was shown in the film, without explanation, for about three seconds. Blink and you might miss it.

When one baddie was apparently killed, I thought, "If he suddenly jumps up and starts fighting again, I'm leaving." Too bad I didn't follow through on my threat after that excruciatingly predictable plot twist.

Did I mention that Dain, confronting the elf warriors, came across as some nightmare parody of John Cleese performing "The Lord of the Fawlty Towers"?

I could go on, but "travesty" is about the kindest word I can use for this mass of claptrap. I now fear that Jackson will film _The Silmarillion_, turning it into yet another tawdry, over-the-top CGI fest.

This Is Where I Leave You (2014)

Thoroughly despicable mess

[3/10 · 19 September 2014]

This film is a noxious brew of potty humor, potty-mouth humor, people acting like jerks and then assaulting each other and then acting like nothing's wrong (a cycle that repeats itself endlessly), and basically just mean and childish behavior from nearly every adult.

Everybody has flaws, but this crew shows almost nothing but flaws, and I can't figure out how that's supposed to be entertaining.

Trite storyline, vapid soundtrack, just a stream of unpleasantness. The kind of movie where a grandma (Jane Fonda) keeps describing her dead husband's sexual proclivities, people "do it" with a baby monitor on nearby, and a variety of people call out streams of embarrassing/incriminating dialogue to their partners during sex. It just kept getting worse.

Only Jason Bateman's acting made this vile mess worth even 3 stars in my book. It should have been 2; I was feeling generous.

Stay far away.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)

Slightly better than the first ... that's not saying much.

[5/10 · 28 December 2013]

I initially rated the first Hobbit movie 6 out of 10 and this one 7. On further reflection, I was too generous; they're lucky to each get 5.

The Desolation of Smaug still has Peter Jackson's remarkable production values, and it has a bit less goofiness (the goblin king in the first movie was nauseating to watch).

However, this film bears painfully little resemblance to the book. The filmmakers:

*added a slew of characters (Tauriel the elf-woman; Legolas the elf-dude, who appears in The Lord of the Rings but not in The Hobbit; the blackhearted aide to the master of the lake town; etc.)

*inflated other characters' roles (Bard ferries the dwarfs to the lake town and hides them, and he is suspected of seeking to overthrow the Master; the Elvenking is now named Thranduil and gets involved in various matters, such as Legolas's fondness for Tauriel; etc.)

*reduced some of the most charming bits (the conversation as more and more dwarfs arrive at Beorn's house; various songs)

*and added so much running-from-the-orcs and running-from-the-dragon footage that the story becomes more action than thought (it seems like Run Lola Run set in Middle Earth).

I could go on - about the use of athelas, about the elf/dwarf love triangle, about Radagast being portrayed as a buffoon - but my main point is that, while this film is sometimes entertaining, it is unlike The Hobbit, in plot or in spirit. The bare similarities and the fine technical aspects made me give it a grudging 7, but after further consideration I felt 5 was more realistic.

Under the Dome (2013–2015)

Bad TV for countless reasons.

[2/10 · 25 June 2013]

I'm not familiar with the book - didn't even know that there was one - but the show's first episode was a mix of toxically bad ingredients. It's as if the author and producers made a stew of everything I dislike about modern television.

They filled it with stomach-turning gore; violent and deadly smash-'em-up crashes; idiotic and psychopathic behavior; stereotypical and unlikeable characters; too many folks with names like Duke, Big Jim, and Junior; a hushed-up conspiracy; a gratuitous pant-pant sex scene; and just a really tawdry atmosphere.

Definitely not returning for episode two.

Wide Sargasso Sea (1993)

Captures the islands' (and characters') sensuous spirit

[8/10 · 12 June 2013]

While this film has garnered some poor user reviews, it impresses me. The lush island scenery, the rhythms of West Indies life, and the steamy and stormy personal interactions create an atmosphere both sensual and sensuous. I think all the main actors portray Rhys's characters well: Rochester as masterful yet in over his head; Antoinette as passionate but mercurial; the servant girl Amelie as wide-eyed and irresistible; and especially the spooky Christophine as intensely self-possessed and a formidable defender of those she holds dear.

On DVD, this film can be watched in its NC-17 form or one that was edited down to a softer R rating. I watched the NC-17 version and found it surprisingly tame. There is occasional female nudity (mainly by Antoinette) and a bit of male frontal nudity (by Rochester), but the sex is not strikingly graphic. Meanwhile, the only real violence affects some animals — images that will disturb some viewers but leave others unfazed.

Running just 1 hour 38 minutes, the film skips over some less important parts of the plot. Still, it captures the spirit of this intricate tale of the seismic ruptures that can occur when societies or social strata collide. I can see how it would be unpopular among viewers who are unfamiliar with, or dislike, the book; as a depiction of Rhys's vision, though, I find it gratifyingly true.

Wide Sargasso Sea (2006 TV Movie)

Beautiful but hasty & oddly portrayed

[5/10 · 12 June 2013]

Running 1:24, about 15 minutes shorter than the 1993 film, this one cut out much more of the plot, apparently by design as much as necessity. We never see Antoinette's traumatic childhood experiences or her convent-school education; she mentions them briefly later.

After a lead-in scene previewing her time at Thornfield, the movie begins with Antoinette meeting Rochester for the first time. Some of its main drawbacks are immediately apparent. Antoinette, despite her West Indies upbringing, is portrayed as speaking with a native English accent (with occasional hints of Scots); she also comes across as more cheery and self-assured than in the book. Meanwhile, Rochester's brusque, rapid mumbling is often hard to understand.

This production focuses almost exclusively on the one main relationship, with far less effort devoted to adding island "flavor" or other atmospheric components. Scenes of Antoinette and Rochester dominate the screenplay: their excitement at meeting and marrying each other, their passionate physical encounters, their later conflicts as Rochester grows uncertain about her background and his situation. We see a bit less of the scheming Christophine and the seductive Amelie and only the tiniest evidence of other servants. Daniel Cosway, bearer of secrets about Antoinette's past, appears suddenly, rather than making himself known to Rochester through letters. It all feels a bit rushed.

Labeled NR (Not Rated), the film contains a few bits of female frontal nudity, some naked bodies placed strategically so nothing much shows, and lots of shadowy groping and panting.

This film features some beautiful scenery and nice production values (film angles, lighting, costumes, etc.). Due to its questionable portrayals and abbreviated plot lines, though, I wouldn't recommend it as highly as the 1993 version.

Liberal Arts (2012)

Better than most movies I've seen lately

[7/10 · 29 December 2012]

The missus and I decided to rent _Liberal Arts_ for the same reason many others probably did - because it starred (and was written by) Josh Radnor, the guy who plays Ted on "How I Met Your Mother". His character in _Liberal Arts_ was similar to Ted: a pretty smart but not always sensible guy who tends to let his heart rule his head and gets pulled in too many potentially romantic directions.

You can view this movie as Josh Radnor's fantasy of what it would be like to have a college cutie aggressively pursue him at his somewhat advanced age. That's only a little off-putting, unlike, say, Steve Martin's "Shopgirl", in which he had a beautiful early 20-something fawning ridiculously over his late-middle-aged self.

_Liberal Arts_ includes some reliable mainstream character types (the aging and regretful professor! the lonely bookstore gal!) along with enough quirky ones to spice up the mixture. The college-roommate scenes were familiar and rang true.

This isn't great art, but it's head and shoulders above much of what passes for entertainment these days. (I just saw _This is 40_, and compared to that mess, _Liberal Arts_ is practically _Citizen Kane_.)

This Is 40 (2012)

Vile and depressing

[3/10 · 29 December 2012]

Here are the main elements from which Apatow crafted this film:

*tons of crude sex talk & implied crude sex scenes

*arguments, bickering, insults (seems like about 80% of the screen time is filled that way)

*casual lies & deceit by the protagonists, done in such an offhand way that it's apparently supposed to seem normal and cute

*a young adolescent yelling a stream of f-bomb-heavy lines

*generally infantile & unappealing behavior by nearly everyone

*all-too-brief appearances by the wonderful Graham Parker, and a waste of the also wonderful Albert Brooks (in a thoroughly unlikeable & ill-fitting role)

Depravity, cruelty, potty humor ... a rich concoction, Apatow apparently thinks. How is any of that uplifting or even enjoyable? If you can imbibe any "entertainment" from this appalling mess, you're a far different kettle of fish than I.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

Interesting but too much deviation & CGI

[5/10 · 23 December 2012]

The Lord of the Rings movies were so fantastic that I was willing to overlook a few invented scenes. The Hobbit strays much further from Tolkien's text; greatly overdramatizes many action scenes just because CGI enables it; and has too many corny-joke moments in what should be a sober tale.

Part of my rating is also because it's absurd to turn The Hobbit into three films. Two would have been pushing it. Naked greed is a black mark against this series.

It's a diverting film, but with all the alterations, it's just another fantasy spectacular. If it had really been The Hobbit (in fact and in spirit), I'd have rated it far higher.

Flipped (I) (2010)

Not made for adults, or for kids with a brain

[6 September 2011]

Wow. Rob Reiner has directed so many terrific movies (The Princess Bride, When Harry Met Sally, Stand By Me, The Bucket List ...) that my hopes were high for this one - but what a letdown.

The plot is cheaply melodramatic, and the acting (despite a strong "name" cast) is shallow and uninteresting, The usually excellent Anthony Edwards does a paint-by-numbers portrayal of an angry dad. Only John Mahoney, who played the dad on "Frasier," is worth watching from an acting standpoint.

The story is painted in such broad and simplified strokes (by both the screenwriters and the actors) that I can only conclude this movie was intended for young teenagers. I wish that had been mentioned in the promotional blurb, so my wife and I wouldn't have wasted an hour and a half watching it (she feels the same way). We kept thinking that the "good" parts of the movie must be coming later ... but they never arrived.

If you are older than about 13, I strongly recommend you steer clear of this piece of claptrap.