Comedywise, there are lots of great moments stuffed in here, so many so, and so different in their tone, that nobody mentions them all. e.g.--nowhere have I seen mentioned the greatness of the Michel Gondry-ripped promo film that Winkelvoss so urgently wants Cash to watch, which is singularly unpersuasive. But the film's also got more IDIOCRACY running through its veins than you might expect given how Mike Judge and Boots Riley likely don't run in the same political circles. Sure,…
It turns out that Mortimer Duke and Randolph Duke were real-life figures. They didn’t screw up lives for the sake of maximizing profit, though, but in service to the Therapeutic State.
The stuff that could render you a minor TV celebrity in the pre-1990s era never ceases to surprise me. As a phenomenon and as an outrage, this is as compelling as it gets. As a film, though, this is good but not great. What's with repeating footage and showing images multiple times?
Docked a half-star for the digital bastardizations of two human faces. If I wanted to see a video game I'd play video games. It smacks of a dearth of filmmaking imagination. Think of how much more effective the end would have been if you'd only seen Leia's back and heard her voice. It's an even better alternative now, post-Carrie Fisher's death.
The overly-nostalgic of us born in the '70s are always chasing the new ALIEN or BLADE RUNNER or THE THING, and this is it. However, it's not the new STALKER, regardless of any similarities in story or attempted tone. Candidly, the qualitative difference between Garland's atheism and Tarkovsky's Christianity goes a long way toward explaining why the scope is narrower in terms of the actual danger presented to the people who enter the "zone" in each film. We're still primarily…