Good actors. Ok pacing. Storyline somewhat disjointed and unbelieveable at times. Poor ending.

“The Little Things” is such a by-the-book police procedural drama that the film doesn’t stand out much. It could be just another season of “True Detective,” or could run together in your memory with dozens of similar crime movies from the last 30 years. The story is familiar, but the ridiculous amount of talent from the Oscar winning cast helps to slightly elevate this routine material.
Veteran sheriff Joe Deacon (Denzel Washington) teams up with police Sergeant Jim Baxter (Rami Malek) to search for a serial killer who’s murdering women in the Los Angeles area. With the body count rising, the men begin to focus on a suspect named Albert (Jared Leto), a disturbing and unbalanced man who enjoys toying with the cops. The men go to great lengths to uncover the guilty party, but the investigation brings up a dark history that uncovers some of Deacon’s long-buried secrets.
In terms of psychological crime thrillers, there’s nothing new here. The plot is uncomplicated and direct, and even the surprise reveal isn’t unexpected. Washington is the ideal casting choice as Deacon. He’s a reliable old timer, and there aren’t many actors like him who are working today. He plays well against Malik’s understated brooding, and both are no match for Leto. He’s great at creating crazed psychopath characters, selling the role as an unhinged killer right down to the most intimidating physical mannerisms. The cast is the film’s strongest point.
Director John Lee Hancock makes the awful choice to score scenes with 60’s rock and roll, which is almost as off-putting as the distracting, choppy editing. There are depictions of crime scenes that are gruesome and distressing, giving the film an unsettling vibe. The overall atmosphere is unpleasant, and the film ultimately feels pointless.
“The Little Things” isn’t a total dud by any means, but it’s not one of the best examples of the genre. The screenplay (by Hancock) is written for those who enjoy disciplined crime dramas, and it should satisfy fans who aren’t expecting too much.
By: Louisa Moore

'The Little Things' is a diversion - not the worst way to kill two hours, and definitely a movie with some people in it. It's a shame there isn't more to recommend about it.
- Jake Watt
Read Jake's full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-the-little-things-three-oscar-winners-one-so-so-mystery

Okay movie made watchable thanks to Washington, Malek and to some extent Leto. Is a bit slow so does take a bit of patience to get to the end, but it's worth checking out. In addition, this is a movie that deserves the straight-to-streaming treatment and not pay to see in theaters. **3.0/5**

Academy Award Winners Denzel Washington, Jared Leto, and Remi Malik star in the new thriller “The Little Things” and combine to make very gripping and memorable performances.
The script was reportedly written over thirty years ago by John Lee Hancock who has gone on to write, direct, and produce multiple films of note in the decades since he first created the screenplay.
The film is set in 1990 and involves a cop named Joe Deacon (Denzel Washington), who travels from his small California town to Los Angeles to get information on a suspect.
Joe has a history in L.A as he used to be a homicide detective for the department which combined with his meltdown while obsessing over a murder case has caused him more than a bit of notoriety.
Jim Baxter (Remi Malik) is the hotshot new Detective who has been leading the investigation into a string of unsolved murders. Joe accompanies Jim to a new crime scene and notes some similarities with his unsolved case. Joe takes some personal days and begins to do some legwork on the case and reports his findings to Jim which causes Joe to remember aspects of what drove him to his marital, health, and career issues as he is unable and unwilling to let the case drop.
When a prime suspect no longer fits into the picture; suspicions fall on a crime enthusiast named Albert (Jared Leto) who seems to check all the boxes but is also taking delight in winding up Joe which causes Jim to question if he is a viable suspect or just an oddball who gets off on crimes and winding up the cops but does not actually commit any offenses.
As the delicate dance unfolds between the characters the fact that this is an era before Cell Phones, DNA tests, GPS, and elaborate computer networks helps underscore the plight of the officers. If the film was set in a modern setting much of the suspense and uncertainty of the story and characters would be moot thanks to technology.
As the game of cat and mouse unfolds between the characters Jim learns how a person can become obsessed with a case and Joe attempts to mentor him from the success and failures of his life which includes some gray areas.
Aside from the strong performances and engaging story what makes “The Little Things” work is that it is a film that does not take the Hollywood fallbacks of extended gunfights, car chases, and over the top action scenes. What it does show is real and flawed characters that are doing what they think are right and does not attempt to wrap things up nice and tidy.
The film uses the element of doubt to not only drive the story but the actions of the characters which underscores that an element of uncertainty exists in some investigations and in with the resources available to police at the time; things are not always certain.
The film will appear in cinemas and HBO Max and is a compelling and well-crafted thriller that is not to be missed.
4.5 stars out of 5

_**The animated show comes to life with John Goodman in the lead role**_
While critics love to bash this live-action cinematic version of "The Flintstones" and the rating here at IMDb is surprisingly low, the movie was a huge hit in 1994 and fittingly so because this is a great movie for what it is. Speaking of which, this explains why "The Flintstones" is such easy prey to incessant panning – it's a movie based on a cartoon. So freaking what? The question is, does it work for what it is and the answer is a resounding "yes"! Movies should be critiqued and graded according to what they are and aspire to achieve. For instance, "Godzilla" is a colossal-creature movie and should be reviewed on that level. Compared to the original "Apocalypse Now" it's dreck, but how does it stack-up to other gigantic-monster movies? It's the same thing with "The Flintstones."
Roger Ebert criticized the film on the grounds that "the story is confusing, not very funny, and kind of odd, given the target audience of younger children and their families. Do kids really care much about office politics, embezzlement, marital problems, difficulties with adoption, aptitude exams and mothers-in-law?" For one thing, the film IS funny if you're familiar with The Flintstones and, more so, if you're a fan, which I am. I've seen the movie four times now and, without exception, laughed from beginning to end. Now the laughs may be more giggling at silly humor than uproarious laughter, but laughing nonetheless.
As for the criticism that the story's confusing and misses the supposed target audience because of adult-oriented elements, this just shows that the "target audience" wasn't just kids. "The Flintstones" is for kids AND adults equally, which was true of the original cartoon as well, but more so with the movie, and I'm glad. The live-action version of "Dudley Do-Right" (1999) made the mistake of aiming solely for kids – real little kids -- and it seriously bombed and justifiably so because it's a complete dud. It's impossible to watch that movie as an adult and stay interested. "The Flintstones" doesn't make this mistake and that's why it was such a hit and remains thoroughly entertaining to this day.
The cast is great, even Rosie O'Donnell as Betty (who I didn't think would work), but John Goodman as Fred is so good it's like the cartoon come to life! Furthermore, the sets and F/X are top-of-the line and surprisingly hold up to this day. In addition, the story has warmth and offers realistic and worthy themes. Take, for instance, Fred and Barney's bond. They're best friends and their personalities balance each other out. You'll see this in real life. My best friend, for example, is similar in some ways to Barney while I more fit the Fred role.
The bottom line is that "The Flintstones" is entertaining from beginning to end for all the reasons noted above and it wisely doesn't overstay its welcome at 91 minutes.
The film was shot at Vasquez Rocks, Santa Clarita and Sun Valley, California, and Snow Canyon State Park, Utah.
GRADE: A

Well, I don't want to say it's HORRIBLE... but that's about all.
For a Tom and Jerry cartoon, there is very little actual Tom and Jerry and more of the focus is on the live action actors than the animated characters. And that, honestly, is my biggest complaint.
All the rest of it is exactly what one would expect. Especially since Tom and Jerry doesn't lend itself to an actual feature film, at least in length. So the plot is as cliche as you would expect, the only down side is that you expect that cliched plot to focus on the titular characters.

Oh, for heaven's sake!! Why? What for? Who on earth ever thought this was a good idea? Those of us who regularly watched the chaotic antics of "Jerry", his arch-nemesis "Tom" and his own persecutor "Spike" know well that these are at their best when delivered as quickly paced, entertaining, five minute bursts of slapstick comedy. This, on the other hand, is a turgid and lacklustre vehicle for Chloë Grace Moretz ("Kayla") to demonstrate that she has a lovely smile but very little else as this nonsense sees her impersonating someone to get a job at an hotel. Here, a celebrity wedding with an Indian theme is set to take place and she is charged with making the wedding of "Ben" (Colin Jost) and "Preeta" (Pallavi Sharda) (or ought that to be Chopra-Jonas?) - complete with animated elephants - go smoothly. "Tom" and "Jerry" have to stop their constant bickering to put on a united front to help her out after predictable carnage ensues. When this is left to the two cartoon characters, it can be passable - otherwise it is a travesty of animated history that ought to be consigned to the deepest vault in the deepest trench of the Pacific Ocean. Shocking!

The spirit of the old cartoons is nowhere to be seen here, and that's the biggest disappointment. There is certainly enough here to entertain families - albeit probably not the parents - and I can envision this film playing on repeat for certain kids. Alas, for anyone looking to recapture the magic of the cartoons and revisiting some old favourites, it's best to look elsewhere.
- Joel Kalkopf
Read Joel's full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-tom-and-jerry-a-spiritless-reimagining-of-a-classic-cartoon

One of the best things I can say about the “Tom and Jerry” feature movie, now streaming on HBO Max, is that it isn’t wholly terrible. The animation is bright, the human cast delivers enjoyably goofy performances, and the film stays true to the original cartoon’s roots. It isn’t super funny nor creative, but the fun story about a celebrity wedding gone awry and a stuffy New York City hotel that employs a cat to rid them of a mouse problem lays the groundwork for a bit of amusing mayhem.
Blending classic animation with live action, the effects are better than expected. The actors (including Chloë Grace Moretz, Michael Peña, Pallavi Sharda, and Colin Jost) do a great job interacting with their cat and mouse counterparts, and the cartoonish elements are reminiscent of the classic Tom and Jerry of the past. The story rekindles the rivalry between the two, but is updated for modern audiences.
The physical comedy and sight gags are good for most of the giggles, but that’s where the humor stops. There’s also a lot of unnecessary potty humor and a few questionable plot points (the movie does little to rise above certain stereotypes) that may feel cringe-worthy to some adults.
“Tom and Jerry” isn’t noteworthy at all, but it’s not awful, either. There’s enough here to entertain most kids for a couple of hours.

This show changed my life when I first watched it at 15, now 20, I still find myself watching this show, even buying myself the dvd set. I'm tired of people wanting a season four, the show's ending is its own story without needing another season. The ending is beautifully done with Siouxsie coming out of retirement after eight years to write "Love Crime." I will always talk about this show and it will remain my favorite over all else.

Well season 3 single handedly ruined the whole show.
The ending is laughable.

**The story that was narrated backwards!**
This was from the director of 'Irreversible'. This story was told in backwards. It opened with a married couple having sexual intercourse and after a phone call, the flashback rolls. Which begins from that point of the story where it stands to where it all began as per the film character who recalls all the events. Actually, it was impressive idea, not that reverse way storytelling, but how the characters were drawn. And then the story was very simple, like the film '9½ Weeks', the drama and the sex parts shared the remaining narration alternatively for like every 10-15 minutes.
I wanted to like it, but not convinced with the blend between both the drama and sex scenes. They should have developed and blended them together better. Especially since the storytelling was reversified, one of the major plot holes is not solved or revealing what could have happened to that particular character on which this plot was developed. If you are not concerned about the storyline and looking for adult contents as in a film, not as a better porn film, then you might enjoy it.
The other major issue was the length. Two hours long for an adult film means teasing and testing your patience. It should have been under 90 minutes, that would have speeded it up a bit. The actors were decent. The film poster was so hot, it will drag you to watch this film. But I would say not to expect big, either adult stuffs or from the dramatic segments. Within its frame, it delivered, but for me it was an average and a little below.
_4.5/10_

You’re Next is a classic slasher film that has brutal kills and suspense, but suffers with a lackluster story and disappointing performances.
The story here is pretty generic with a group of unknown assailants brutally invading a home. There are some twists that the writers attempt to put into it, but most of them are pretty predictable and lack any serious shock.The plot uses the same trope that is used in countless horror films of our lead character luckily having some type of background training that allows her to be able to expertly defend herself. It is fine, but there is something terrifying about seeing an everyday person being thrown into these scenarios.
The performances are pretty bad across the board. Sharni Vinson does a great job and really carries the film overall. The mother and father are simply terrible. Every line delivered by them feels forced and uncomfortable. The other performances are all okay, but really do not make an impact at all.
Overall, my enjoyment of this film is heavily swayed by the gore, violence and suspense present throughout the entire runtime. There are some brutal scenes that had me verbally gasping, which is always a treat to have in a slasher film. Despite my complaints, there is enough here to find enjoyment and with a runtime of only 94 minutes, I would recommend this to any slasher fan.
Score: 72% |
Verdict: Good

**What would happen if the main character of a horror movie wasn’t a moron? You’re Next answers that question with entertaining violence and clever stereotype subversion.**
You’re Next begins as a typical horror slasher with an isolated group of family/friends falling under attack from masked axe-wielding murderers, but a couple of twists and turns along the way set this movie apart. The true stand-out that makes You’re Next so much more interesting than any other slasher is that the female lead is not a stereotypical inept final girl but a strong, capable survivalist, much more than the killers bargained. You’re Next is brutal, gore-filled, and dark but satisfies by turning many horror stereotypes on their head with characters actually making some intelligent decisions in a slasher movie! Like many scary movies, there is some brief and unnecessary sex and nudity, so be prepared, but if you can get past that (or fast forward), the rest of the film is a blast!

It has a lot going for it, but the parts that aren't quite so positive drag it down a lot.
The horror aspects of 'You’re Next' are good. All the deaths are pretty neat, with the villains certainly look the part. Sharni Vinson is memorable in the lead role of Erin, but she's really the only cast member that I enjoyed in this.
The set-up, character decisions and ultimate twist are dreadful. I have a decent threshold of ignoring when characters do dumb things, but this film takes the biscuit in that regard. I was questioning so much of what they all do, to the point it got irritating. Some of the editing and camera work isn't great either.
Going back to the cast. Vinson is definitely the best person onscreen, her character turns into a very cool one as the film progresses. With that said, I never felt she fitted in well. Vinson as Erin as a film's sole protagonist would be awesome, but she's unfortunately held back a lot in this.
I guess if you want a 95 minute slasher that doesn't take any thinking or anything of the sort, then this is a film that's worth a watch. However, for me, the supporting elements aren't good enough to match the solid horror.

**The following is a long-form review that I originally wrote in 2013.**
Though initially shown in 2011, You're Next has only just gained a theatrical release in the past month. A release for which I'm very glad. Being in Australia, a horror movie in cinema is not common, there's rarely if ever more than two showing at the same time, and very often none.
Stylistically it blends a lot of cliche business with some much more out there and alternative ideas. The cinematography is not unlike that of The Strangers (plus there's some similarity in events) and the vibe reminded me of the Saw franchise (though the events themselves most certainly did not). The result is a film that is oddly both a predictable and completely atypical horror.
Though the most major of the plot twists was seen coming by everyone I saw You're Next with, and personally only one of my many predictions about the film failed to eventuate, I'd still rate it as Adam Wingard's best work to date (who has previously been responsible for on A Horrible Way to Die, Pop Skull and What Fun We're Having as well as collaborative segments The ABCs of Death and both V/H/S entries).
The cast is small, and not exactly overburdened with big names. In fact I only recognised AJ Bowen out of the lot of them (from his work on other Wingard pieces as well as The Signal and Hatchet II). Sharni Vinson who plays a character named Erin (a twist on the Final Girl trope usually seen in slasher films) was unknown to me, though an Australian in a major role of an American film was cool to see. She earned much praise for her portrayal, though personally I felt this was at least as much (if not more so) due to good writing than good acting.
My personal accolades go to the villains of the piece, dubbed simply Fox Mask, Tiger Mask and Lamb Mask (above). Particularly Fox Mask, but that may well be a bias seeing as Hoyts sent me a Fox Mask Mask for free. As well as tickets. Good kids.
You're Next has some new ideas to display, as well as some class act ways of getting around issues like budget constraints. It has some well designed kills, a mostly-engaging story and some absolutely hilarious moments (probably intentional, but laugh-out-loud funny either way). But it didn't blow me away, nor was it groundbreaking. The "new stuff" brought to the table tended to come about in short bursts through an otherwise standard setting, rather than actually being original overall. I enjoyed my time and I'd recommend giving it a a watch, but ultimately it sat in the category of "good" rather than "memorable".
-Gimly

You're Next is directed by Adam Wingard and written by Simon Barrett. It stars Sharni Vinson, Nicholas Tucci, Wendy Glenn, A.J. Bowen and Joe Swanberg. Music is by Mads Heldtberg and cinematography by Andrew Palermo.
Bloody and bloody good fun!
The Davison family and partners meet up for a family reunion at a remote holiday home and quickly find that their inner issues are the least of their worries.
The splinter of horror that encompasses home invasion, that most terrifying of subject matters, has had enough filmic entries to actually fill a house! So when another one comes along with good hype and a promise of reinvigorating the formula, it's cause for horror film fans to start salivating.
You're Next doesn't reinvent anything, but it consistently and confidently keeps the formula well oiled and proves to be one of the better films of its type. The set up is standard, a big old country house in the woods, a whole bunch of likable and dislikable people, and of course some outside assailants about to unleash hell on everyone in the house. Refreshingly this is not a roll call of pretty teenagers being stalked and slashed, this is an assorted bunch, young and old, all shapes and sizes, and the family bickering that precedes the carnage is a smart move, because once family members start getting killed there's a genuine sense of grief and regret coursing through those yet to be sliced and diced.
It's nice to find that Wingard has great respect for his target audience, he's made a film for fans of the sub-genre and inserted a darkly comic streak that pays off royally. It's often very nudge nudge and wink winkery, but always in the right places. The director also proves to have a devilish eye for a murder scene, with some of the killings here high grade in blood, physicality and originality. Elsewhere the makers give us a great heroine, a truly resourceful gal that fights back with a ferocity that's both sexy and frightening, and while the revelation of why these events are happening is hardly original - or that the back story given for our heroine's skills is just silly - Wingard plonks it all together with such bloody verve it hardly matters.
Some less than good acting from a couple of the cast, and the overuse of shaky-cam stops it from going through the roof out into the genius stratosphere, but this is a cracker of a home invasion horror and well worth a night in with the lights off and the volume tuned up loud. 8/10

**A messed up family, cleaned up by an outsider!**
This kind of films is usually low rated by me. It's very rare that I find one good film and that happened to be this one. I was braced for another disappointment, then I totally got surprised when it reached half way mark. Good twist too. In fact, there are many twists in the final quarters. Not like breathtaking, but very acceptable with kind of story and characters it had.
Another home invasion film. A family reunites for the parent's wedding anniversary at their rural vacation house. Slowly all the children arrive with their life partners, and then suddenly while dining, the attack takes place. Creates full of chaos, the family does not know what to do. But one of the members' retaliation makes thing complication for the attackers. What follows after that, and how it all ends are the rest of the story.
First of all, this is not a horror film as labelled. It is a terror. We don't have a such genre, so it comes under horror. But the best way to call it a thriller. Sharni Vinson was very good. It's because of how her role was designed. Best film so far by this filmmaker, until his upcoming big titles. A one-night-event film, and of course a limited cast. They make sequels for crap films, but this one definitely deserves one. So I'm expecting one. Thos who love this genre must see it.
_8/10_

Stereotypes exist for a reason. Without them, You're Next would have very little to work with. Luckily the film uses what would be eye-rolling moments and turns them on their heads. It had a rather nestalgic feel, while feeling fresh at the same time. Solid effects and passable acting makes this a must for any genre fan.

The Bubble Bath Boys.
I guess when push comes to shove, it is what it is and achieves its aims by pleasing the intended target audience.
Plot finds 40-something pals John Cusack, Craig Robinson and Rob Corddry stuck in ruts and magically transported back to 1986 courtesy of a hot tub. So basically the guys, still in their 40 something bodies get to relive 86 knowing what they know already, if you get my meaning?
What follows is a load of raucous behaviour, man child histrionics and crudeness as the mid-life crisis’ come thundering out in a wave of bad hair, iconic 80s dudes and teen angst. The laughs are plenty, if a touch juvenile, and there is at least an air of regressive reflection trying to make its point amongst the testosterone.
It does a job, just. 6/10

Wheeeeeja!
A sequel that's a prequel that's actually better than what preceded it! Ouija: Origin of Evil is an above average chiller that's a fine scary ride for those not expecting boundary pushing.
Standard rules apply here, widowed mum and two daughters who dabble in the con of seance profiteering get more than they bargained for when they introduce a Ouija board to proceedings.
Director Mike Flanagan knows how to construct a good honest scare piece (see Oculus and Hush), and so it proves here. The atmosphere is constantly set at impending dread, the tension slow built until pic goes into overdrive. Unfortunately so many horror films of the decade are reliant on the demon formula to fill out their respective tales, so much so it has become jaded and utterly unsurprising.
This hurts this picture and it runs away with itself, rendering the big final quarter - complete with emotional baggage - as something of a let down; though the final shot has goosebump value for sure. Hadrcore horror buffs will find irritants and emptiness, but for those who dip in and out of the genre should find a quick chill to fill a fright gap. 6/10

I really enjoyed the beginning of the film. The film though lasts 90 minutes and till 60 minutes seems like we are still in the beginning. The movie ends too fast, all the action takes part in the last 15 minutes so they wrap it up very poorly and not enjoyable. The horror scenes look more funny rather than scary and that makes it even worse. Really disappointed with the end, cause it had very great potentials.

**So this is where it all began!**
It is a decent horror film, but surely better than the first. The previous part was an usual teen themed horror where everything started as a playful. But this one was a prequel and it focused on the origins. A single mother with two daughters is making money helping the people who want to contact their beloved dead ones. The things changes when her little daughter started to communicate the spirits of her own. The chaos unleashes, the house becomes haunted and the family begins to fall apart.
Keeping it simple is what worked out well for the film, despite thematically borrowed from others, scenes were kind of familiar and characters intentionally developed. Particularly the priest role was the most overused in any horror film. Followed by the twist. That turning point was good, but not a new. Nice performances and well shot film. Ouija is a fine concept for a horror theme and with this film's somewhat success, I hope the next one would only get better. So it is worth a watch, if you're not anticipating a something special.
_6/10_

_YesYes: UnOriginal of Evil_ is a **much**, much better film than its predecessor, Ouija.
But, seeing as the first _Ouija_ was far and away the worst film of 2014, that's not much of an achievement.
_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._

When you watch some of Nicolas Cage's more recent stuff you do wonder how on earth he ever became a star in the first place. Well, this is one of the films that reminds us why. He is a struggling screenwriter ("Charlie") charged with adapting a novel about orchids written by "Susan Orlean" (Meryl Streep). Mental block would be putting it mildly - he simply has no idea how to make it work for "Valerie" (easily one of the less abstruse roles played by Tilda Swinton). Moreover, he is constantly hassled by his twin brother "Donald" who is writing his own story - one that his sibling thinks is riddled with flaws and inconsistencies. The book he must adapt centres around the activities of "Laroche" (Chris Cooper) who had a habit of going with his Seminole pals to remove rare plants from a nature reserve. Illegal? Well not if you know your way around the Floridian penal code, and the ensuing court case is what entices "New Yorker" reporter "Orlean" to write his story. Initially sceptical of her rather uncouth subject matter - not helped by his missing front teeth, she discovers there is much more to the man and his provision of a green powder soon helps her to relax! What now ensues nicely marries the threads of the storylines as both Cage characters, an excellently enigmatic Cooper, and the unfulfilled Miss Streep find themselves gradually drawn together for an admittedly pretty far-fetched denouement (pronounce denooeymont). Cage plays the two characters with considerable skill; he juggles his characters' frustrations with his writing, his love life, his brother and his own reluctance to meet the author engagingly and at times he can make you squirm in your seat a bit. There is plenty of humour, and the all but two hours just flies by. If nothing else, it does make you appreciate just how difficult is is to turn a novel into a film - and might explain why so few people are actually any good at it!

I'm reacting the way the world does to movies about making movies about making movies. I mean come on, Charlie Kaufman, some of us have work in the morning, damn.
_Final rating:★★½ - Not quite for me, but I definitely get the appeal._

I am not a fan of war movies (and therefore not an authoritative reviewer) so I can only say that I thought it was fairly entertaining. Woody Harrelson and Dennis Quaid were as good as I would expect them to be and the large cast certainly held their own.
I felt there were some war movie cliches here and there, but the Japanese were portrayed with respect and, I assume, realism. The battle felt like a very near thing to me, like it could easily have gone the other way with a bit less bravery and persistence on the part of the American fliers. Plus it showed only two planes returning in the end, but someone said they lost half their men. Perhaps the rest landed on different carriers and was just unclear. But as I said, I knew little of the details of the battle going in.

This movie was a bit of a positive surprise. I was actually prepared to not like it that much but Hollywood actually made a decent war movie without pushing their usual left wing political propaganda and woke SJW bullshit.
It’s really a good movie in pretty much all aspects.
First, I liked that it covers quite a bit more than “just” Midway. It actually starts before the attack on Pearl Harbor. Then it covers the attack on Perl Harbor and also the famous Dolittle raid on Tokay to finally end up with the battle of Midway. All of it is more or less historically accurate. We also get to see a fair amount of the history from the viewpoint of the Japanese. Whether that bit of the story is actually entirely accurate I guess no one will ever know of course.
I also liked that they took the effort to get all Japanese actors (or Japanese looking at least) playing the Japanese side and that they spoke Japanese all the time. That’s the kind of thing that gives the right atmosphere for those parts of the movie.
The acting was overall good on both sides. I quite liked Woody Harrelson as Nimitz. Ed Skrein was probably the actor I felt made the most mediocre performance but that might just be me.
Of course there can be no war movie without things going boom and this movie didn’t disappoint on that. It has plenty of action, lots of flight scenes and lots of thing being blown up and it was overall well made. The effects when large ships got torpedoed, bombed or when their munitions exploded was quite realistic. You could see the ships shuddering and the effect on the water around it.
If I should complain about something it was that the movie is too short. Given the large time period it covers there is so much material that it could easily have been longer. It almost felt a bit rushed. There could have been much more suspense around the battle of Midway itself and the part of how they got Yorktown operational, and hid the fact from the Japanese, in time for the battle was altogether left out for example.
The movie was 2 hours 18 minutes long which is respectable but not that long by today’s standards. All three of the extended Lord of the Rings movies was three and a half hours long and this one could easily have been as long.

Click here for a video version of this review: youtu.be/2Mr6XRF4GR4
_Midway_ is an ambitous film that sets out to follow the United States entry into World War Two, from the attack on Pearl Harbour through to the Battle of Midway. To tell this story it focuses on two main characters who are also based on real life people. There's Ed Skrein playing Dick Best, a pilot on the USS Enterprise, and Patrick Wilson playing intelligence officer Edwin Layton.
As you might imagine jamming seven months of war into just over two hours is a big task, and while they did manage to pull this off, the result is a movie that feels rushed, where we can't get to know all the many characters, and which probably requires a pretty strong knowledge of this time period in history to understand all the things that are rapidly being thrown on screen.
I actually had a lot of trouble telling who was who in many of the scenes involving the pilots. Apart from Ed Skrein and Luke Evans the rest of the pilots and rear gunners are such a copy / paste of each other and they come and go so fast on screen that you have zero time to have any kind of emotional connection to them, even though the movie tries to make you feel for them. For a lead actor, Skrein is very wooden and uninspiring, and I don't think has shoulders big enough to carry his part of the film.
Then, as if the 10,000 mile an hour story is not bad enough, this movie relies very heavily on visual effects. Apart from close-ups, everything you see that involves a ship or a plane is entirely CGI and it is woefully bad 99% of the time. I've used the Playstation analogy a lot, and this is another example. I feel like if they had cut back the story to not cover so many fights and battles, there would have been a lot less visual effect shots. And with less shots to create and render, perhaps those remaining would have come out looking more realistic. As it is, it really takes you out of the movie - the planes move like they are weightless and defy the laws of physics, the explosions look they were made in AfterEffects, and each scene on a ship has that horrible green screen glow about it.
In summary I think this movie suffers from trying to do too much all at once. This came off feeling more like a trilogy of movies about Pearl Harbour, The Doolittle Raid, and The Battle of Midway had been edited down to one single movie. The end result is a rushed film that is hard to follow, whose characters are difficult to connect with, and whose visual effects are video game level at best. This will not go down in history as a great war film.