TxMike

I enjoyed this movie. I was predisposed to because of the parallels in my own life in the 1950s in a small southern town. The nearest golf course was 30 miles away so I built my own clubs from old broom sticks and pieces of 2X4 lumber. I built a small course in our long back yard. At one point my dad bought me a 9-iron and a few real balls. Finally in 1962 I made it to the course, I played with a borrowed set of clubs, it was the beginning of 60+ years of golf for me.

So these rural Texas kids, of Mexican parents, had a similar affinity for the game. Five of them worked as caddies at the local "whites only" country club. But they wanted to play the game so they spent leisure time crafting their own rough golf course, using balls they scavenged after hours and discarded golf clubs.

A new school superintendent who loved golf showed up for the new school year, he too of Mexican ancestry, found out about the five boys, and began the quest to form them into real golfers. Plus dealing with the racism of the time and overcoming it to grow into fine young men.

While the characters and the story are true the screenplay was built from a book written after extensive research and interviews. So it is authentic to the real 1950s story but of course includes fictionalized scenes and dialog to make it an entertaining movie. Much of the movie was shot in the nearby towns of Smithville and Bastrop in the areas west of Houston.

It is a well-crafted and entertaining movie. My wife and I, both avid golfers, enjoyed it, streaming at home.

The opening of this movie, before any action begins, we are treated to a pictorial review of the types of bees and the role of each, to keep the hive running smoothly. Then we see newspaper headlines of killer wasps invading beehives to upset the status. This in fact is what the movie is about, instead of focusing on real bees it involves the smooth functioning of society as if it were a giant beehive, and the killer wasps are the scammers who illegally take advantage of others.

Jason Statham is a producer and stars as Adam Clay, retired member of an organization that is underground and unofficial, they call them the "beekeepers". Only a few in the CIA and the FBI even know about them. Their job, when called upon, is to take out people who are wasps in society, where normal rules of justice have failed.

Clay has retired to a life of actual beekeeping. The opening scene has him going into a barn to trap then destroy a hive of killer wasps as a foreshadowing of what the rest of the movie is about. He presses himself into action when an older woman, someone he is very attached to, takes her own life after being scammed and all her accounts drained, including a $2Million charity account she was administering.

Statham is very good in this role. Think Leon the Professional or The Equalizer but taken to an even more lethal level. For the action junkies there are several explosions and lots and lots of shooting and killing. A bit too much at times, but most of us can make exceptions when the good guy is hunting down the really bad guys in our world.

My wife and I watched it at home, streaming on Prime.

The Louisville, Kentucky area, the events depicted here start in 1993 and extend into 1994. Snippets as the credits roll show us glimpses of the real people and some of the activities depicted in the movie and some closer to the present. As often happens some things were changed for dramatic (movie-making) effect but the core story is factual.

Hilary Swank is good as Sharon, the woman with serious, unresolved issues, mostly a result of her frequent binge drinking. She has long contended she is NOT an alcoholic but has to come to grips with reality. Her core motivation to help strangers is part of her helping herself. She enters their lives when they need it the most.

Strongman and star as "Reacher", Alan Ritchson is the dad, Ed. He is required to be understated and diligent, but also tender to his two young daughters. He plays the part very authentically. He doesn't want help, he is a proud, hard-working man, but Sharon is the type that seldom takes "no" for an answer. (One of the daughters is played by a very young actress named Skywalker. I'd love to know the story behind her name.)

The core story is, after Ed's wife died his 5-yr-old daughter was diagnosed with a serious illness that would require a liver transplant. Ed was already deep in debt and it was only to mount up further. He is a good man but didn't see a way ahead, Sharon was the one who took control and helped him accomplish the impossible.

It was also nice to see veteran Nancy Travis as the grandmother Barbara. It isn't a large role but it is important and she is effective.

Good movie. While it has a faith-based element, it is more about friendship and how people banding together can solve the seeming impossible problems.

My wife and I watched it on DVD from our public library.

There are always people who go into a movie like this only to find flaws. That is why it has an unusually low rating, about 20% of the votes are "1" which makes no sense at all. It is more likely a "5" or a "6", compared to other goofy comedies. Yes, there are many flaws, the situations are implausible, the resolution at the end is implausible, but this movie was not made to be a realistic Astronaut training movie. It was made just to simply try to entertain and it does that pretty well. Just light entertainment, nothing more.

Cute Emma Roberts, now in her 30s, also produced this movie and stars as Rex Simpson. She grew up with a close bond with her mother, together they fanaticized about Rex becoming an Astronaut some day and explore space. Mom has died and Rex does odd jobs, like bartending and working with her dad in a fake haunted house business.

At her 10-year class reunion the old classmates expected Rex to be riding high, she had established a reputation for being inventive and solving difficult problems. But her mother's death short-circuited everything. So she decided to put herself out there, she became interested in a new class of "Ascans", the code word for Astronaut candidates.

But her good friend throws her a big curve when asked to proofread the application, adding in a number of fake credentials. Rex was accepted but didn't understand why. Until she was already at NASA.

Yes, the whole thing is implausible. However if one can get past that and just see where it goes, there is a fair amount of entertainment as we see how Rex handles all the new experiences.

My wife and I watched it at home, streaming on Prime.

I read some of the Dune writings way back when I was a lad but I don't remember much about the world depicted there. I read a few reviews of this movie and invariably there are a few who refuse to take this movie on its own and feel obligated to compare it to the book(s). And complain about what was left out, or what was changed. That is a totally nonproductive exercise, books are books and movies are movies, each should be considered on their own merits.

Having said that, I suspect this 2-part modern Dune movie is a real treat for die-hard fans. I am not a die-hard fan, I appreciate the stories for their place in literary history, and for their influence on stories and movies that came after it. So, not being a big fan just means that most of the locations, characters, and controversies are lost on me. I can't care about what I don't understand.

Dune, a far-away planet, is of interest only for "Spice." This Spice is not what we think of when flavoring our foods, it is considered the most valuable substance in the universe and it is mined in a hot and most inhospitable planet in a distant star system. Not the least of which are very large and fast Sand Worms, some over 400 meters long, that detect rhythmic sound in its search for its next meal. But as always when a valuable substance is at stake warring factions get into combats for it. "He who controls the Spice, controls the Universe."

I enjoyed the approximate 2 1/2 hour movie, that I watched at home on DVD from my public library, over two evenings. I had fun with the characters and the action. Lots of violence, lots of explosions. I have a sound system with a high-quality subwoofer and in certain scenes it rocked my viewing room.

Nicole Kidman, judging solely by the expensive LA-area home of hers, is successful author Brooke Harwood. Her husband passed away some 11 years earlier and she is living a mostly quiet life with a 24-yr-old daughter who has moved back in while trying to get her movie or TV production career energized.

Her daughter works as an assistant for an often juvenile, demanding, and entitled actor, played by Zac Efron as Chris Cole. Strictly by accident Chris meets Brooke, not even knowing who she is. He is smitten, even though later the two characters say that he is 16 years younger than Brooke. (In real life Kidman is 21 years older than Efron.)

The daughter is played by Joey King as Zara Ford. King is one of the better actresses of her generation and her role here is no exception. In fact, even though Kidman and Efron are the bigger stars, and much of the focus in on their budding relationship, the story is more Zara's story. She knows Chris very well and she desperately wants to convince her mother that he is not good for her. Zara's character arc is to respect her mother and her choices.

The whole movie is more about Zara than anything else.

Also in a very good role is veteran Kathy Bates as the grandma, Leila Ford. She has a special relationship with Zara and is instrumental in helping her face reality.

My wife and I watched it streaming, it is a better movie than we thought it was going to be.

This is a Ken Loach movie, now approaching 90 he says it is his last movie. Looking at both his own life trajectory and choices, plus the movies he has made, he has a strong "social justice" orientation. That is the thrust of this movie.

Filmed in the N. E. England area of Durham, a working class city of about 50,000, we see many families are just barely getting by. The local focus is the owner of the pub, the Old Oak.

Refugees from war-torn Syria are starting to show up, moving in, and being helped by sympathetic locals. This angers many of the hardened men who see this as simply taking away from them. Even though they are daily patrons of the pub they refer to it as "their pub" and they resent the change in scenery when certain things happen.

One of Loach's movies is the 2006 "Wind That Shakes the Barley". The theme is the history of Ireland's resistance of British rule in the 1920s. Here we see the resistance of some locals to empathize with displaced immigrants who just want to integrate into the local community and become productive members of that community.

Loach himself has said that he always wants actors speaking in their native accent at all times and not imitating another accent. Loach has said that use of subtitles is preferable to asking actors to change their speech. My wife and I watched this at home on DVD from our public library, WITH ENGLISH SUBTITLES ON, otherwise we might have understood 25% of the dialog.

Overall an interesting take on an important subject. A statement at the end credits indicates the stories are predominantly factual but presented in a fictional setting of this movie.

This was a landmark movie when it came out in 1993, now a bit over 30 years ago. The novel idea is based on a premise that an ancient mosquito trapped in amber can have dinosaur blood, therefore dinosaur DNA, to allow cloning and regenerating a variety of dinosaurs. The scientific fact is that DNA 65+ million years old would have degraded so much that such an experiment would not be successful. However, it is a fictional movie, so lets pretend for a couple of hours that it had been possible.

The director is Spielberg and the whole movie has a "Raider of the Lost Ark" feel to it, the way action is performed and the way characters escape danger just in time. I have watched this movie several times over the years but every few years is not too much. I found it today streaming on Peacock. It was 96 outside with a "feels like" of 108 so I had no choice, do something inside!

Jeff Goldblum is usually my favorite in most movies he is in, and he is my favorite here as the Scientist who is a vocal critic about the project. In essence his point is, just because we can doesn't mean we should recreate dinosaurs. After all they had their time, they became extinct and we should respect that.

I managed to find this 1952 movie on the Movies! Channel that specializes in older, often B&W, movies. Marilyn Monroe plays Nell Forbes. She was only 25 during filming but already had a number of good roles in her resume'. From her later movie roles it would be easy to consider her acting skills as marginal but as this role shows she was a very fine actress.

Essentially all of the movie takes place in a hotel. We don't find out until about half-way through that she had recently been released from a mental hospital, the healed scars on her wrists show she had suicidal thoughts. She travels to New York where her uncle works as the elevator operator for the hotel. A couple staying there need a sitter for their young daughter so they can attend a function downstairs. So Nell gets the job on recommendation from her uncle. Things don't work out very smoothly.

I enjoyed the movie mainly as a look at a younger Monroe. She is very good as the confused young lady. This was the time before TV, hotel rooms had radios in the walls for entertainment. And of course elevator operators. And for some reason their drink of choice was rye whiskey with about half water. I like rye whiskey, neat.

First, a couple of things. While the story of finding the dog, then naming it Arthur the King, during an Adventure Race is basically factual, the story this movie is based on was a race in Ecuador, and the main human character was from Sweden.

In this movie Mark Wahlberg stars as Michael from Colorado and the race profiled is an Adventure Race in the Dominican Republic, and it was filmed there.

It is a heartwarming story but frankly isn't done that well. Both my wife and I said, about half-way through, "This isn't a very well written and acted movie." Something about it, the dialog often didn't seem authentic, and it mostly looked like they were making a movie.

I don't want to come across as too negative, it is a good story but considering the actors in it should have been a lot better.

At home, on DVD from our public library. The disc has several interesting "extras", including meeting the real Michael and his family.

I found this movie on DVD at my public library. First, I read several reviews and, as mixed as they are, I almost decided to skip it. But I relented and spun it up.

On the positive side it is a compelling story. A married couple with a young sight-impaired son live in a chalet in the mountains not far from Grenoble, France. Dad is French, it is where he grew up, mom is German and doesn't speak French well. So they use a "neutral" language at home, English. (Some dialog is in French but the DVD has subtitles.)

Both are authors but he spends much of his awake time renovating the top floor so that can have room for paying tourists. He has a habit of playing loud music while he is working, he says it keeps him calm.

One day as the son and his dog are returning from a walk in the snow he comes upon his dad, bleeding and dead in the snow. When an autopsy is done it reveals a very sharp blow to his head that probably killed him. Was it an accident? Did he just carelessly fall? Or did the only other person at home, his wife, cause his death?

All this happens to open the movie and set up the story. We see law enforcement, lawyers, friends, and a long process to build a case against the wife with lots of innuendo and supposition.

The bad part is that the movie runs well over 2 hours. In many scenes things, like the boy playing piano, or characters just wandering around, dwell too long without moving the plot forward.

I enjoyed it at a certain level but don't rate it very highly. It is a good movie for those who enjoy reading novels and don't mind if things move slowly.

I was able to view this documentary today streaming on Prime. My own take may seem harsh to some but I believe what this shows is her narcissism. We see that from a very young age, in an interview she stated that she wanted to sing the rest of her life, but more important, to become a world-famous performer. As an adult she admits that being on stage, receiving applause from the audience, is like a drug addiction to her. She can hardly live without the approval and adulation of others, mostly strangers. That seems very narcissistic to me.

I find myself wondering what it is like to have only one goal, one obsession your whole life, forming your whole identity by how well you do that one thing, then start having difficulty doing it.

To me the most important part of this documentary starts at 1 hour 15 minutes into it. We are shown how it is now for her, to go into a recording studio to do one fairly straightforward song. Take after take, either her voice doesn't respond or when it does undesired vocal breaks enter randomly. Then the aftermath of that plus the rest of the presentation.

I have always had a mixed reaction to her singing. On the one hand, in her prime she had one of the best singing voices ever and it was always clear she loved what she was doing. But a comment she makes, that the song itself isn't so important, it is the way the singer sings it, and that explains why I strongly dislike so many of her songs. Too much vocal "gymnastics." Just because you can do fancy runs doesn't necessarily mean you should. Or at least not to the great extent that she does them in many songs. There is a fine line that separates welcome embellishment from unwanted extremes and she crosses it frequently.

I thoroughly enjoyed the documentary, I admit I had a tear in my eye when she was struggling so greatly and the doctors had to act fast to save her. Overall it is a sad tale, how the rare condition of stiff person syndrome (SPS) has wrecked her career. They seem to have hope it can be contained enough so that she can perform live again but it doesn't look very promising. Thanks to CDs and DVDs we never have to forget who she was and how she sounded.

The biggest fun in watching this movie now, in 2024, is to see many now-seasoned, 50-something actors in their 20s. The main story is well-known, the ambitious Cardinal wants more power and part of his plot to get rid of the young teen-age king is to have the Musketeers, whose job is to protect the King, disbanded. Right about the time that young D'Artagnan is traveling to attempt to join the Musketeers.

The movie is done with much humor while still sticking to the basic story. For a movie over 30 years old it comes across very nicely. Most of the entertainment is from seeing the several now-familiar veteran actors.

At home, on DVD from my public library.

I watched this on the advice of my daughter. Being 2024 now the show is old news, having started in 2018. If we believe that titles mean anything, and that the character Eve is in one fewer episode as her antagonist, maybe that indirectly tells us what will happen.

But I don't really know. I finished the first season, everything is built up but nothing is resolved. Frankly this is not my favorite type of program, where you have to follow story and characters for four years. I much prefer a 90 to 120 minute movie where the main story achieves some sort of completion.

However I really did enjoy season one. Jodie Comer as the assassin Villanelle and Sandra Oh as the government agent Eve Polastri work very well off each other. Any competent actress could have played Eve, but it is hard to imagine anyone as good as Jodie Comer for her role.

I may or may not watch additional episodes in additional seasons. Maybe when I need to kill time but not as a priority. After a while it becomes more of the same just in different situations.

EDIT: A few days later I watched the final episode of season four, just to see where all the characters went and how things were tied up. Interestingly I will say. But then I have no real desire to go back and watch all the episodes between the end of season one and the very final one. It is all very well done, lots of violence and lots of humor and good character growth. I just don't want to invest all the time watching a fictional story.

At home, streaming.

It seems so recent that Reese Witherspoon and Ashton Kutcher were relative youngsters starring in movies and TV shows. Now they are both middle-age, rapidly approaching 50, and in this movie they take on quite mature roles.

Witherspoon is single mom Debbie Dunn, living in working in Los Angeles. Kutcher is Peter Coleman with a successful consulting career in New York City. The movie starts with a flashback to 20 years earlier, to 2003. As passionate 20-somethings they hooked up but it never progressed. He moved across the country, he says because he was afraid of earthquakes.

However they have stayed good friends remotely, calling and chatting regularly. They are fond of saying "I tell you everything" but as the movie progresses we see that isn't really true.

The story swings into a quicker pace when Debbie has to go to Manhattan for a week to complete a course required to get her desired credentials. Her good friend is supposed to stay with her young son but cancels at the last minute. On the verge of cancelling her trip, Peter convinces her to travel and stay at his place for a week while he flies down to California to stay with her son.

There isn't really much new here but the two stars make it a pleasant and entertaining watch. I found myself thinking, "If the two leads were Amy Schumer and Seth Rogan, would this be any good?" And my answer was "No", because this type of movie needs two charming and likeable leads, and Witherspoon and Kutcher are.

At home, streaming, my wife and I were entertained.

Tom Cruise himself does not participate directly, this uses clips from most of his movies, essentially in chronological order, to illustrate the points being made here. It also includes many clips of Cruise in such situations as publicity appearances or behind the scenes during movie-making. Looking at the entire list of his movies since 1981, I realize I have watched almost all of them.

To me the title poses a question, not an answer, "Is Cruise the last movie star?" It is strongly suggested that he might be if you consider his career arc over 40+ years and that even in his late 50s and early 60s is still making action movies and doing his own stunts. And his blockbusters seem to be making more and more money than ever.

It touches on his involvement with Scientology, but only briefly and to point out that his avoiding discussion of it is probably better for his career.

I watched this at home, streaming on Prime. For me, a movie fan in general, I found it totally interesting and worthwhile viewing. Regardless of what one thinks of Cruise as a person, he is probably the hardest worker in the business and his movies are the better for it.

I want to first state that, like many modern movie scripts, this one has way too much filthy language. Sure, some of it comes across as authentic but overall, it is over-used, much like adding too much seasoning to a prime filet. It is very distracting.

With that aside this is a very entertaining movie, a dark comedy. It is set and filmed in New Orleans but the central character is based off a man who operated in Houston, Texas. It is based on, rather inspired by, the 2001 Texas Monthly article, "Hit Man," by Skip Hollandsworth. While many of the situations in the movie are authentic, many others are created for entertainment.

The hot leading man of late is Glen Powell, who was John Glenn in "Hidden Figures" and one of the ace pilots in "Top Gun Maverick". Here he is the central character Gary Johnson whose day job is a professor at the University of New Orleans and who also assists the New Orleans Police department. He is pressed into service as a fake "hit man" when another man has to take a 120 day leave.

His role is to meet with people who want to hire a hit man to dispose of someone, maybe a spouse, maybe a parent, an endless variety. But all he does is record the conversation and accept the money so police can make the arrest.

His life gets greatly complicated when unexpected romance enters his life. Powell has to play several versions of himself and various hit man identities and does it well, showing he isn't just a pretty face but also a fine actor.

My wife and I enjoyed it, at home, streaming.

This is a rather small movie and since there are very few reviews I surmise that relatively few have seen it. It features Anna Paquin and was directed by her husband. Set in a London community, it ends in Scarborough on the NE England coast.

As the story developed it reminded me of the 2020 movie "Dare to Dream" with Katie Holmes and Josh Lucas, where she was a widow and this mysterious man shows up just in time to help her get her life together.

This story is quite different but it features Luca Hogan as Neil, a boy of 13 about to turn 14. He is always nice and proper and has a knack for saying the right thing at the right moment. He claims he never gets cold and he says his older parents don't care where he is. I began to wonder if he represented some sort of divine facilitator who would disappear just when his job was done.

Anna Paquin is Ella, about to turn 40. (Probably her actual age during filming.) We see she is living in her father's house and we gradually learn she lost her children to their dad and his new wife because of her problem with alcoholism. She is required to attend meetings but she hates them. When Neil enters her life, when both of them are on the playground observing kids at play, he has a positive influence on her.

Ella goes through anger and self-pity for being in the situation she created but I found the quiet scenes between Ella and Niel to be the most interesting. While I wouldn't classify this as a great movie it is interesting and Paquin is good in the role. My wife and I watched it streaming at home.

If one goes into watching this movie and enjoying it for what it is, and NOT for what one thinks it SHOULD be, then it is a very interesting and well-made movie. Most votes are in the 5, 6, 7, and 8 categories which is a valid indicator of what this movie deserves.

It is set in Jerusalem in AD 33, which Christians recognize as the year Jesus would be arrested and crucified. The story focuses on LaKeith Stanfield in the role of Clarence, a 30-ish man who doesn't quite have his life right. He borrows money and a chariot with horse which are featured in the chariot race that opens the movie. Something happens, he has 30 days to come up with money to pay his debts.

As Clarence looks around he makes note of the attention surrounding Jesus. Clarence isn't a believer, he is fond of saying "Knowledge is more powerful than faith" and even goes to the mother of Jesus to try to find out how he does his tricks, his illusions of healing the sick or awakening the dead. His goal is to either become the 13th apostle or to declare himself as the "real" messiah and do tricks to convince the people that he is genuine, in the process raising money to pay his debts and to free some slaves.

All this raises many additional issues and for the most part they are treated interestingly and often with humor. I watched the extras on the DVD, hoping to learn what all the filmmaker had in mind with this story but his commentary didn't shed any light. I wondered if part of it is parody of the modern "men of God" who preach and depend on followers sending them money.

Regardless I found it to be totally interesting and entertaining.

The writer-director is also an accomplished musician, he wrote the score and lyrics to several songs which he also sings. All in all the music is wonderful and complements the movie scenes very well.

I watched it at home on DVD from my public library, my wife read about the premise and decided to skip. Not a movie for fans of ONLY traditional stories, but very interesting for those of us who enjoy unique approaches.

So, I've lost count of how many of the "Fast" movies are out but surely they must be getting to the end. However, as long as they keep making money...

Most of the old regulars are in this movie, even a short opening scene which includes Paul Walker who died over 10 years ago. Plus a number of other good actors, many with just short cameo appearances. The main protagonist is Vin Diesel as Dominic Toretto. His main antagonist is Jason Momoa as Dante who is out to avenge the death of his father.

I need to comment about Momoa who has mostly been cast as good and mostly gentle Aquaman in various movies. Here he is totally different, as other commentors have stated his character is reminiscent of The Joker in Batman movies. It was a pleasant surprise for me, I have a new respect for his acting chops, in fact to me he made the movie more interesting than just a series of races and spectacular crashes.

Plus, as the extras on the disc show, Momoa did all of his own stunts, including some thrilling motorcycle riding through the streets of Rome. (The disc has other interesting "making of" features.)

Anyway my wife was tired, so we put this on, a BluRay from our public library. We figured the noise and action would help keep her awake and it did. I don't consider this a particularly good movie but it is entertaining in its own way. It is PG13 but there is a lot of shooting and killing, I suppose that is what movies are teaching our younger generation.

John Wayne has a very special meaning to me, he and my dad share a birthday, May 26, 1907. My dad was a big fan so naturally I am too.

Here he is Sheriff John T. Chance in the 1800s Texas town called Rio Bravo. It seems to be a magnet of sorts for crooks, including card sharps who roam from town to town to take advantage of the locals. But now they have a bigger problem, the brother of a wealthy rancher shoots and kills an unarmed man in a bar argument and he is jailed. Most of the movie is about the sheriff and his two or three allies outsmarting the crooks who want to break their man out of jail while waiting for a US Marshall to show up. There are lots of gunfights and the final scenes include creative use of sticks of dynamite and sharpshooters.

(An aside, it is now 2024 and things have not changed much, almost every day here in Texas we hear about someone getting shot during an argument inside or right outside a bar.)

(Another aside, originally the expression was "card sharp" and that is what was used in the 1800s. In modern times more people use the expression "card shark" but that is not the original term.)

One of the sheriff's allies is 40-something Dean Martin as 'Dude', a reformed drunk who is trying hard to stay straight. He is a quick draw and very handy with a gun. Or two. During most of the 1950s Martin was in several movies as part of the Martin and Lewis comedy duo, Martin mostly playing the straight man to Lewis' comic antics. He was also a popular singer. He is very good here as the gunfighter who becomes a deputy.

Another interesting actor was teenager Ricky Nelson as aspiring gunfighter Colorado Ryan. Nelson grew up on TV with his parents' TV series so was very comfortable with a featured role while still in his teens. At one point while everyone was relaxing he played guitar and sang a duet with Martin.

And finally, a 20-something Angie Dickinson as Feathers who came into town on the stagecoach but never left. In spite of a generous age difference between her and Wayne the ultimate scene depicted a blooming love relationship between the two.

Overall, for me a very nice throwback to the kinds of movies I enjoyed growing up. At home, streaming.

As a young married guy just out of college I watched "2001" in the theater in Alton, Illinois, back in the late 1960s. I remember it as something totally different and not sure what to make of it. When it ended I was sure I missed something important so we sat through it again without moving out of our seats. As I have lived and read about it here and there I gradually understood what Kubrick was doing.

This movie, "2010", was made almost 20 years later by different filmmakers. It bridges off the former mission with lots of questions but few answers. In fact they have no idea what happened to the 2001 mission or how to interpret the final data transmissions.

In this movie a Russian mission towards Jupiter is planned but they need an expert who can, hopefully, troubleshoot and re-boot the HAL9000 computer that was onboard the old mission. So they add three American astronauts. Notably one of the Russians is played by a younger Helen Mirren ( who, of course, has a Russian father).

To add intrigue, back on Earth as the mission in in progress there is a growing possible conflict between USA and Russia. The black monoliths, always in the same ratio of dimensions, again are featured and depicted as possessing great powers. As the movie winds down and a few surprises happen, the message ends with a plea for peaceful existence on Earth of all peoples.

Curious to me, one actor was 40-ish Mary Jo Deschanel who today we know as the mother of younger actresses Emily and Zooey Deschanel.

I watched it at home on BluRay from my public library. I was a bit surprised that the video didn't look better than it does. My wife watched the first 15 minutes but it didn't interest her so she left and curled up with her E-book.

This movie is based on a memoire of her life by Caro Weber who was born in the 1970s, so being a college age student the story would have taken place in the 1990s. The main character in this movie is Caro Drake. Some of it was filmed in Nashville but most of it in Oxford, England.

Caro is a very serious student who always seems to be more prepared than the other students, even in middle school. When philosophical concepts arise in the classroom she is never shy to challenge the teacher. When she is graduating she is surprised with a full-ride scholarship to Oxford, she plans to get her PhD in Early English Literature.

She quickly encounters an American student there (played well by an Irish actor) and he takes a keen interest in her. She is different from the other female students, her efforts to get rid of his attention only seems to energize him more.

Not a lot happens in this movie, the more interesting scenes are philosophical exchanges, some with other students, some with professors or administrators. All the while Caro is trying to sort ot her confusion about what is really important in life. There is a mild faith element but it isn't pushed, mainly to put your faith forward, believe in things, figure out what your life is about.

My wife and I watched it at home, streaming. We enjoyed it but it is not a candidate for a re-watch.

I have very mixed feelings about this 8-part series that my wife and I just finished watching, streaming. On the one hand the actors and their characters play off each other in very interesting ways. I can say "Never a dull moment."

On the other hand, after building up the intrigue for 7 1/2 episodes, the last episode ends with several critical questions unanswered. That is why I usually prefer a movie, in 90 to 120 minutes you get introduced to the key elements of a story, you see everything that develops, then you see important elements tied up nicely by the end.

Not this one, in a way I feel the show runner and producers cheat the audience. I believe most of us want to know things like "will she get that next job" and "who really was responsible for the incident that cost 41 lives?" Plus a few other questions left hanging. It is hinted that another season would come but as of now, over a year after this series ended, there is no indication anything is in the works.

Keri Russell, who also produces, is Ambassador Kate Wyler. As the first episode runs along we learn that her new assignment in London is partly to evaluate if she is a good choice to replace the resigning V. P. She is extremely good in this role.

Rufus Sewell plays her husband, Hal Wyler, a former ambassador who still is often addressed as "ambassador." Kate and Hal are having a difficult time with their marriage, it seems she wants a split but he doesn't. It doesn't help that he can often be a loose cannon.

So all in all we found it to be a very interesting and entertaining series, although they do go a bit overboard with the profane language most scenes. Is that authentic to the people in those types of careers? I don't know.

This movie has a wildly great cast, including Karen Gillan, Lena Headey playing her mother, Carla Gugino, Michelle Yeoh, and Paul Giamatti. I wanted to see it mainly for Gillan, I love everything she does, and she is great here as the lead character, Sam.

Sam last saw her mother, who turns out to be an assassin, about 15 years earlier. In their favorite soda shop, sharing a milkshake with two straws. Thus the title, "Gunpowder Milkshake." Mom disappeared as a way to insure Sam would remain safe.

Now her mother shows up again, during the 15 years Sam has become an equally lethal assassin. Just in time, because a large crime syndicate has been wronged and the two ladies, along with their "library" friends, must band together to defend justice.

OK, so the movie is made in a very entertaining style, the ample blood and gore are so "OTT" that you don't take it seriously. When Sam gets shot she just shrugs it off and stitches herself back together at the next opportunity.

Not everyone will enjoy this movie but for me it is totally entertaining. The script is inventive and the movie is shot very interestingly.

At home, streaming.