Q: Fairly funny Jim Carrey vehicle that has him as a News reporter who temporarily gets the power of God and wrecks havoc. Carrey is back in familiar ground here and looks to be having a good time, and Jennifer Aniston as his put upon girlfriend is also charming and affecting. The story is predictible to the extreme but the cast (including Morgan Freeman as "God") is great and makes the film worth catching. GRADE: B
A: positive
Q: This is the 2nd time I've seen this movie in about 12 years. These remarks come from someone who finds Kane and Ambersons to be amazing, worthy films. But the remainder of Welles career is, unfortunately, squandered on material unworthy of his talent and too flimsy to withstand his filmic embroidering. And when he makes a potboiler like Shanghai, the lack of anything substantial to hang his filmic tricks on, is just kind of sad. I couldn't tell you what he was exploring here. It's all as mannered as Welle's godawful Irish brogue; which takes a lot of effort, but adds absolutely zero to the film. Several Welles projects became this overdeveloped and baroque. Mr Arkadin (pick a version, any version) is a similarly belabored project. The material is inconsequential. It just can't bear the weight of all this noodling. For a director trafficking in reality-based drama (as here), he never feels any pull to tie his bundle of conceits back to reality; or to a coherent story. The murder-for-hire scheme is ridiculous.

Kudos to Welles though, for having Hayworth cut her hair, and getting that performance out of her. The camera loves her. She's the classiest, most upscale, sultry and ravishing femme fatale ever put on film. But her treachery comes so late in the film it feels like some desperate decision, made so the movie will have some genre it fits into. The movie can't be saved by a noir convention deployed in the last 60 seconds.

When all is said and done in L.F.S., the convolutions are all for what?; to convince you you've seen something thoughtful? to give Welles more to do? to make you roll your eyes? Welles has no sensitivity to the scale of a story, or to telling a story directly. One wonders what Shanghai has to say to anyone who isn't a crippled billionaire, arranging a quadruple-cross murder-for-hire scheme, or a fanboy in love with filmic conceits devoid of meaning or substance.

Overwrought, preposterous, unengaging.
A: negative
Q: There is a certain genius behind this movie. I was laughing throughout. The scene in the phone sex office, discussing how love heals the doppelganger was a nice attempt at this genius/humor. Execution is poor, but you can see the writer's message and they do have some talent. The doppelganger split at the end was like... "ok, wasn't quite expecting that but let's see what the movie has to say". Certainly ridiculous, but a sweet idea and actually very coherent to the story in a strange way.

Is the point of a movie to be logical or is it to be entertaining or communicate on an emotional level? i'm easily bored by many movies, but this one kept my interest throughout.

I think the story may have some auto-biographical roots, but that's just a guess. Horribly bad, but good. I'm looking for other movies this person may have done (with more experience).
A: positive
Q: I have no idea what the producers of The Shield were trying to do, but the result speaks for itself: The Shield is practically unwatchable.

Supposedly the performances on The Shield are great...

In reality, the show is so badly put together that you can't even really see the performances. For instance, the editing cuts away from reaction shots before they've had their full impact.

I don't know what intellectual rationale there is for that, but it robs the show of all emotional impact.

I'll give The Shield one point for ambition in its subject matter, but that's pretty much all I can give it.

It's a shame to see a number of talented performer waste their gift on something so strangely badly filmed.
A: negative