KeyZOid

Friends Daniel, Alicia, and Chris go on a hiking trip to (European) Georgia before Daniel and Alicia get married. Chris, Daniel's "Best Man", confesses that he slept with Alicia. Unknown to Chris and Alicia, Daniel arranges for Chris to end up standing on a landmine while they are posing for a photograph. Daniel departs, and Chris and Alicia are left to fend for themselves, Chris believing he is unable to move from his standing position over the landmine. Georgia resident Ilya comes along and offers to help, but harasses the two and rapes Alicia. Alicia is accidentally shot and dies.

The first half of the movie is rather slow and on the boring side. Ilya's creepy and sociopathic-like behavior is disturbing, and the viewer may be tempted to stop watching the "garbage" movie. However, if the viewer can stay with the movie, the second half is well worth waiting for - it pertains to how Chris deals with the situation after he finds out he was not truly stuck on the landmine (which was predictable). His retaliation has a surprising - and explosive - ending. Viewers may get a thrill out of or a sense of satisfaction over Chris getting revenge... until the end. Viewers should already know "the lesson", but it hits hard.

First half of the movie is <2 stars out of 5. Second half is 4+, for an overall rating of 3.

KeyZOid

Drab yet surprisingly captivating story about doll factory workers - "unattractive" middle-aged Martha and handsome but shy adult teenager Kyle, who Martha considers her best friend, and newly-hired young adult Rose who starts stealing Kyle's attention.

Martha agrees to babysit Rose's 2-year-old daughter, only to find out Rose is going on a date with Kyle. After Rose returns from the date, her estranged boyfriend shows up, demanding the money back that Rose stole but denies. There's a heated argument in front of Martha, but the boyfriend leaves the house. The next morning, police discover that Rose has been strangled to death. Martha was the last person to see Rose alive, but Martha suspects Rose's boyfriend waited outside until she left to go back inside and murder Rose.

Set in Ohio, the three main "actors" were inexperienced "unknowns" from Ohio and West Virginia and parts of their "real lives" were incorporated into the movie. The "actors" presented themselves as the ordinary people they were, making their conversations sound natural, not like memorized lines. (Even the most experienced Hollywood actor could not give this natural of a performance!) Kind of a disappointing ending, but the deleted scene containing the alternate ending is much better.

Movie is more intriguing than exciting.

KeyZOid

Clay Wilson and his wife are experiencing financial difficulties, partly due to the cost of her infertility treatments, and are at risk of losing their ranch. To their joy, wife Annie gets pregnant, but this adds to their financial strain, which is expected to increase when the baby arrives. A friend tells Clay about a wealthy movie star, Matthew Daddario, who wants to go on an elk hunt that Clay guides, hoping to make a kill that would be helpful for his image and "credentials" after he films his upcoming movie. Matthew offers $100,000 to entice Cory to set aside the values and ethics his father instilled in him about adhering to hunting regulations and agree to take him elk hunting days before the official hunting season starts (so he will be back in time to start filming the movie). Annie voices her objections, but Cory reluctantly agrees to take Matthew elk hunting earlier than permitted by law because he needs (or wants) the money. The story has potential, but I stopped watching after about 25 minutes when "Gunner" threw a puppy out the window of his moving truck. Obviously, it wasn't a real puppy, but what was shown seemed real. Even suggesting cruelty to an animal was inappropriate, unnecessary, and disturbing. "0" stars from me (but the minimum to submit is "1").

KeyZOid

Evan is a "nobody" high-school senior with emotional problems/ depression, takes prescription medication for panic attacks and whatever. As part of his counseling/ therapy, his doctor tells him to write letters to himself ("Dear Evan Hansen") and one he writes during school falls into the hands of bully classmate Connor Murphy, who does not give it back. After Connor is absent from school for three days, Evan gets called to the principal's office. Connor's mother and step-father are there and Evan is informed that Connor committed suicide. Connor's parents found the "Dear Evan Hansen" letter and mistakenly believe Evan was best friends with Connor and Connor wrote the letter (suicide note) to Evan. Without the guts or speaking ability to tell the truth, Evan gets caught up in the misunderstanding and eventually "goes along with it", making up stories about his friendship with Connor to help ease Connor's parents' and sister's grief. There's a domino effect with classmates, who try to console Evan and learn more about his friendship with Connor.

The way the story progresses isn't the problem... it is having to deal with Evan's struggles to communicate. Watching him trying to talk to anyone is more painful than watching Kevin Arnold in "Wonder Years" (who was at least several years younger and thereby easier to understand his plight). Maybe if the audience took tranquilizers (or some kind of "chill pills") before watching, it would be less painful.

I never liked musicals ("Grease" being the one exception), but the story seemed interesting and I decided to give it a try. The actor who played Evan was praised for his singing ability, but I didn't find his voice appealing and I still don't see the point of somebody suddenly starting to sing within a movie (usually with others nearby oblivious)! I still don't like musicals.

KeyZOid

This is a poorly written and acted "revenge" movie, full of violence and plot holes. The violent gang members are largely inept, shooting numerous times, missing their targets, and getting killed by an already-injured and re-injured (shot, beaten) William. In a gang initiation, Danny (Donnie's son and Rory's brother) apparently randomly select William's teenaged daughter Kat to kill in order to become "one of them." William is able to tackle Danny at the crime scene, but the also inept prosecuting attorney tells William that Danny is going to plead guilty to a few offenses (none murder-related) and receive 5-7 years. William, at Danny's hearing, tells the judge he cannot positively identify Danny as the attacker, obviously planning on taking the law into his own hands and killing him after he is released. (But Danny should not have been released if he was pleading guilty to other charges that involve assault on a police officer as well as violation of parole!) A battle between William and the gang members ensues. How many people will die before William gets the revenge he seeks? (A lot.) Besides all the ineptness, the movie doesn't offer anything unique. It reminds me of "A History of Violence", "Death Wish", and a number of similar revenge/vigilante movies. It just doesn't seem like a "new" movie because it is largely a repackaged versions of others.

KeyZOid

I'm not sure if this is supposed to be an actual remake of "Dune" (1984) or a variation, but I know I did not finish watching the latter because I found it boring and simply did not like it. "Dune" (2021) IS watchable (maybe I'm more tolerant) and on the interesting side, plus has a lot of special effects... but it is also quite long (over 2.5 hours). I never read the book, so I could not anticipate what was going to happen and I had to pay attention to all the names, places, new "substances" and significance of the attire, etc. Even while paying attention, however, there are many instances where I didn't understand what was developing (e.g, in Paul) or what it was supposed to mean. I think this type of movie (science fiction with fantasy and drama) appeals to a particular audience and would be well-received for those whom did not think "Dune" (1984) deserved such poor reviews and/or like science fiction movies in general... and can spare 2.5 hours to watch a movie. (4-star potential).

KeyZOid

This is a mess of a movie that is difficult to get into and watch because it is far from clear what is happening from scene to scene and who the characters are supposed to be, as well as what the characters are trying to accomplish or attain. I started, re-started, backed up, and rewatched numerous times, to no avail. Many scenes were too dark (not uncommon), some were deliberately grainy, some seemed to have no legitimate place, and shaky moving camera scenes were not pleasant. It might be worth trying to watch, just to find out why so many viewers and critics are so negative and confused. Then, again, it might prove more worthwhile to simply skip it and watch a more watchable movie that makes sense, you'll enjoy, and won't want your time back! Overall, the movie makes about as much sense as worldwide current events. Perhaps this is its major message or contribution.

Don't expect the movie's trailer to help! Here's most (if not all) of the dialog (quoted):

"It takes more than guns to kill a man.
You think I'm your enemy... I am your enemy. But your enemy won't be gone when you kill me. Your brother is still in prison. Your twin brother was an anarchist. My brother was a revolutionary. Somebody was up to something and I wanted to be part of it. Ask help from no-one. Where is he? Cameraman is my brother. He won't last ten minutes in the street knowing what he knows. This is a battleground. Who's the contact? Russia? Mumbai? Tell me. So when is this gonna happen? It is happening before it comes in years (?) We have a deal? Your brother can expose everything. I have done what is mine to do. The world is watching what happens here. It's on. You see here, now. I would light myself on fire. How come no-one here's lighting themselves on fire? Where's my brother? Go, go, go. Who would die?"

Ethan Hawke does make some introductory comments. Will these excerpts help?
"I was very grateful to get the script. Especially considering that the script speaks to the moment. Not in any obvious, uh, didactic way, but you can feel that this is Abel's hit on what we've all been going through for the last year or so. Uh, it's a beautiful script. I play a military man. You're not exactly sure whether I'm a good guy or a bad guy, and I also play my own brother, who's a revolutionary."

And don't expect the list of cast members at the end to help you figure out who is who. These are some listed BEFORE the movie actually ends and the "Cast" is presented:
Laughing Russian agent... Serious Russian agent... Valeria [Valeria Correale, who is the associate producer]... Woman in the church. Girl in the pink coat

Then Ethan Hawke makes an ending statement. Maybe this will help? Nope. Here's a quote (01:18:17):
"When Abel [Ferrara, writer and director] gave me the script and, uh - script is a really, uh, not accurate term for what he sent. I really didn't understand a word of it... Yeah. But I really liked it. [Laughs] Uh, I did, but I didn't know what was happening...
//
"This is part of the movie, by the way. And now it's over." (01:21:48)

But there's still the "Cast" to list. Will this help? Nope. Here's some clues:

Luciano's Associate #1; Luciano's Associate #2; Doctor; Valeria's Baby; Jiao's Son; American Ambassador; Russian Agent; Mustapha; Mustapha's Sparring Partner; Waterboard Soldier; Priest; Jiao's Girl #1; Jiao's Girl #2; Russian Chauffer; Russian Waiter #1; Russian Waiter #2. Then three names are listed under "Church", six names are listed under "Mosque", eighteen names are listed under "Soldiers", and six names are under "Bar." Who were all the other characters in the movie?

Maybe some viewers will like the random images at the end, such as: doves eating off the sidewalk, children playing, swarms of starlings flying in swooping formations.

KeyZOid

Finley lives with her (evil) aunt and two (obnoxious) cousins, but in the farm house her father built. The aunt says the house and farm is hers now that her brother (Finley's father) died and she intends to sell it, very much against Finley's desires to keep it. The aunt and cousins, who think they are "better" than others, treat Finley with disdain and make her do a ridiculous amount of household and farm chores, as well as make her cook and wait on them. Finley is also not permitted to sleep in the house, only the cold barn. Despite her situation, Finley maintains a positive attitude and is cheerful.
When it is revealed that a production company is coming to their town, the aunt and female cousin are excited about going to open auditions and are sure they will get acting roles (they don't). The arrogant male cousin says he will become a manager (he doesn't). Finley really wants to audition, but is told she has chores to do. Finley asks permission to go if she gets up early and finishes all her chores. The aunt reluctantly agrees, but surprises Finley in the morning with a long list of extra chores she must finish. Determined to audition and get a role, Finley works very hard and manages to get to the audition.
Finley's audition - singing, playing the banjo, and dancing (country-style) - is viewed favorably. When she is almost finished, her miniature pig Jon Ham (that she brought along because the butcher shop was closed) breaks free and destroys everything in his path. Finley tries to tackle him a couple times but misses; she eventually tackles him and lands in a mud puddle. She is told to leave and never come back. During this time, superstar Jackson got to interact with Finley and really liked her, but did not know where she lived or if he'd ever see her again.
Still determined to get an acting role in the movie, Finley disguises herself as a male "cowboy" named Finn. Finn's audition goes incredibly well, Finn is given a role and even outperforms the star. Finn and Jackson become good friends while working on the movie. Jackson, however, can't get the "cowgirl" out of his mind and tries to find her. He doesn't have to look far. The farm originally leased to film was no longer available and the production crew needed a fast solution/substitute. Finley's dad's farm is offered and accepted. Finley and Finn will be in the same location during filming, making them [Finley and alias] have to change clothes often without getting caught and hide around corners when necessary until she can safely switch back.
Jackson eventually finds out that Finn is Finley and he continues to woo her. Finley still has to deal with the production company (who told her to never come back) and what will happen when everyone becomes aware of Finn's true identity.
Though the most recent "Cinderella Story", Starstruck comes across as old-fashioned with little appeal (it tries to be funny but isn't) and in search of an audience. Teens and pre-teens alike may be turned off by the farm setting and "country" aspect; there's not much they can relate to in the movie. Perhaps middle-aged and older people into nostalgia wouldn't mind most of it, but the romantic interest between the two stars is shallow. They are supposed to be young (perhaps around 18-years-old), but the actors playing the roles do not look young enough (because they aren't). This would probably take away any appeal it might otherwise have had among younger teens (and even pre-teens).
Cinderella stories contain the "evil aunt" or other mean relative, so viewers have a good idea of what to expect. What I least liked about the movie was the aunt and her two adult children constantly saying things to Finley that amounted to bullying. There's already too much real bullying going on in society between "peers." supplementing it with bullying from relatives - the ones living in the same home - is not entertaining or humorous. This is a movie that didn't need to be made and doesn't need to be seen. Close to a "1", but I rated it a "2."

KeyZOid

A divorcing couple, custody dispute over their eight-year-old daughter, a babysitter infatuated with the husband, and a meddling rich maternal (grand) father are hardly original ideas. Ghosts, apparitions, puppets that move on their own, creepy clowns, contortionists, and a "dark" presence in the house also are not new ideas. The babysitter, who isn't who she says she is, kills the mother via a hit-and-run and hopes to take her place in the family. The deceased mother is enraged and caught between two worlds (wanting to protect and be with her daughter); her creepy mangled body hangs around to remedy the situation before she can move on to the next world. The "ghost mother" maintains a relationship with her daughter but she and puppets in the house (which "come alive") scare the husband and babysitter, apparently with the ultimate goal of killing both and being able to keep her daughter with her forever.
With the mother/wife Maggie and her father Paul being lawyers, their actions during the divorce negotiations demonstrate little or no knowledge about the New York family court's philosophy of "acting in the best interests of the child", parental rights of the biological father, or reasonable ground to terminate parental rights. The selfish and hate-filled trust fund wife/mother does not even consider the negative impact that gaining sole custody of her daughter and relocating to Seattle would have on an eight-year-old. The lawyer wife/mother also fails to know New York law regarding a relocating divorced parent. If a spouse objects to the relocation, the other spouse may NOT relocate the child and the court is most likely to award sole custody to the parent who is not moving across the country! Perhaps Maggie and her father Paul believed they could do whatever they want ("rich privilege"), but this is not true. A judge must approve a negotiated settlement (issue a court order) and would be likely to question why the father's parental rights were being terminated, as well as why the biological father would not want to maintain a relationship with his daughter, who he loved and did not abuse. A judge would also perceive the negotiated settlement as inappropriate (one-sided in favor of the mother) in that the daughter would be losing all contact with her father. The father should have visitation rights!
The slacker father/deadbeat dad who steps up to his role after his wife is killed is also not a novelty. Scenes were put together to make a movie, but there wasn't much movie from the scenes.
Overall, a below-average non-scary "horror" film that is not worth seeing if you have previously watched similar movies.

KeyZOid

Billy Crystal (co-) wrote, directed, and starred as a comic writer (Charlie Burnz) who is starting to have memory problems, not merely due to aging, but dementia. He meets much younger Emma Payge at a restaurant, believing that she has "won" time with him by being the highest bidder at "22" for a fund raiser. Emma lets him know that she did not do the bidding and is merely filling in for someone who didn't want to meet and spend time for him. And the high bid was not for $2,200... it was $22.
At first, Charlie and Emma do not get along very well. Emma notices that Charlie has photos of his family members on a wall with their names underneath, which he explains away by telling her it helps him focus when he is writing. (Charlie has strained relationships with his family members.) But Emma eventually realises Charlie has memory lapses and becomes concerned. Charlie has an accident and goes to the emergency room. Emma, telling the doctor she is Charlie's adopted daughter from another country, learns Charlie's real fate - Charlie does not have long before he won't even recognize who his family members are.
Emma takes it upon herself to move in with Charlie and take care of him. An unlikely friendship - somewhat romantic - develops, and Emma helps Charlie enjoy the remaining time he has. Emma also informs his adult children of his situation and why they should not be angry with or disturbed by her residing with Charlie.
The movie is "different" and would most likely appeal to older viewers and/or people dealing with a loved one who has dementia. It is supposed to be a comedy, but, well, it is up to the viewer to decide if it is funny.

KeyZOid

This far-fetched movie is full of plot holes and is about a half-century too late for the CPS-related encounters to be remotely believable, but the story is original and interesting. I vacillated between a "3" and "4" out of 5 rating and - being about a "3.5" - decided to give it the benefit of the doubt. The movie is not exciting, but it does maintain viewer attention by making the viewer wonder what will happen, especially regarding Henry's instructions to his mother.

Henry Carpenter is an 11-year-old genius/child prodigy. He lives with his (inept but loving?) mother Susan and 8-year-old brother Peter. Henry is the "man of the house" who handles all Susan's financial affairs and uses his intellect to make highly-profitable investments (enough that Susan need not continue working as a waitress, but she isn't aware of how much money Henry has amassed thus far).

The Carpenter family lives next-door to Police Commissioner Glenn Sickleman and his step-daughter Christina (Henry's classmate). Henry's bedroom window is opposite Christina's and Henry sees things that convinces him Christina is abused. (Bruises indicating physically but the disgust suggests sexually, or both). Henry notifies School Principal Wilder, complains more than once, and calls CPS himself, all to no avail - the County Director of Social Services is George Sickleman, Glenn's brother. Henry concludes it is up to him to do something that will protect Christina - his ingenious plan is to murder Glenn.

Henry has been suffering intermittent headaches and blurred vision for a few months, which he tells his mother is nothing and attributes his symptoms to stress. A sudden, violent seizure lands Henry in the emergency room and quickly taken to surgery for a brain tumor. The tumor is too advanced and Henry dies in the hospital several days later.

Henry has left behind his red notebook wherein he delineated Plans A, B, and C for killing Glenn and awarding permanent legal custody of Christina to his mother Susan. The remaining option, Plan C, entails his mother doing what Henry no longer can. Resources are not a problem - Henry's investments have left Susan with $680,000 in her checking account plus stocks and bonds with an unknown, but substantial, value.

Will Susan proceed to fulfill Henry's dying wish for her to do what he deemed necessary to protect Christina? Set aside all the absurdities and the movie is enjoyable to watch. It probably won't appeal to all, especially younger audiences who are not aware of past CPS problems and the general population's ignorance of child abuse.

KeyZOid

A mercenary, Green Beret, special forces officer, or similar "professional" seeking retaliation for some wrong - such as murder or kidnapping of a child - has been done... many times, actually. A good storyline will lose its appeal if repeated too many times and will no longer constitute a good movie or hold the audience's attention. However, a change in some of the methods used by the protagonist can possibly make an otherwise good story great. In "Wrath of Man", this did not happen. The reason is not so much because a Jason Stratham movie is on the verge of becoming what Steven Segal is to Steven Segal movies, but because the "new methods" crossed the line. When the line is crossed, the audience should no longer be cheering for the protagonist and the movie is ruined. The two main factors that contributed to my rating of a "2" out of 5 are: (1) Stratham's character "H" was not engaging in retaliation - his behavior was more accurately categorized as "revenge." Retaliation ("just deserts") implies a sense of "an eye for an eye" (reasonable?). Revenge is beyond "getting even" and is unreasonable because the "payback" is considered extreme or disproportionate to the harm done. Losing a child (especially when the death is tragically due to murder) is said to be THE or one of the worst things a parent could be subjected to and have to endure. The "hurt" and pain is unimaginable, but obviously very severe. There may not be any way to "get even", but the emotionally-driven parent might feel his/her perception of retaliation is reasonable when few others, if any, would agree. "H" let his emotions get the better of him. This might be understandable, but explanations are not excuses. (2) "H" uses some of the methods that are traditionally associated with the antagonists - the very same methods the audience perceives as highly unfair, savage-like, and brutal and thereby despises the characters engaging in them. If the protagonist uses such methods, they still cannot be considered "fair" - he is "just as bad" (wrong or evil) as they are. He is no longer a respectable person, and certainly not one to be admired. I think the movie went too with H's behavior. Although vigilante or street justice is not justice (punishment the offender deserves), movies like "Death With" have a protagonist that most of the audience relates to and cheers for to the end. "Wrath of Man" is too much "wrath" and not enough "man" (human being). [It is kind of scary that there are viewers who still think "H" is worth cheering for and maybe someone to idoloze and emulate. "Hello" to school shootings, going postal, mass murders, and an ever-increasing violent society.].

KeyZOid

When I see a movie about a "psycho" or obsessed newspaper boy, I use the 1994 "The Paperboy" movie as the standard by which to judge all others... and, so far, nothing has come close. Though not entitled "The Paperboy", "Rosewood Lane" has some similarities and doesn't really offer anything unique or even attention-grabbing. There are scenes that that look like a collection and re-filming of parts of other movies, only not as good. (Some examples: dead body at the bottom of the basement stairs; being in the house uninvited, sneaking around and moving objects; use of nursery rhymes - Hickory, Dickory, Dock or Doc; shooting people with a bow and arrow - done in Ferris Beuller's Day Off" and, more recently, "We Need to Talk About Kevin"; the creepy neighbor who gives a warning; police calls that are deemed unfounded or "crying wolf"; use of non-scary "scary" dogs like the Rottweiler; the psychiatrist or psychologist who has an unresolved family issue, etc.) The one noted difference is the nasty or non-pleasing temperament/ disposition of the female psychologist Sonny, apparently being portrayed as "tough", but instead coming across as unlikable and not fit to be a psychologist in the first place. I had to restart the movie many times before watching to the end, which couldn't come soon enough. I had to rewatch the 1994 "The Paperboy" to get "Rosewood Lane" out of my memory.

KeyZOid

Ten-year-old Oak - a music/guitar prodigy - and his mother move into an apartment above a restaurant and is lent a $3,000 guitar by the restaurant's owner. Gina sees Oak singing and playing the guitar, which belonged to her brother Vaughn, and starts believing that Oak is the reincarnated Vaughn. Vaughn was the lead singer for "Army of Love", an up and coming band, but was killed in an automobile accident ten years prior on their way to a gig. Gina reorganizes the band with Oak taking Vaughn's place and the new "Army of Love" once again becomes popular.
Although Oak does well in the band, his home life is lacking. His mother loses her job, is sickly, apparently has a drug problem, and Oak takes care of his mother more so than his mother takes care of him.
The night Oak's mother is supposed to watch Oak play with "Army of Love" to a live audience, Oak can't find the $3,000 guitar (but Gina finds him a guitar to play) and, much to his disappointment, his mother never shows up. (She was arrested in Mexico for possession of drugs on her way home.) Oak is a forgiving kid who loves his mother, but knows that something is wrong with her. Oak frequently has to put his fingers in front of his mother's nose while she is sleeping to determine if she is still breathing. She is, that is, until the day she is not... and ten-year-old Oak is an orphan.
Oak's Grandparents from Minnesota come to his mother's funeral and believe he should leave with them. Gina offers to become Oak's guardian so that he can stay with the band where he has friends and likes living. However, Oak's Grandparents believe he belongs with his "real family." Oak does not want to leave and says he doesn't even know his Grandparents, but isn't really given a choice and moves to Minnesota.
Unhappy in Minnesota, Oak and his friend Emma (the restaurant owner's daughter) scheme to get his Grandparents to believe his mother wanted Oak to live with Gina. Their plan works, and the Grandparents bring Oak back to California - to live with Gina and the "army" of friends Oak has who are not blood relatives but, nonetheless, "family" to Oak.
A year passes and Gina is now married to Pedro (band member) and pregnant. Oak is outside playing by the garage with his new band comprised of kids his own age, exactly what he wanted.
It is up to the viewer to decide if Oak is the reincarnated Vaughn. Several similarities (too much of a coincidence?) are pointed out by Gina, but the other band members are not believers. Oak just wanted to know if it turns out that he isn't Vaughn, could he still play with "Army of Love" and have the clothes Gina was buying him.
I think the movie would appeal most to pre-adolescents who might enjoy a ten-year-old's music and talent, but the movie is rated PG-13. Perhaps the movie is best viewed as the debut of Tommy Ragen - the twelve-year-old music/guitar prodigy who plays Oak. Tommy has already released three albums in as many years and is sure to become a superstar.

KeyZOid

What a mess of a movie! Numerous critics believe it should receive ZERO stars and be given the title of "Worst Movie of 2019." Franco's character saw one movie while living in Pennsylvania, became obsessed, and left for Los Angeles. He arrives the morning after the so-called "Manson Murders", but that doesn't really matter. First serving as a carpenter making scenery for movies, he meets an editor and learns to edit movies. He has an interesting style of editing and does well. Like other people, I watched the movie and wondered what it was about and... I still don't really know! The best review for this movie is probably it doesn't make sense, isn't interesting, isn't memorable, and isn't even worthy of me wasting time to try to review it... and two stars was being very generous. I'd say there's about a 99.9% chance that you wouldn't like it, but this leaves 0.1% chance that you will.

KeyZOid

This movie may be based on a true story and had the potential to be inspirational, but something was missing - making me question the almost across-the-board "5-star" ratings on some websites. Perhaps the movie wasn't presented in a believable or sufficient way and/or there wasn't background information about the main characters or enough presented to give the viewer reason to like and care about them.
The movie has themes of love and religious beliefs, plus avoids foul language (something relatively uncommon these days). There were no extravagant bombings, bloody fights, high-speed police chases, drug addicts, or overly dramatic scenes. A 20-year-old man ("all-American boy") goes to college to pursue his interest in playing guitar, writing lyrics, and performing as a professional. While serving as a stage hand (handling guitars for a music group), Jeremy spots a young lady in the audience and apparently experiences "love at first sight." He pursues the young lady (who he doesn't know at first is already in a "complicated" relationship). Melissa is diagnosed with stage 3C cancer, undergoes treatment (chemotherapy) and is miraculously cured (found cancer-free). Jeremy was by her side the whole way and they got married, despite not knowing each other very long and being unsure of her future health. Prayers were believed to have cured Melissa the first time, but the cancer soon returned and rapidly spread - praying would not save her a second time. Jeremy's music excelled, but the love of his life was no longer with him.
What I least liked about the movie was the way Melissa initially treated Jeremy, coming across as not very friendly, cold, and inconsiderate (but actually in a relationship and not as interested in Jeremy as he was in her). After she gets diagnosed with cancer, Jeremy drives from Indiana to California to visit and support her in the hospital. Suddenly, Melissa reveals that she is interested in Jeremy. I couldn't see what Jeremy saw in Melissa when they first met and wasn't rooting for him during his pursuit of her; her change in opinion after being diagnosed with cancer made Melissa look like a "user." This undoubtedly was not the way things appeared in the true story the movie was based on, which reinforces my assertion that something was missing in the movie and the way the characters were presented. I didn't perceive Jeremy's music as being very good, either, giving another reason to take away from his likeability (which should have been high but just didn't get there).
My "2-star" rating is based on what I saw in the movie, not what it tried to be.

KeyZOid

"Running on Empty" is a movie about the Pope family who has been keeping one step ahead of the FBI. The activist parents, Arthur and Annie, are being pursued for blowing up a building fifteen years earlier and seriously injuring a janitor (who wasn't supposed to be there). The FBI considers the Popes extremely dangerous, despite the presence of their two children. The story begins with seventeen-year-old Danny riding his bike home from playing baseball and noticing two black government cars ("two cars, four shoes"). Danny knows to make a fast getaway to lose the FBI agents, get his younger brother, and stand along the road where his parents will see them and know it is time to move to another location and start over with new names. The Popes become the Manfield family and get the boys enrolled in a new school, claiming their school records were lost during the move but will get them. Danny becomes "Michael" and his musical talent quickly becomes known to music teacher Mr. Phillips who encourages him to apply to Julliard. Danny/Michael has been taught by his parents to stay low profile where ever they go and that the family must stay together as a unit. A breakup of the family is not acceptable because this could interfere with their ability to ever see each other again (for fear that the FBI will be constantly watching and waiting to arrest Arthur and Annie). Danny/Michael meets and develops a romantic relationship with Mr. Phillips' daughter Lorna, who is somewhat angered and rebelling over her "proper" upbringing and biased but "really nice" parents who never really get to know people (especially if they don't meet their standards). Danny secretly auditions for Julliard and is accepted, provided he submit his missing academic records. Mr. Phillips meets Danny's mother to question her about the records and she has to pretend she is aware of Danny's plan to go to Julliard. Annie informs Arthur about Danny's audition and Mr. Phillips' inquiry, to which Arthur explodes and says they must move on; the family members are instructed to go about business as usual, but to pack up and be ready to go. Danny/Michael tells his dad that he'd like to stay where he is, but Arthur gets angry and reminds him about staying together as a unit. The FBI closes in by arresting Gus, an activist-friend of the Popes, and Annie goes to the schools to pick up Danny/Michael and his brother. Danny/Michael tells his mom that he'll meet them at the prearranged spot and hurries to tell Lorna that he is leaving. Danny/Michael does not want to leave, but places the family unit above his own personal desires and fear that his father would fall apart without him. Danny/Michael rides his bike to the meeting spot and puts his bike into the bed of the truck. Arthur tells him to "get the bike out of the back of the truck " and then, surprisingly, "now get on it." Annie's parents, who live in the area, had agreed to let Danny/ Michael live with them so that he could keep his friends (especially love interest Lorna), finish at the same school, and go to Julliard to "make a difference" (in a different way than his parents had tried to do).

I found the story interesting and River Phoenix's musical performances (piano) impressive. The scenes with Gus and Arthur's drunken rant were a little too much and took away from the likeability of Arthur, as was Arthur's anger with Danny/Michael when he asked if he could stay. The network that the Popes used to get new housing, vehicles, and records were not developed or revealed enough to seem legitimate. The dentist was obviously some how a part of it and handed over all the money he had in his wallet to Annie and said he could have gotten more with advance notice, but his involvement was never exposed. How the Popes managed to move to an area where there were so many contacts and Annie's parents just happened to live seemed unrealistic. (This seemed like an area the Popes should have avoided given that Annie's parents lived nearby.) The viewer does not get to know if Danny/Michael ever gets to see his parents or brother again; the Popes are heard singing, " but I always thought that I'd see you again."

KeyZOid

I've read a lot of reviews for the "Good Boys" movie on a variety of websites. A high percentage of the reviewers gave this movie the highest number of stars (usually 4/4) and thought the movie was hilarious. Many claimed to have laughed almost constantly throughout the movie and asserted that reviewers who did not think the movie was funny were prudes and/or had no sense of humor. Reviewers giving the lowest possible rating (one star) often felt that the vulgar language coming from 12-year-olds was extreme and highly inappropriate, the display of and playing with "sex toys" went too far, and the movie was a "new low" for Hollywood, among other criticisms. My rating the movie "one star" was largely attributed to: Its lack of originality (mostly a repackaged version of similar movies but using 12-year-olds); over-reliance on jokes that have been around a long time and/or already heard/ overused in other movies (making them no longer hilarious or even slightly funny); insertion of jokes where they really didn't flow and/or seemed forced; extensive and rather crude use of a "green screen" (or other color), resulting in awkward/ uncoordinated movement of people and changing backgrounds; a lot of dialog containing phrases or sentences that I've heard many times and so-called conversations largely comprised of a few to several words at a time per person; main characters who did not seem to fit their roles (even though they were actual 12-year-olds) or have chemistry (contrary to the belief of the writers/ director); numerous mistakes (which I've submitted to this website); extensive use of "swear words" where they did NOT elevate the joke (again, contrary to the writers'/ producers' and director's belief); overall perception that the two writers did not always coordinate scenes and did not put much effort or thought into "writing" the story. Instead of writing a story and including some jokes during the process, I got the impression that they had a collection of jokes that they tried to write a story around to make a movie... and, most importantly, make millions of dollars off a lame story that left much to be desired. Maybe the writers were banking on viewers laughing so long and hard that they wouldn't even notice the low quality of the movie... but I did. Additional problems that are noteworthy include: (1) The skate park scene was out of sequence (placed before instead of after school on Thursday); (2) Hannah never got her bag/purse back, which included her cell phone, driver's license, money, etc.; (3) Too many items missing from Thor's house were never acknowledged by his parents - three bikes and helmets, "CPR doll", double-sided dildo; (4) Neither Benji nor any of the frat boys tried to find the Good Boys to get paid for the Molly pills or get compensated for the paintball damage to the house or their clothes.

KeyZOid