This stinker is truly impressive in the scope of just how appalling it is on every level; the 2 and 1/2 hours was necessary to squeeze in all the wrong. Fans of this truly scare me. I assume "Hurricane Heist" also rates 10 stars on their lists, blowing their tiny minds with the combination of genres. These reviewers make statements like "it's a zombie movie, people, not Pride and Prejudice" to justify the absurdly high ratings, as if you are somehow mentally defective by expecting a movie to meet basic standards of reasoning and logic. I cannot bring myself to analyse this nonsense - please see some of the other one star reviews for a breakdown of the endless plot holes and absurdities. The empty-headed reviewers tell you to "switch off your brain, it's a zombie movie", not realising that most people cannot do this without slipping into unconsciousness. If you are not a simpleton, you will be incapable of accepting the onslaught of flaws in this movie. Acting, dialogue, plot, pacing, all truly abysmal. I have to keep going back to the delusional reviewers who rate this highly; one raved about Bautista's performance, comparing him to "The Rock" and saying that Bautista is capable of far more range. Bautista barely has more range than A rock. If you are using ex-wrestlers as baselines for acting chops, you have problems. An ex-wrestler in the lead role of a movie is a major red flag; I just assumed a zombie movie would be an easy watch as a time killer. How wrong I was. As truly terrible as this movie was, I have no doubt Snyder will continue to be permitted to trot out mindless drivel for years to come. I will stay tuned to see him plumb new depths of dross: I know he will not let me down.
Reviews
21 Reviews
Jack Reacher: Never Go Back
(2016)
A Lame Movie Based on a Lame Book
4 September 2020
This movie is the equivalent of elevator music, it played along dully and pleasantly, barely registering, not disturbing me in the slightest as I washed the dishes, played some online Scrabble and searched for other movie recommendations on my phone. This is what happens when you make a movie based on an uninspired character from a by-the-numbers "action hero" book written by a not particularly talented writer. I tried to read one of the books and found that it couldn't hold my interest, I had to get off the elevator at the next floor. Many reviewers express outrage at Cruise playing the character of Reacher, explaining that Reacher is supposed to be a 6'5, 250lbs, blond "force of nature" (the Ivan Drago of ex-military police) and demand that the movie makers stop ruining Lee Child novels. Yes, you could accurately cast the Jack Reacher character with someone meeting the physical statistics detailed in the books, but the movies would still be trite and throwaway as a result of the weak source material. The reason Cruise opted to use the Reacher books as a movie vehicle is because he knew he would have an easy, zero effort franchise opportunity with a massive viewer base on his hands. Pick a grocery checkout rack bestseller lapped up by the non-discerning masses, bang out a few screenplays and cash in. I'm sure that he had himself cast in the title role because it feels nice to relive his glory days and still be able to see himself as an action hero. Apparently the rights have been taken over by Amazon and the next vehicle will be a TV series; I'm sure Amazon will please the rabid fans, cast a large blond man to play the lead role and churn out season after season after season, much like Child has churned out book after book after book for decades. Apparently the books are all "self-contained" stories and rely little, if at all on preceding books in the franchise. As such, you will probably be in store for little Jack Reacher A-Team style adventures to fill your boots for at least a decade, fans. Maybe they can slap a blond wig on Batista or some other wrestler-turned-actor and give you what you deserve. Enjoy!
Twin Peaks
(1990–1991)
That's My Leland!
2 September 2020
I remember Twin Peaks being on TV when I was growing up but didn't watch it; I decided recently to give it a shot, mainly because of the many references made to it in other shows, or in reviews of other shows. I assumed that for a thirty-year-old show to still be referenced so heavily it must have been of considerable quality. I have watched so many recent lazy, unoriginal, formulaic TV shows that I figured going back in time might provide more entertaining viewing. I was right, but it was not all GOOD entertainment. The first few episodes had me intrigued; the feel of the show and some of the characters was just so refreshingly "off" that it was oddly fascinating. It was really the bizarre grieving of the Palmer parents that did the trick for me; the mother and her stop-start wailing and the father sob-dancing, it was just so off-the-wall I loved it. You also had Agent Cooper coming to town and being awestruck by the natural beauty, staring in childlike wonder at the trees, overly appreciative of every little thing in every interaction he had with the local folk, not the standard big-shot FBI character that has been done to death. The first dream scene with the dancing dwarf was entrancing, watching the little guy move in such mysterious ways, I was sold. I thought that the show would be saturated with off-beat touches like this throughout the two seasons and kept watching each episode, hoping to not be disappointed. It was like Lynch had taken the standard soap opera, pushed it down a flight of stairs and when it stumbled back to its feet it was never quite the same, permanently touched in the head.
However, I found that the spell cast upon me in the first few episodes quickly wore off. I start like this to establish that I initially LIKED the show; I didn't come into it wanting to slam it and tear it down, which is what the 10-star reviewers tend to dismiss any negative reviewers as being guilty of. Unfortunately, those genuinely fascinating moments are very few and far between. If the creators had had an off-the-wall, fully formed, single season show in mind and executed it efficiently, it would've really worked for me. The plot would have been tighter, the characters would've remained fresh and the story would've been more cohesive and engaging. Instead, they had this half-formed, quirky spin on a soap opera-slash-murder mystery and dragged it out over two seasons and thirty episodes. By doing so, the refreshingly quirky characters become tired and varying degrees of annoying; it would be like taking some of the bit-part Seinfeld characters like The Wiz or Kenny Bania and giving them hours of dedicated screen time over a two year period, essentially draining them of any comic value through over-saturation. And THAT applies to the few GOOD characters; ones like James, Donna, Josie (to name but a few) become sickeningly irritating. James Marshall plays James Hurley and brings a whole new level to the term "wooden"; he makes Keanu Reeves look animated and layered. Lara-Flynn Boyle plays his girlfriend Donna and was also relatively lifeless, yet these two had massive chunks of screen time over the two seasons, despite bringing virtually nothing to the plot. This was filler of the worst kind. Marshall was inexplicably given a dedicated "road trip" story line which made for truly nauseating viewing. It shows the inadequacies of the creators of the show, incapable of recognizing that they had cast someone with zero charisma or screen presence and then giving him MORE screen time the deeper they went into the show. He should've been killed off as quickly as possible. Much of the casting was truly dire. Eric Da Re as Leo Johnson was terrible, one of the least menacing bad guys of all time. The only satisfying thing about his involvement was when he became a spoon-fed, Frankenstein-like idiot after a shooting. I'm still confused by Harry Goaz's acting as Deputy Andy; I have no idea if this was entirely intentional bad-acting or not. If it was, it became incredibly annoying and distracting extremely quickly. Joan Chen as Josie Packard was comparable to James Marshall in her lack of screen presence and charisma and to Goaz in her total lack of acting ability, to the point where you wonder if it was an intentional gimmick in both cases. Michael Ontkean as Sheriff Harry was another dead-eyed fish of an actor; so many of the main characters were horribly miscast. On the flip side, there WERE some standouts. Piper Laurie as Catherine Martell, Laurie being a legitimate movie actor, most memorable to me in The Hustler opposite Newman. MacLachlan played his role to a T, like Paul Gross in Due South, examples of perfect casting, whether you like the shows or the characters or not. Madchen Amick lit up the screen every time she graced it. Sherilyn Fenn was fantastic; she was the femme fatale that all the men fall for and was entirely believable, whereas Marshall was supposed to be the male equivalent, the ladies' man and was utterly implausible in such a role. The casting was all over the place and added to the overall mess of the show as it inexorably wore on.
The longer it went on, the more it became apparent that Lynch was simply "winging it". He clearly had only a loose semblance of an underlying plot and this became painfully evident once it dragged its way into Season 2. TWENTY-TWO episodes, at least 90% of which was filler. When you have so much filler, you bury any of the good. The theme music that was initially catchy and something you looked forward to hearing becomes maddening when it is filtered heavily throughout every episode for THIRTY episodes. I'm not sure if the 10-star reviewers are writing reviews on a recent revisiting of the show or their memory of when they viewed it decades ago. I know from personal experience that such memories can be exceptionally deceiving. The mind filters out the best moments - for me it would be Leland grief-dancing - and puts a golden haze on the show. I strongly suspect that this is the case; many such reviewers simply refer to their favourite characters like Log Lady, the gimmickiest of characters. I urge 10-star reviewers who are reviewing based on old memories to go back and watch the series again, particularly the second season. Sit through the "plot" lines of thirty-five year old Nadine developing superhuman strength and believing she is a high school student after a head injury again and tell me that is great television. Relive James' road trip if you can. Watch episode after episode after episode of Harry Goaz's' bizarre and deeply confusing performance. For me, it all became sadly tragic that Lynch managed to turn the initial refreshing parody of a soap opera into the banal reality of one.
However, I found that the spell cast upon me in the first few episodes quickly wore off. I start like this to establish that I initially LIKED the show; I didn't come into it wanting to slam it and tear it down, which is what the 10-star reviewers tend to dismiss any negative reviewers as being guilty of. Unfortunately, those genuinely fascinating moments are very few and far between. If the creators had had an off-the-wall, fully formed, single season show in mind and executed it efficiently, it would've really worked for me. The plot would have been tighter, the characters would've remained fresh and the story would've been more cohesive and engaging. Instead, they had this half-formed, quirky spin on a soap opera-slash-murder mystery and dragged it out over two seasons and thirty episodes. By doing so, the refreshingly quirky characters become tired and varying degrees of annoying; it would be like taking some of the bit-part Seinfeld characters like The Wiz or Kenny Bania and giving them hours of dedicated screen time over a two year period, essentially draining them of any comic value through over-saturation. And THAT applies to the few GOOD characters; ones like James, Donna, Josie (to name but a few) become sickeningly irritating. James Marshall plays James Hurley and brings a whole new level to the term "wooden"; he makes Keanu Reeves look animated and layered. Lara-Flynn Boyle plays his girlfriend Donna and was also relatively lifeless, yet these two had massive chunks of screen time over the two seasons, despite bringing virtually nothing to the plot. This was filler of the worst kind. Marshall was inexplicably given a dedicated "road trip" story line which made for truly nauseating viewing. It shows the inadequacies of the creators of the show, incapable of recognizing that they had cast someone with zero charisma or screen presence and then giving him MORE screen time the deeper they went into the show. He should've been killed off as quickly as possible. Much of the casting was truly dire. Eric Da Re as Leo Johnson was terrible, one of the least menacing bad guys of all time. The only satisfying thing about his involvement was when he became a spoon-fed, Frankenstein-like idiot after a shooting. I'm still confused by Harry Goaz's acting as Deputy Andy; I have no idea if this was entirely intentional bad-acting or not. If it was, it became incredibly annoying and distracting extremely quickly. Joan Chen as Josie Packard was comparable to James Marshall in her lack of screen presence and charisma and to Goaz in her total lack of acting ability, to the point where you wonder if it was an intentional gimmick in both cases. Michael Ontkean as Sheriff Harry was another dead-eyed fish of an actor; so many of the main characters were horribly miscast. On the flip side, there WERE some standouts. Piper Laurie as Catherine Martell, Laurie being a legitimate movie actor, most memorable to me in The Hustler opposite Newman. MacLachlan played his role to a T, like Paul Gross in Due South, examples of perfect casting, whether you like the shows or the characters or not. Madchen Amick lit up the screen every time she graced it. Sherilyn Fenn was fantastic; she was the femme fatale that all the men fall for and was entirely believable, whereas Marshall was supposed to be the male equivalent, the ladies' man and was utterly implausible in such a role. The casting was all over the place and added to the overall mess of the show as it inexorably wore on.
The longer it went on, the more it became apparent that Lynch was simply "winging it". He clearly had only a loose semblance of an underlying plot and this became painfully evident once it dragged its way into Season 2. TWENTY-TWO episodes, at least 90% of which was filler. When you have so much filler, you bury any of the good. The theme music that was initially catchy and something you looked forward to hearing becomes maddening when it is filtered heavily throughout every episode for THIRTY episodes. I'm not sure if the 10-star reviewers are writing reviews on a recent revisiting of the show or their memory of when they viewed it decades ago. I know from personal experience that such memories can be exceptionally deceiving. The mind filters out the best moments - for me it would be Leland grief-dancing - and puts a golden haze on the show. I strongly suspect that this is the case; many such reviewers simply refer to their favourite characters like Log Lady, the gimmickiest of characters. I urge 10-star reviewers who are reviewing based on old memories to go back and watch the series again, particularly the second season. Sit through the "plot" lines of thirty-five year old Nadine developing superhuman strength and believing she is a high school student after a head injury again and tell me that is great television. Relive James' road trip if you can. Watch episode after episode after episode of Harry Goaz's' bizarre and deeply confusing performance. For me, it all became sadly tragic that Lynch managed to turn the initial refreshing parody of a soap opera into the banal reality of one.
Gone in 60 Seconds
(1974)
No Actors Were Harmed (or Used) In This Movie
30 August 2020
I watched this movie just to see the original, having seen the remake around the time it first came out. There is a hell of a lot wrong with it, but it had a certain simple charm about it that kind of made up for the bad. I'm sure the vast majority of people won't be able to get past the horrific acting; besides the lead, I don't think a single person cast had any acting ability whatsoever, a ballsy move when making a movie. It is also overly long for a Grand Theft Auto movie; it could easily have been cut to under 90 minutes and would've benefited from losing a lot of fluffy scenes, with less scenes in this movie meaning less bad acting. However, this movie was made for the car chases and it does those nicely. There is a scene where a mobile security guard chases one of the thieves who has hooked up the stolen vehicle to a tow truck; one of the highlights of the movie. It's always nice to spot a moment or shot in a movie that was later paid homage to by Tarantino; seeing the array of sunglasses of different tints lined up on a dash just like in Earl McGraw's car in Kill Bill was a little bonus. It's also interesting to watch originals after seeing a remake. I can see why they wanted to remake this; it had the bones and polishing it up with a tidier script and some professional actors should've been an easy score if done with a competent hand. However, as is often the case the remake sacrifices the simple charm of the original and here it really "Cages" it up, loaded with extra cheese like an East Indian pizza, to the point where all you taste is the cheese. It goes without saying that you really need to have a specific desire to see this movie; I suggest reading both the 1-star and the 10-star reviews and see which camp your sensibilities most lean towards.
Dead Man's Shoes
(2004)
The Shoes Don't Quite Fit
21 August 2020
Warning: Spoilers
This was a confusing film to watch. It felt like it SHOULD have been a solid, satisfying movie, but was mishandled by the director, trying to put his "touch" on it. It starts off well, setting the tone with the two brothers walking into town with the interspersed old family footage showing the brothers growing up, leading into the initial confrontation, Paddy Considine flipping the switch nicely and letting the viewer know that his character is dangerously unbalanced. At this point the groundwork has been competently laid, the mentally challenged brother was bullied while Paddy's character was away in the army and is now identifying the culprits at his brother's direction. The film then hits its first bump with the subsequent scenes involving the bullies. Apparently, from what I have read in other reviews, several (if not all?) of these characters were played by non-actors, which is painfully apparent in the movie. There is a reason actors are cast in acting roles; they can "act". Much like the reason trained chefs are employed to cook in decent restaurants, because they can "cook". There might be instances in film where non-actors are cast and do well, probably in very small roles and I'd imagine that such casting comes about as a result of trying to inject some local authenticity into movies, such as in The Town, where some Charlestown locals were cast. It does not work in this movie. It was jarring, going from the interplay between two good, professional actors like Considine and Kebbell to the uncomfortably bad acting of the gang members. As if that wasn't enough of a misstep, the director apparently also decided to have the cast improvise their lines. Again, I'm sure there has been instances where this has proved effective in film, adding a touch of spontaneity to a movie. It does not work here. The only member of the gang that had any real sense of credibility was the leader, played by Gary Stretch, who really had the look of an underworld enforcer type and injected the only real sense of menace in the "gang". I only use the word "gang" for lack of a better word, it was more like a group of misfit adults. This jarring effect continues throughout the movie from this point on, Considine and Kebbell's convincing interactions contrasting with the awkward back and forth of the gang members. There were other puzzle pieces that just didn't fit. Considine's character repeatedly and inexplicably wears an old gas mask; a gimmick used purely for aesthetic effect by the director? Did it look good in stills? Man in gas mask, Taxi Driver-style army jacket wielding an axe. Cool poster-shot? It made no real sense, particularly in a scene where the character is infiltrating the gang's house whilst they are all inside, where it would clearly be an impediment to his vision and hearing. It was just another one of the jarring aspects of the movie; he wears it infiltrating the house, yet after drugging, incapacitating the gang and confronting them, he DOESN'T wear it, when THIS would've made more sense, with them already in a bizarre mind-space with the drugs in their systems. These choices by the director repeatedly took me out of the movie. There were other issues, like the complete lack of tension or suspension; the gang was incompetent and impotent, so there was no sense of the avenging brother meeting any resistance, simply strolling around killing the perpetrators one by one as if he was crossing items off his grocery list at the local market. This incompetence culminates in a scene where they pile into their ride, a cute little Citroen 2CV I believe, roll up on the brother, the leader packing a scoped rifle. They send one member of the group in to "negotiate", inadvertently kill him with the one and only shot from the rifle, then immediately drive off. Did they only have one bullet? Did they get scared? Or did the director just need it to be so? Again, another jarring moment that just took me out of the movie - I WANTED to stay in it and enjoy it, but the director just seemed determined to make this an impossibility. He was not done here, he had saved his worst for last, in his big "twist". The victimized brother who has been pointing out the perpetrators to Considine's character had hanged himself as a result of the last act of bullying by the gang and Considine had returned in full uniform to attend his funeral at that time. So, the brother was just a figment of his imagination. Very twisty and artsy-fartsy, but if he died, how did Considine's character know who bullied him and where to find them all? Maybe I missed something, I don't know, it FELT like I was paying attention, but hey. Or is this just artistic creativity going over my head? A lot of the 10-star reviews seem enamoured by the movie and the wizardry of this director. I really wanted to like this movie; I could see that Considine's character was deeply flawed and full of self-loathing at the fact that he had always seen his brother as an embarrassment and Considine portrayed this well, but there was just too many things wrong that ultimately ruined what it could have been. Some of the 10-star reviews suggest that people who don't like a lack of "Hollywood polish" will take issue with this movie, one reviewer stating that this isn't "Rambo". No, it isn't; Rambo: First Blood was based on a best-selling book that was translated into 26 languages, cast with capable actors in all the main roles and had a consistent plot without gaping holes in it. If "Hollywood polish" means tidying up a messy movie, then yes, I'd like this movie to have some of that polish. The fact that it is low budget is not the issue, unless the reason for casting people who aren't actors in major roles was done for purely budgetary reasons. The issue is the director and the choices he has made, bringing down a movie that clearly had the bones of a good flick. I have seen This Is England, another of his "lauded" movies and found that to be flawed in much the same way, so I feel it is safe to assume that he made the decisions that damaged the film, the script written by Considine. It has become clear to me that 10-star reviews should be disregarded. Movies are very rarely "perfect" and anyone giving 10 out of 10 is a glaring red flag, this movie yet another case in point.
Broadchurch
(2013–2017)
Hand Me That Crossbow, Nige, Close Your Eyes Now, Son...
21 August 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Like a few of the other negative reviewers, I'm really typing this review in a bid to balance out the insanity of the glowing, virtually dripping 10-star reviews that have resulted in the 8-star overall rating. I imagine there are other people like me who don't watch actual TV as it is aired and instead use sites like this to assess whether an already aired show is worth investing the time to watch. The more shows I watch, the more I realise that it is the REVIEWS that are more fascinating than the actual shows. I watched the first season of Broadchurch. I try to see through the eyes of these 10-star reviewers, looking to understand how they could possibly have watched the same thing I did, sit down and give it 10 stars, 10 out of 10, perfect, no flaws, magnificent television. I cannot see it. Some of these reviews even go further, using the show as an example of how much better British TV is than US TV, suggesting that it is more about realistic characters and story than guns and action. It is also common in such reviews to suggest that people who disagree with their high ratings are either mentally deficient or unable to focus their attention on anything that doesn't have lots of shooting and car chases. This grows extremely tiresome; if people want to grossly overrate Paint by Numbers, formulaic TV that is one thing, there really is no call for insulting anyone who doesn't agree with their opinion. Broadchurch follows the same tried and tested formula that a lot of other season-long murder-mystery shows follow; start proceedings off with the murder of a child to get people feeling sad and wanting to know 'whodunnit', then pad the season out with endless red herrings, scenic shots, gimmicky lead police detectives, endless slow-motion scenes, whatever it takes to fill the space between the pilot and the final "big twist reveal" episode. I get why this formula is so often followed; it makes for easy pay cheques. Put your own "stamp" on it with a location that hasn't been done before, give the cops new gimmicks, knock out a lazy script with weak dialogue and Bingo Bango Bongo, job done, fingers crossed for a second season to keep the that easy pay cheque rolling in. In this case, the new location is Dorset, pretty little seaside town (much like a lot of the Scandinavian offerings in this genre, have the setting be a "character" in itself, save more energy on writing actual character development by having lots of shots of cliffs, the sea, the beach, the high street and quaint residential streets). Bonus - entertaining Dorset accents. Cop gimmicks? Let's make the lead male cop pig-ignorant, loud and give him a heart problem that will have him toppling over left and right. Female cop...let's make her local bumpkin PD, everybody's best friend with a heart of gold - THAT will make for a nice, clashing dynamic. The red herrings are your standard fare, neighbours and close friends with dodgy pasts, plenty of misdirection down child-molestation paths that lead to nowhere. Can't have guns and shooting, don't want to sink to the level of those lowly Americans...how about a crossbow, one that doesn't get fired to boot? WE are better than that. There is nothing of substance here, it is absolutely bog-standard, formulaic TV. SOME shows can follow the formula yet still offer something of worth, be it in the dialogue, the characters, the casting of an actor who elevates the show simply by virtue of their involvement, the pulling off of the twist in a pleasing or at least acceptable manner. This show does not do any of these things. The actions of the characters are not believable, almost all character decisions contrived plot devices, done purely so the writers' can create "drama", soulless puppets at the mercy of their whim and fancy. Some of the acting is decent enough, most is acceptable, some is very weak, most notably that of the actor who played the biggest red herring, poor old Nige. The only emotion he exhibited that seemed believable was the constant, childlike joy in his face that he probably couldn't hide at being cast in a role. Good for you, son. The big, season-ending twist was as lazily written as the rest of the show, not something that was cleverly tied-in during the season and then revealed in a way that makes the viewer look back and connect the dots - it was completely disconnected from the preceding seven episodes. All in all, true to the formula at its most basic, do just enough to secure repeat viewership, not a jot more. I'm curious as to where this formula originated; Britain, Scandinavia, the US? The US seems to remake a lot of such British and Scandinavian shows, so perhaps they are just jumping on the bandwagon. The funny thing is that the US shows typically get panned by fans of the original British or Scandinavian versions - "don't settle for this sorry knock-off, watch the original" - ignoring the fact that it is the same base formula and usually of similarly low-quality writing, rarely that much worse than the original slop it was rehashed from. I am not American, I grew up in England and now live abroad, I don't love the US and hate Britain; I'm just tired of this type of TV being lauded as something "elevated" and "superior". It really isn't.
The Lodge
(2019)
The "Twist" Lodges in my Throat
19 August 2020
Warning: Spoilers
I understand that these days horror movies apparently must have a massive "twist", mandatory, must-have, got it. My issue is that the twist needs to be at least somewhat sold to me; you can't just throw one in there and not put any work into making it palatable, somewhat believable. To not do so is just lazy and insulting. The writers get to say, "they won't see THIS coming!", but I say well, of course we don't, because it is completely unbelievable. I understand the concept of suspension of belief in movies, but there must be a limit. The twist you are supposed to swallow without spitting it right back out is that basically this child, the son (I don't know how old he is supposed to be, he looks around 14 or so) is a psychological puppet master, capable of orchestrating an incredibly elaborate and complex premeditated act of psychological warfare on the "stepmother" who, as far as I understand he has never actually met. I cannot swallow this. Even if I could swallow THAT (which I cannot), if this child IS capable of Hannibal Lecter-calibre mind-manipulating genius, why would he risk putting his sister's life in danger as a consequence of such behaviour? If he is smart enough to carry out such a plan, surely he is smart enough to see the danger of driving a mentally unstable, grown woman insane in an isolated cabin in the middle of nowhere in the dead of winter? And that is without breaking it down further; the levels of premeditation and planning required to take the movie to where it ultimately goes is just ludicrous. Having the kids sit whispering in front of the dollhouse while they move the dolls around and then packing some strange items in their bags pre-trip just doesn't cut it as adequate backstory to sell the twist. "Oh, but remember, they were planning out the different scenarios using the dollhouse - they had it all figured out. And don't forget, they packed some candles and a framed photograph, we laid the groundwork, the twist is justified". No. Nowhere near acceptable. Then you add in all the other contrivances. The father, despite being a trained psychiatrist/psychologist who actually TREATED the "stepmother", fully aware of her history, mental state and the medications she is on, decides that leaving her alone in an isolated cabin with his young children - who she has never met - at Christmas, 6 months after their mother blew her brains out all over the dining room wall is a good idea. Oh, and with access to a gun. That he shows her how to use, before realising she is in fact extremely competent with handguns, unloading the gun into a tree one-handed, Dirty Harry-style. Blatant, inexplicable misdirection slopped on to unnecessarily disguise a twist that nobody should be able to spot coming as it is absolutely ridiculous in nature, like the dog ominously growling at night, doors creaking open by themselves. Listing all the plot contrivances and the sheer intricacy of the children's plan is unnecessary, suffice it to say, the twist just isn't plausible on any level and as a result ruins the movie as soon as it is "revealed". The actual look of the movie was fine, well-shot, atmospheric, the acting was solid all round, but again, for me, all the good is spoiled by the ludicrous twist. It always surprises me how such behaviour doesn't bother so many people, many reviewers giving such movies 10 stars, completely ignoring the fact that they have been insulted in order for the writers to feel clever with their fancy "twists". At the other end of the spectrum, the 1 star reviews complain that the movie was trying to be "The Shining" or "Hereditary". This was not the issue, the issue was the indigestible twist. I spit this back in the writers' faces, not eating it, no thanks.
Dexter
(2006–2013)
Puts the "Serial" in Serial Killer
15 August 2020
As usual, you can never rely on positive reviews when trying to decide whether or not to watch a tv show. Review after review lauds this show as brilliant, groundbreaking, etc etc. I struggled with it immediately, finding the premise contrived to the point of being indigestible. Perhaps the books managed to fully develop the premise in a clever way that made it palatable, I don't know. But to basically say, with the use of Wonder Years-style voice-over and the odd flashback that this individual exhibited warning signs to his adoptive cop father by killing animals as a child, was then TRAINED by the father to channel his tendencies towards killing only "bad" people is a little half-arsed as far as telling a story goes. That "origin" story might have made for an interesting tv show, the path from child pet-killer to a serial killer trained to efficiently kill others of his kind, but this is not that story. This is your bog-standard soap opera recipe with the serial killer "twist" mixed in, just as Walking Dead is the same base recipe with a half-cup of zombie mix, add pouch and stir, voila, repeat season after season. As soon as I realised this, I pulled the plug. It didn't take long. I know that positive reviewers dismiss people like me for not giving shows a chance, but when the writing is so clearly on the wall so early on, I cannot justify wasting my time. The second time Dexter/psycho-Kevin Arnold prepped his little death table I sighed. I do not want to check in each episode and see him have his adventure, executing a bad person (he doesn't just kill serial killers, he kills drunk drivers too) while dealing with the day to day distractions of his personal relationships. There wasn't anything to keep me interested; if there had been some engaging dialogue or compelling actors to counter the formulaic episode structure, maybe I could've hung in for a third episode, but there was nothing. The lead actor was almost campy, it was distracting, and the actress playing his sister was comically bad. The other characters were the typical caricatures, angry black cop, colourful, fedora-sporting Hispanic cop, power-hungry female lieutenant, all very tired and uninspired. I noticed that this show lasted for 8 seasons, similar to Sons of Anarchy (same formula, different mix-pouch) yet another indicator that viewers need to be more discerning in what they will watch if the general standard of tv is going to improve.
Bosch
(2014–2021)
TV Done Right
12 August 2020
I have read most of Michael Connelly's books, including his Bosch series and had delayed watching the TV show as a result of watching too much BAD tv, not wanting to see a character and world I have enjoyed through the books ruined by a tv adaptation. When I realised that Connelly was involved in the show I decided to give it a go, knowing that he would not let his work be butchered. I am glad I did; it was refreshing to see some GOOD tv. This is what can happen when the source material comes from a bestselling author and has been developed over time; the characters feel three-dimensional, these aren't Walking Dead/Sons of Anarchy "characters"that are just cardboard cut-outs propped up on set to keep endlessly churning out the episodes and seasons. With books, you tend to form a picture in your mind of what the characters look like, so it took me an episode or two to adjust to Titus Welliver as Bosch, particularly considering my last experience of his work was watching him butcher a Northern Ireland accent in the terrible Sons of Anarchy. However, he does a good job in the role. I had a similar problem with the actress who played his daughter Maddie, perhaps because she reminded me of Keira Knightley, which for me is not a good thing, but again, this was just a personal thing. To see Bosch's home on the hillside looking out over LA with jazz playing as he sits at his table going through murder books was a treat, having it taken off the pages like that and fleshed out. Bosch's partner, Edgar was well cast, played with restraint, much like Bosch. Like the books, the dialogue is tight and believable, not fluffy and it was nice to get through episodes with thinking "nobody talks like that", "why would a character say that". Again, this is the benefit of having a legit writer involved in a show based on his material, the quality shines through. The way the daily operations of the homicide office play out throughout the show is also really well done, the personnel interactions , disciplinary issues and office banter flesh out the episodes perfectly so that it's not just Bosch working his case, there is a balance. This balance is missing in a lot of crime shows, mainly through lazy writing and a tendency to instead rely on cliffhangers and twists to keep the audience tuned in, like The Killing. This is also the case with Bosch's personal life; his relationship with his daughter was one of the hooks that kept me reading the books, making me give a damn about him as a character. The show handles this relationship just as well. In fact, even Bosch's relationship with a stray dog he takes in is portrayed just right; a scene where it returns after running off closed out a season so perfectly it was a thing of beauty. It is so refreshing to see quality television, I've been starved of it for too long, it's getting me teary-eyed here. The series isn't over and it is another rare feeling to be able to wait for the next installment without fear of it being a disappointment due to laziness by the showrunners, which is often the case, as a result of having set the money-making ball in motion and no longer needing to put the effort in. Connelly will ensure that this does not happen and will no doubt have the series ends organically when it needs to, there will be no endless seasons to keep paychecks rolling in. Thanks, Mr. Connelly.
Watchmen
(2019)
Dr. Manhattan Ain't Picky
9 August 2020
Warning: Spoilers
I've never read the comic (shame on me), I've seen the movie and I decided to watch this based on the critic reviews and award nominations. Like many of the negative reviews, I wanted to give up after the first episode. It seemed to go against the rule of having a first episode be engaging and informative as far as setting up the series; I found it very dry and containing nothing to sell me on watching the entire season. I only continued to watch the season as a result of reading multiple reviews stating that the first 3-4 episodes are confusing and slow and are tied together in the second half of the season. I had the same desire to jump ship after every episode up until the fifth or sixth, which is a long time to stick with something that just isn't selling me on it, that's 4-5 hours of time to get me interested and failing. The casting of the lead character, Angela/Sister Night seemed very odd. For a super hero and the main character, a middle-aged, homely-looking woman with zero charisma didn't make a lot of sense to me. Such a character, in my opinion should be played by someone physically attractive, believable as a superhero or with a lot of charisma (ideally all three). King met none of this criteria. An example of good casting in a similar role would be Vivica A. Fox in Kill Bill. King would have worked as a nanny, cleaning lady, receptionist, any number of bit parts. This choice of casting grew more and more jarring with each episode, particularly when you come to realise that a key factor in the entire series is that Doctor Manhattan, a being who has transcended mortality and become a builder of worlds, a god, returns to Earth and falls in love with this woman, apparently after walking into a bar and seeing her from behind? I don't really understand, I'm aware that he experiences time differently and that this might not be "love at first sight", despite that being exactly what it seems, but still. This is a sturdily built, rather unattractive, sour-faced woman with a foul mouth; most of her sentences are littered with profanity. Doctor Manhattan, if going by the movie. loved a woman before the accident and remained with her as she grew old, before outgrowing humans as a whole and leaving the planet. The idea that he would return to Earth, have his memory wiped in order to live a normal life with this woman just doesn't gel. Yet this is effectively the key to the events that unfold, across TIME, changing the past. The actor that plays the "new" version of Doctor Manhattan is another odd choice (as a child he is Caucasian, but he changes himself physically in order to please his "dream girl"). He seems like the caliber of actor who could play a small role, yet he is tasked with giving fairly long soliliquys as a virtual god that just come across as very flat. The fact that I harped on the casting of King shows how much of a distraction it was, every time she appeared on screen I was confused and taken out of the story. Casting of main characters is key, especially in this case, and it just doesn't work. A lot of the negative reviews take issue with the politics. It didn't bother me enough to stop watching; I just found it a little trite and fairly typical of the times (for a loooong time now in the US), the White Man as the bad guy trying to keep the Black Man down, very ho-hum. Some of the positive reviews laud this as "timely" and "clever", with Trump references, yet the US just had 8 years of Obama as a black president, so for me it didn't carry any particular weight, meaning or relevance. Many negative reviews from people outside of the US also seemed tired of this particular "political bent". The series was watchable, I got through it - the second half of the season didn't really justify the meandering, disconnected first half though. The scenes with Veidt and his clones were just entertaining enough to somewhat counter slogging through the Sister Night parts and the actress who played Agent Blake had some screen presence and charisma, which was much needed after Don Johnson's early exit. There were very few characters of interest, the other "superheroes" consisting of a hillbilly in a reflective mask, a "pirate" woman and a guy in a red and yellow 80's-style tracksuit and ratty balaclava with a Russian accent. Fortunately only the hillbilly character had an "origin" episode; it seemed unnecessary as there really isn't much to him - he can tell when someone is lying and is paranoid enough to always wear the equivalent of a tinfoil hat. Enough said. Maybe you need to be a fan of the comics or just more enamoured with the black/white spin put on this particular take of the comic, or just enjoy the injection of black characters into traditionally white roles in tv and movies. I hear Idris Elba is going to be the next Bond and I'm sure that will gain a new audience as desired. I just didn't find this show all that interesting as a whole, merely entertaining enough in parts. Or maybe I'm just not smart enough - negative reviews are typically soundly dismissed by the fans of the show as "not getting it". There really didn't seem much to "get". I doubt I'll check in for a second season if it continues on in the same vein, with the dumpy woman probably now being able to walk on water while she frowns, curses and looks homely. But again it wasn't terrible, it wasn't great, it was just something I got through relatively painlessly.
The Walking Dead
(2010–2022)
A Walking Dud From Day One
5 August 2020
10 Seasons. TEN. How? The answer? It is the viewers' fault. Terrible tv cannot survive without indiscriminate viewership. Terrible tv will always make its way into being; it is clearly easy enough to come up with a pilot that will be green-lit for a season, there is not much that can be done about that. This show managed it, taking advantage of a popular genre and an associated comic and putting out a pilot that really didn't need to do much with a potential fan base already in place to leech on to. It didn't even need to bother with a big name lead actor. It didn't even need to have a US actor to play a Georgia sheriff, it could get away with an English actor doing a dodgy accent. The producers of the show knew how easy it would be to set up a massive recurring paycheck with minimal effort. So, they got their first season. as they knew they would, and then proceeded to see how long they could drag it out and get away with it. And drag it out they most certainly did. Now, all the positive reviews are delusional enough, but even the majority of the ONE star reviews show signs of madness, claiming that this show has "gone downhill", that the first few seasons were "great", "some of the best tv in decades" and other such nonsense. The reasons they give for why they feel the show went downhill are issues like silly dialogue, too much soap opera-type drama, irrational decision-making by characters and on and on. Yet these issues were present right from the first season. I watched the first season when it came out in 2010 and quickly gave up on the show for the above reasons. Shows rarely get better - if something starts off bad, you can bet good money that it will stink worse and worse over time. The writing was on the wall from the get-go, the set-up was in place, the producers covering their demographic bases, Caucasian, Asian, Black and Hispanic characters forming the main group, a solid foundation to be supplemented with gay and lesbian characters later on when the viewership net needed widening. No need to have the characters be fleshed out and believable, they knew they had an easy moneymaker ready to roll out, why waste any unnecessary effort? Call the black adult male "T-Dogg", why not? So what if it seems highly unlikely that a grown man would come across strangers in a zombie apocalypse and introduce himself as "T-Dogg" and then proceed to have a 60 year old white male actually address him as such with sincerity. The soap opera drama started right there in Season 1, the lead's best friend sleeping with his wife, the formula was already in place, it didn't "turn into" a soap opera with zombies, it started out as one. It simply follows the tried and tested soap opera formula, get viewers attached to characters and they will keep tuning in religiously. Like some of the other reviewers, I came back to the show during this pandemic, wanting something to watch to kill time, read some positive reviews and thought hey, maybe I misjudged it ten years ago, maybe it was one of those rare shows that DOES improve over time. No. I did not misjudge it. No. It does not improve over time. Clearly, it doesn't NEED to; people will watch anything, indefinitely, no matter how utterly devoid of worth it is. Sadly, this isn't going to change, such shows will always be able to maintain their bottom-of-the-barrel fanbase and keep cashing in those unearned cheques year after year after year after year. It's almost funny (but really just a little sad) to read some of the positive reviews that politely half-criticize the last few seasons of the show, wondering why it has "declined" in quality. The answer, poor fan? Because of YOU. You get what you deserve for having such a total lack of discernment in what you will spend years of your life tuning in to every few weeks. I watched another season or so (for free, obviously) to see just how truly appalling it could get. The producers outdid themselves. When they have the comfort level to introduce a character who talks like a medieval king and runs a "kingdom" of followers from a theatre prop store throne you know they're laughing their way to the bank. Oh, and he has a pet tiger. I forgot. A tiger. It must be INTENTIONALLY bad, the writers rolling around naked in a room full of money, seeing who can come up with the next most absurd, cringe-worthy character or plot direction for their trusty fans to dutifully lap up like the poor, loyal mutts that they are, taking the abuse and simply wagging their tails for more. "Hey, I've got one - how about we bring in some Garbage Dump Dwellers, we dress them like The Cure and have them talk like Tarzan, have unwelcome visitors pitted against modified zombies like a poor mans Thunderdome?". It's truly shocking that such a debacle can keep coming back year after year. There are no spoilers here, you cannot spoil something that is so rotten to the core. It reminds me a little of Battlefield Earth in that it is so absolutely terrible that it becomes entertainment (in parts) of some twisted, sickening variety. However, in Battlefield Earth's case it is mercifully confined to two hours, does not cause long-term damage and is not making those responsible for it any money. THIS travesty has been festering un-flushed for a decade and its perpetrators are making a fine, completely unjustified living from it, which cannot be condoned. Do not watch this show. You're better than this.
The Killing
(2011–2014)
"Anyone Ever Tell You You're White?"
2 August 2020
Warning: Spoilers
That line was the only enjoyable thing I took away from a season and a half of this show. The show follows the tried and tested formula of lazily hooking viewers and dragging a series out as long as possible by having a cute young girl murdered and therefore leaving viewers wanting to know "whodunnit". The show runners were so confident in the formula that they even skipped actually introducing the character as a living person, she is a corpse from the get-go, so you don't have anything to actually care about, nothing has been taken away from you as a viewer. They try and make up for this by hammering the viewer with the grieving family, episode after episode - even the dead girl's mother tires of this and ups and leaves her two remaining young sons for a road trip. I'm no expert on the effects of grief on mothers who lose a child but still have living ones to take care of, but leaving them after the first week seems unlikely. They lost their sister, but hey, mummy needs some Me time. This is just one of the many issues with the show. It sucks you in competently enough in the first few episodes, tricking you with the sparse dialogue and gritty feel, but quickly devolves into your standard red herring fishing expedition. It is told in the format of every episode being one day in the investigation, suggesting it could play out as a slow-burning, detail-oriented, realistic telling of a murder investigation, yet instead goes the gimmicky route, with a different red herring and "cliffhanger" each episode. The red herrings are consistently absurd - one has the police finding a blood-soaked mattress up against blood-splattered, red hand-printed walls in the grimy basement of the school where the girl had attended a fancy dress party, the girl's wig found in a nearby dumpster, video footage found a little later of what appears to be her in her costume getting raped, but oh, it was just her best friend dressing up in her costume and getting tag-teamed by two of her "friends" so she can feel wanted. All the blood? Oh, her friend just has really bad nosebleeds. As comically outlandish as this is, most of the red herrings are just as absurd. The show runners seem to want to sell the viewers a gritty murder drama, yet also want the viewers to swallow their unbelievable coincidences and plot contrivances episode after episode. It is almost worth watching just to see the ridiculous lengths taken to set up that cliffhanger each episode. But not really. The show is far too insulting and frustrating for me to suggest anyone waste their time on it. I was determined to hang in there to at least find out whodunnit, but just couldn't go the distance, it was just too aggravating to endure. This was also in part due to the two lead characters. The female lead, Linden, who at first seems stoic and aloof, quickly becomes annoying in that regard, devoid of any personality, like an empty shell. She predominantly has one facial expression throughout, a grimace, like a bulldog chewing a wasp, except it is gum, always chewing gum - one scene has her, the male lead cop and another female cop in a car, all three furiously chewing gum. Gimmicky filler, required as there is nothing of actual worth to extend the show out over the seemingly endless episodes required to solve this murder. She has a thirteen year old son who she repeatedly leaves alone in crappy motel rooms, yet reacts furiously whenever rightfully questioned on her parenting, a plot device which is just confusing, yet probably designed to appear "complex", a cop who cares too much about the dead she tries to find justice for to properly balance her work and personal lives. She criminally neglects her living son. It's pretty cut and dried. The lead male cop, Holder is played by Joel Kinnaman. This character is also annoying in his own way, a grown man, a homicide detective, who talks like a twelve year old white kid who thinks he's a black gangbanger. He talks like that regardless of who he is addressing and under what circumstances. I have read some of the positive reviews and they find this to be "refreshing" and "authentic", whereas I found it to be bizarre and distracting, not realistic at all. These are police officers. Police officers spend their early careers dealing with the public day after day after day, having to maintain a level of professionalism; if they progressed into undercover work they might temporarily adopt such mannerisms to blend in but would not live their entire lives talking like an idiot. That one nugget I managed to dig out of all the surrounding crap was that line "Anyone ever tell you you're white?", a question asked of Holder by one of the many red herrings, a white teenager. This was the one, memorable line that rang true and felt "authentic". I hate to spend so much time writing such a review, but after watching the show based on the positive reviews - from CRITICS, not random users - I felt compelled to vent. This is not good tv. Not even close.
Sons of Anarchy
(2008–2014)
Not-so Little Rascals
26 July 2020
I have seen bad tv before - there is no shortage of it and never has been. But I don't think I have ever seen a case of such bad tv being as inexplicably overrated as this show. A friend had recommended it to me over a year prior to my watching it and I finally got around to checking it out, going in blind, without reading any reviews, sadly. After making it through the first episode, I thought perhaps I had simply misremembered the title of the show; my friend had described it as a solid watch - this couldn't be it, surely. I tried a few more episodes and it certainly didn't improve. I then read some critic reviews, many lauding the show. So I persevered, thinking that maybe new writers took over at some point and turned it around. No. this clearly did not happen. I cannot think of one positive aspect of this travesty. It plays like a show where the Little Rascals grew up, went horribly wrong, never left their little clubhouse and started a life of crime, rather than harmless mischief. This bizzaro world version of Spanky is played by Hellboy and is not nearly as smart as the little kid. His clubhouse generates no money - his fellow Little Rascals seem to have to cough up their OWN money just for Spanky and Co to take road trips. Bizarro Stymie is played by the Pacific Rim guy, Hunnam, a Geordie playing a California biker, butchering accents as per usual. How this person gets roles outside of Newcastle is beyond me; he couldn't even pull off a LONDON accent in the football hooligan movie Green Street (a bad movie, made worse by his involvement). If swaggering could make up for lack of acting ability and a terrible accent, he might be in good shape. But it doesn't. I'm trying to think if I've ever seen someone swagger so excessively on screen before and I'm drawing a blank. Anyway, Pacific Rim is supposed to be the new breed of biker, I guess, prettier, tighter and wearing baggier jeans. He is also deeper and more intelligent - he can read, and shows off this skill by taking his dead daddy's manifesto up onto the roof of the clubhouse to read it and ponder its meaning whilst looking both contemplative and cool at the same time with his long hair and girlish good looks. The other Little Rascals all kind of blur together; I still couldn't put a name to a single one of them despite having watched the entire first season. There's a Scottish one, a Fat one (well, fatter than the others), a Perverted one (well, more perverted than the others), an Old one who carries around an oxygen tank, a Tall one - they all basically hang out at the clubhouse or ride around on their bikes, getting into mischief. Hellboy's "Old Lady" is Peggy Bundy, who has a mouth on her that should be sewn shut. The obscenities she spouts, I have no idea how she can do it with a straight face. The dialogue is infantile at best; as many other negative reviews point out, most sentences end with "Jesus Christ", which quickly becomes both comical and highly irritating. Also, most conversations end with a man-hug or a back-slap, "love you, brother", "love you too, bro" - these Little Rascals are a touchy-feely, loving bunch. The episode plots all kind of run together very quickly; they try to make money, fail miserably, get into long, sloppy fights with other clubhouses - fortunately they make it easy to tell them apart by dressing the scamps in different little leather waistcoats. These Little Rascals are supposed to be the Good Guys, I think; they are apparently "protecting" their town by not allowing drugs or prostitution within it. The price the residents pay for this is the extortion of local businesses and the noise and air pollution caused by the Little Rascals riding around on their bikes to bad rock music. The gang REALLY "protects" one of the local businesses. A female porn director is being harassed by the competition. They ineffectually rough up the competition, then basically take over her business, using it as a second clubhouse where they can watch naked ladies and giggle, then let it get burned to the ground, and ultimately let the poor woman get beaten to death with baseball bats. "All part of the service, ma'am". They like to have different places to loiter and look cool in their little outfits - they constantly hang out at the local hospital and commandeer the hospital chapel as a second meeting room. Within the club, everything is quickly forgiven with a man-hug; one Little Rascal attempts to kill one of his "brothers" and kills his wife by mistake, but no biggie, a bit of sulking then it's all good, bro. The episodes even follow a similar format, starting with bad rock music playing over cuts from one character to another waking up in bed, waking up facedown in a nasty hooker's crotch, having breakfast, however they start their day, then the "meat" of the episode (Little Rascals sit around their fancy little table and make a plan, then have an adventure), then ending with a bad rock music playing over a bike ride, cue credits, tune in next week for more of the same. It is truly appalling, a terrible, terrible show. It is so bad that it becomes a car wreck, you know you shouldn't stop and look but it is just so grimly wrong and sickly fascinating that you can't help it. I actually checked out part of the third season (I finally quit rubber-necking this car wreck midway through the second season) purely for the bad Irish accents, after reading some of these negative reviews in a bid to find some sanity to counter the madness that is all the positive feedback on this dross of a show. It was worth it; Northern Ireland accents butchered beyond belief, just cementing how lazy the show runners are, zero attention to detail, no concerns for credibility whatsoever. They apparently blew their Northern Ireland budget on Paula Malcolmson, so there is only one legitimate Belfast accent, which is actually WORSE for the show as it just makes the brutal accents stand out all the more. Why bother with quality writing, dialogue, plots, authenticity, when you can basically take a massive dump on camera episode after episode and keep getting your contract renewed for another season? I cannot stress how bad this show is - it's like the Bold and the Beautiful - minus the Beautiful - on bikes. I have no idea how anyone could endure the full series, I struggled to make it halfway through the second season and there was zero character development, I imagine it simply keeps churning out A-Team style adventures every episode. There ARE good tv shows out there, with show runners who have a "story" to tell, that consist of characters with arcs, dialogue that contains value, be it realistic, compelling, witty - this show has absolutely none of that. However, I recommend you watch it, at least SOME of it, just to see how woefully bad "good" tv can be - this garbage is HIGHLY lauded, it won AWARDS! Wow. Truly baffling. What a strange world we live in.
Dude Look Like a Lady
22 July 2020
Warning: Spoilers
As is frequently the case with supposed horror or mystery movies that want the viewer to fall for a major "twist" or two, the "twist" is not a twist but a con. The movie starts immediately with what appears to be a girl in a nightgown waking and killing a man and a woman in a house; it looks female and they both refer to her by a female name, Carrie-Ann, before they are slaughtered. After sitting through almost the entire movie, which builds on this introduction throughout, you are basically asked to accept that oh, the initial killer was in fact a guy - gotcha!. Oh, and just in case that "twist" doesn't sit well in your stomach, in the last thirty seconds the director feeds you a quick cover job where they show the boy being dressed as a girl and called Carrie-Ann, despite his protests to the contrary. All the other tricks and contrivances are touched upon in other reviews, but for me, this initial con in the first thirty seconds just shows the laziness and sheer inability of the director and Co. to actually come up with a clever premise or twist, or even an ACCEPTABLE one. I sighed after the cover job at the end and replayed the first thirty seconds to check out the "individual" in the nightgown. Dude look like a lady to me. I even paused it as he/she burst through the door, where the face is exposed quite clearly. If it IS a dude, it has an effeminate-looking face and is certainly not Max Thieriot. The exposing of the face was clearly an intentional part of the scam; they were obviously wary of having the human in the nightgown's face covered with hair like Cousin Itt throughout the initial scene, in fear that it would give their weak twist away immediately. "So lets cheat". Repeatedly leaving the key to a hostage's locked door ABOVE the door so that she can repeatedly escape and run zombie/cavegirl-like at people with seemingly murderous intent to sell THAT particular plot device is irritating but sure, OK. However, the initial scam is unforgivable. Trying to cover it up with a tacky Band Aid at the end and with a few decent acting performances just doesn't cut the mustard. Others may be able to throw a few stars on their reviews for good performances and such, but personally, if you try and feed me crap and tell me it's candy right from Minute One, then you have zero credibility as a film maker and get the bare minimum, which is a forced One Star more than you deserve, Tonderai.
Triangle
(2009)
Hard to Wrap My Undersized Brain Around
20 July 2020
I think I liked it, even though I'm not sure I fully understood it. I read a couple of the 10 star reviews and found a few explanations that made some sense; I think it can be interpreted in a few different ways. It was definitely thought-provoking for me, if not for everyone, based on the negative reviews. I would recommend watching it and deciding for yourself. I also recommend checking out the 1 star reviews for some entertaining bashing of this movie. My favourite focused solely on the fact that in one particular scene the left hand tap of a sink was running and steam was rising from the flowing water, despite the fact that, according to the enraged reviewer, all US hot taps are on the RIGHT. Due to the looping nature of the movie, this egregious error is shown TWICE!! Now THAT is a discerning critic. Another reviewer repeatedly refers to the lead actress, Melissa George as "Trout Face". If you don't enjoy the movie, maybe the reviews will entertain you.
Ad Astra
(2019)
Looks Pretty, But Flawed Under all the Makeup
18 July 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Many of the positive reviews like to suggest that anyone who didn't enjoy this must not have researched it properly, expecting something else, such as a "blockbuster space action movie" and that this is more of a "deep, psychological story". I researched this movie, reading some critic reviews, good and not so good and decided to try it. I do not require "blockbuster action", I can enjoy a slow-moving, understated movie if it is done well. I did not find this to be particularly deep or psychological - having a basic father-son abandonment issue dealt with in the form of voice-over, in one of the many spot-psych evaluations and then finally with a brief chit-chat when Junior finally drops in on daddy just outside of Neptune doesn't qualify as such. This is the angle that the positive reviewers take, suggesting that anyone who cannot appreciate this should not have watched the movie. Even the director makes this argument, apparently very upset at the criticism of the many flaws in the science, also suggesting that viewers missed the point of the movie. I'm no scientist, but even I found it hard not to laugh at the Captain America shield through the rings of Neptune scene, the Mars sewer-swim to hop on a launching rocket mid-countdown scene, using an anti-matter nuclear space blast to kick-start the old rocket for the trip home, to name but a few. It's hard to take a director like this seriously; he wants you to ignore such liberties and appreciate his father-son relationship story, but that story is not particularly interesting or well-addressed and he ALSO tries to slip in some action sequences that are comical at best - space pirates/drive-by gangsters, rabid baboons - these scenes really felt pasted in purely to make for a seductive trailer, which I hear was highly deceptive. Pitt's acting was fine, considering what he was given to work with. He was probably told to play the entire role as if he was trying to pass a psych test, much like taking a lie detector test, slow, calm, controlled speech with little emotion - this doesn't make for gripping viewing. The movie does LOOK pretty, but that does not cover up all the issues with it, neither does the standard haunting space soundtrack - just filler to hide the lack of real content. There were other tactics used to try and make the film seem deeper, cleverer and more insightful than it was, such as the commercialization of the moon, suggesting that humans will ruin every square inch of anything they land on, like the virus we are. Not particularly clever or groundbreaking, but it would've been fine in a movie without all the major flaws that this one has. As far as a recommendation, I'd almost say watch it purely BECAUSE of the flaws, they were that jarring and entertaining as a result, but I cannot give it much of a positive review, the two stars being for the cinematography and the killer space baboons. Spoiler Alert: Pitt kicks major baboon-ass.
Upstream Color
(2013)
I Wish I Had a Brain
15 July 2020
Based on the high-scoring reviews, it appears that I need to be more cultured, more intelligent, capable of comprehending deeper meaning, just a better human being all round, then maybe I could appreciate this masterpiece for what it apparently is. Unfortunately, I am deeply lacking in many ways, unable to appreciate its genius and instead found myself wishing I'd watched Babe instead, a pig movie I can understand and endure viewing. The first half an hour starts to tell a story - movies tell stories. Books tell stories. That is the fundamental concept. They have a plot. Characters fleshed out to at least a minimal degree. This does not qualify. The first half hour seems to be a teaser to trick you into thinking you're watching a movie. Gotcha, suckers! Now, I don't want to suggest that it was a GREAT half hour, it was just a mildly interesting plot with the hypnosis/grub/identity theft thing going on, not particularly gripping, well-filmed or well-acted (outside of the main female character). Then it quickly slips into tedium, to the point I had to turn it off, it was actually irritating to the point of physical discomfort. I made it as far as the pig farmer walking around recording sound after sound after sound AFTER SOUND, staring over a woman's shoulder at a store window, dull, annoying scene after dull, annoying scene and then I frantically hit the 'stop' button, actually right after he stared over that female shoulder a split-second longer than I could tolerate. I read a few reviews to make sure I hadn't made a mistake by running screaming from this movie so early on, but I'm confident I made the right decision, considering it seems a lot of people actually walked out of the CINEMA thirty minutes in, having paid good money. I paid nothing, other than with my lost time. Which is more than enough. If you have read reviews at either end of the spectrum, you will have seen that some people found this "movie" to be quite something (which in most cases they can't actually verbalize in any rational manner, but boy, it's just "exquisite" and "profound") so hey, it might be right up your alley if you aren't as empty-headed and dense as me. Some of these reviews compare it to "Tree of Life", so it might just be a genre of acquired taste, as I only made it 3 minutes into THAT gem (that still holds the current record as quickest movie bailout, followed by Baron Munchausen). Many reviews refer to the director's debut "Primer", the Good saying this is more of the same "genius", the Bad saying that his debut movie has given him carte blanche to trot out whatever pig slop he so desires. I am planning on watching it out of sheer curiosity, wondering how many minutes into the movie will have passed before I have to save myself by jumping ship. Read some of the good reviews and the bad; if you find yourself groaning at the good ones and grinning at the bad, you'll have found your answer and will save yourself the agony of enduring any part of this pretentious yawn-fest.
The Assignment
(I) (2016)
Interesting Idea, Bad Movie
8 July 2020
I was looking for a Walter Hill movie to watch, being a fan - The Warriors, Driver, 48 Hours and so on - and read the blurb about the movie. Based on the director and "hitman gets turned into a woman by mad surgeon" blurb, I decided to give it a go. The first problem is that if you are to buy into the movie right off the bat, you really need to believe that Frank Kitchen, the assassin, is a man. Glueing a dodgy beard onto Michelle Rodriguez and having her growl a bit doesn't cut it. The beard was fascinating; a bit-George Michael around the cheeks, more hobo around the throat, it was the star of the movie. For a B-movie, why not find a more manly female lead, rather than pay a little more for a name who just isn't masculine enough to sell the premise?. Sigourney Weaver plays the surgeon and is far more masculine of a figure than Rodriguez. A few minutes into the movie and you're laughing at the lady-beard and that's that. I kept watching anyway, because again, Walter Hill. Then I start to struggle with the delivery of the story, consisting almost entirely of flashbacks, endlessly having to read how many months back this particular flashback occurred. I always find it hard to get into movies delivered in this manner; it's almost impossible to become immersed in a movie that pulls you back and forth like that. Another problem is the overwrought dialogue, particularly from Weaver's character. I assume it was in an attempt to explain exactly why she is having unwilling people delivered to her so she can perform sex-change operations on them, add some kind of credible rationale to her actions. The cast was surprisingly good, considering the material, probably due to it being a Walter Hill movie, so bad acting was not an issue. I kept watching, hoping it would at least have a few laughs and use the bizarre concept to give me some scenes that were entertaining and different, but it just kind of plodded along. After reading some of the other reviews, it seems some people were offended by the transgender thing; I don't think it takes much to offend some people. It didn't strike me as particularly offensive in that manner, it just wasn't very good. If you're planning on watching the movie, read a few reviews at either end of the spectrum. One review suggested that the people who gave bad reviews are the reason Trump is in power; very strange, but OK, I take full responsibility. I just didn't think much of it, but I'm pretty sure most people will be teased into the movie by the blurb if they made it that far. Hopefully Walter Hill can bounce back from this misfire.
Point Break
(2015)
Impressively Soulless
5 July 2020
It's one thing to make a soulless movie, it's another to do so in a remake of a movie that was so FULL of soul - it almost seems intentional. The Ex-Presidents in the original really felt like a tight-knit brotherhood; in the remake, they appear to have decided that simply slapping some tattoos and scars on the characters and having them hold hands around a picnic table, hug each other a few times and fortune cookie-philosophize is enough to paint that bond. It isn't. Ramirez had a hard act to follow with Swayze's original Bodhi (one of my favourite movie characters and Swayze roles) and was never really given a chance with such a weak script. As a screen presence he had some of Swayze's zen vibe, but again it is as if the writers and director intentionally sucked all the soul out of his character by giving him nothing to work with. The whole eco-warrior thing really didn't work either; you care more about the Ex-Presidents who were simply about not being part of the system, following the waves and stealing to fund their travels than the tree-hugging crew who aren't in it for the money in the remake. The one way that the remake could have improved on the original was to cast the lead with an actor who can actually act, Keanu Reeves standing out in the original as his usual wooden, cardboard cut-out of a character, Ted Theodore Logan packing an FBI badge this time. But...no. They cast THAT guy, I don't even recall his name, another lifeless cut-out with acceptable surf-hair being sufficient, I guess. With a decent Johnny Utah this time round you could at least say they did THAT right, but again, it is almost as if they wanted to miss on every level. Ray Winstone is a great actor, but yet again, he was given nothing to work with, whereas Busey's Pappas was a larger-than-life character who actually had a role to play, not just there as the cut-out's ride. Lori Petty was the love interest in the original and had a fleshed-out character that you gave a damn about, whereas, yet again, Teresa Palmer was given a character who simply spouted a few hippy-dippy lines and was thrown in to simply look good in a swimsuit. John C. McGinley was fantastic as the FBI chief in the original and despite having less lines, stood out far more than Delroy Lindo's version. It actually hurt me to see James LeGros cameo in this remake because it was a physical connection to the original - there should be no connection at all, this is an insult to the original. Hot Fuzz pays proper tribute to the original and its homage to Utah emptying his gun into the air as he lets Bodhi escape garners the appropriate reaction, a grin, as opposed to the grimace it causes in this remake. I won't even bother commenting on the actual plot or meat of the movie, it really doesn't matter, it's just filler between the stunts. Other reviews put it perfectly, that this remake is just a bunch of Red Bull extreme sport YouTube videos pieced together and called a "movie". If you haven't seen the original, watch it. It might not hit you the same way as it did someone who saw it back in the day (for me, I saw it when it came out in 1991 when I was a kid) but you will hopefully appreciate it for a solid, entertaining action movie. Kathryn Bigelow is a legit director who knows how to inject soul in a movie - see Near Dark too, another one of her earlier movies that really shows how she can paint a picture of a tight-knit unit. I haven't seen any of Core's other movies and will actively avoid them after watching this empty Extreme Sports commercial shamelessly disguised as a movie.
Eden Lake
(2008)
Entertaining But Nothing Ground-breaking
3 July 2020
After reading some of the reviews at either end of the spectrum, I found that my take falls somewhere in between. The negative reviews express outrage at how brutal the movie is and complain about plot holes and unrealistic character decisions and plot twists; perhaps these people are a little too delicate if they are so offended by a movie and the issues of plot holes and character decisions are overstated. Some of the positive reviews seem to read a little too much into the movie, suggesting it is some kind of clever comment on society. The movie is not ground-breaking, but it is well done for what it is, with good acting and pacing. It does ask you to swallow a rather large coincidence at the very end for the sake of it's kidney-punch finish and I can understand a lot of reviewers' frustrations with it. For me, it was watchable and not a bad movie, certainly not offensive to me as a viewer - if you want to watch a bad, offensive movie for comparison, watch Fractured with Sam Worthington. There is a movie that mistreats you as a viewer. Eden Lake is just a matter of taste; watch it and if you don't like it. stop watching it.
Fractured
(I) (2019)
Irritatingly Manipulative
2 July 2020
The movie uses the format where it completely manipulates the viewer from the start to the "reveal" and uses the "well, the guy's crazy and you watched it through his perspective" rationale to justify it. If you enjoy being subjected to such cheap tricks, you'll probably enjoy this movie. If you don't, you'll be extremely irritated come the end of the movie and feel robbed of an hour and forty minutes of your life. I feel as though I have to stress that there is no "twist". Many reviews, good AND bad, refer to the "twist", the reviewers either saying they did not see it coming or that they predicted it in the first few minutes. Again, no twist. Simply telling the viewer in the last two minutes that the previous 98 did not actually happen is not a twist. It is a con. For this to be a "twist", the movie up until that point would have had to be filmed entirely from the perspective of the lead character in order to sell the preceding events as the delusions of a crazy person. It did not. You watch many, many scenes in the hospital from an outside perspective looking in, with some of the key scenes used to paint the hospital as something other than a regular hospital not even involving the lead character. If people want to claim that they predicted the ending - as people like to do - that is fine, but don't claim that people who didn't see the ending coming are stupid. I am not stupid, I just expect film makers to follow fundamental rules of plot delivery. I watched and listened to events play out with my eyeballs and ears that showed one reality, and at the end the perpetrators of this travesty effectively try and tell you that you were seeing it from the warped perspective of a lunatic. No. It was not filmed in a manner that could legitimize this premise. They are suggesting instead that YOU as the viewer are delusional, which is downright insulting. It is not a psychological thriller. It is not clever. It is cheap, tacky and wrong. I realise that I am belaboring this point, but again, a movie with a bad "twist" is one thing; this is something else entirely and I think the majority of the negative reviews miss that fact. Imagine watching Back to the Future, seeing Marty meet Doc Brown in the mall lot, watching Marty watching the doc get shot, seeing Marty then go back in time and change the past, etcetera etcetera, over the course of 90 minutes, then watch him wake up back in his own room. Now, instead of him getting out of bed, leaving his room and finding his new present altered, his family happy and successful, Doc Brown alive and well, a nice new truck in the garage, imagine the police bursting into Marty's room and telling him he is under arrest for the murder of the doc and also his entire family. Because you were watching it from the perspective of crazy, psycho Marty McFly, who went on a killing spree but in his mind time-travelled back to the Fifties in a DeLorean. Never happened, viewer, gotcha, Yeah. Hard to put into words how terribly wrong this movie is. Do not watch it.
Tell Your Friends