Reviews

I benefit from having never played the video game for which this is based off of. Therefore, I came to it with zero expectations.

The plot centers on a young bartender and con artist named Nathan Drake, who wants to find an amazing treasure that his long lost older brother was trying to locate years earlier.

He gets set on his journey with the help of a shady older character named Victor Sullivan, who once worked with Nathan's brother on trying to find the treasure. On their adventure, they encounter another professional thief named Chloe Frazer, all while being pursued by some one dimensional bad guys with a lot of resources.

If you are looking for complex characters, a faithful adaptation of the beloved video game franchise, or large-scale action sequences grounded in reality, don't watch this movie. You will be disappointed.

However, if you just want to watch a fun little over the top adventure story with twists and turns, characters who can't be trusted, and crazy action sequences, then this should be a nice diversion.

I stumbled across this 1996 direct to video Newsboys farce on YouTube recently and decided to give it a chance.

The story (what one there is) follows one of the Newsboys as he has to help his late uncle's circus do one more show to make enough money to pay off debts and look after his widow.

If you end up watching this, do not expect Oscar-winning performances, a complex or particularly coherent plot or three dimensional characters.

But it is absurdly funny. It is so ridiculous in its tone and its showcasing that there is an inherent charm. Also, the 90s nostalgia does give it a certain pleasantness to it for a Millennial like me.

It almost felt like someone had taken one of those goofy church plays that youth groups put on and decided to make it into a not quite feature length movie.

A fun little watch, even if it isn't top grade material.

Tim Ballard has a career tracking down sexual predators in the United States. Despite his successes in busting them, he has never rescued a child.

Finally, he decides to take matters into his own hands, and successfully rescues a Honduran kid. From there, he begins to devote his life to saving the child's sister and other children as well.

This is a well done film that has many pluses.

Contrary to what some uninformed journalists may claim, there is no Q conspiracy endorsements. In fact, many of the people portrayed as villains in that conspiracy (federal agents, billionaires, etc.) are represented by characters who help Ballard out.

Also, the film does not graphically portray the sexual exploitation of children, but only implies it through dark and effective filming. "Sound of Freedom" effectively conveyed the evil of sexualizing children without unintentionally making pornography in the process. The people behind "Cuties" could learn a thing or two from this movie.

The acting (especially from Caviezel) was top notch, and the pacing of the story was decent as well. Many scenes were quite impactful and emotional.

I strongly recommend it for both its quality as a film and its moral message.

God's children are not for sale.

As an American born and raised in the United States, our schools do not teach much of anything about the Eastern Front of World War II. This documentary series was my first real exposure to that part of history, and it is as amazing as it is disturbing.

The series is a combination of objective historical facts and numerous first hand accounts from all sides of a conflict that gave us some of the largest battles in human history and some of the most horrific atrocities.

It was not a perfect series, of course. "War of the Century" curiously omits the battle of Kursk, which was the largest tank battle ever. It also made no mention of the sinking of the Wilhem Gustloff, which is the worst maritime disaster ever.

Still, as an overview of that WWII front often ignored by American schools and entertainment, it is a great watch and very informative.

As a Millennial educated in classic films, I have seen my share of Elvis movies. Usually, they are farcical campy films heavy on music and light on plot or drama.

"Flaming Star" starts out like you would expect an Elvis movie to start, with musical performances and happy partying among the characters. But then, less than ten minutes in, things go suddenly violent.

The film centers on a part of Old West Texas, with a white settler community facing increasing tensions with the local Native tribesmen, who are led by a newly installed bellicose chief.

Caught in the middle are the Burtons, a blended family with a white father, his white son from a previous marriage, his Kiowa wife, and his half-white, half-Kiowa son (played by Elvis).

The movie not only contrasts with other Elvis films, but also most older Cowboys versus Indians flicks.

No one is innocent in this one. White settlers are far from heroic, as many of them openly show contempt for Elvis and his mother solely because of their race. The chief who instigated the escalating violence against white civilians also makes valid points about how whites have been stealing his people's land for years.

I wonder how audiences of the time must have viewed this film, as its strong denunciation of racism and prejudice was coming at a time when the US was embroiled in Massive Resistance, Klan violence, and widespread police brutality against African Americans.

Regardless, it is a very interesting movie and my favorite Elvis film by far. If you want a very different Elvis film to watch, one full of drama, action, and surprisingly modern social commentary, check this one out.

Back in 2000, the movie "The Patriot" garnered backlash when its production decided that the main character Benjamin Martin, a wealthy 18th century white South Carolina man, would not be a slave owner. This resulted in a very awkward scene when a group of black laborers claimed that they were working on Martin's plantation of their own free will.

Flash forward to 2022 and "The Woman King." In one scene the Agojie, an elite group of woman warriors who in real life were instrumental to the slave trade, let captives go free if they refused to join their ranks. Needless to say, such a scene would be as likely as an Antebellum white South Carolina gentryman having free black labor.

"The Woman King" is set in West Africa in 1823, and focuses on the Agojie soldiers and the Kingdom of Dahomey and their struggle against the Oyo Empire and European slavers.

Overall, the story was decent. Viola Davis is excellent as the experienced Agojie general Nanisca, who has a traumatic secret. Thuso Mbedu was good as Nawi, the young upstart trainee who often refuses to follow the rules. The battle scenes were intense, the music and costumes were great at setting the period and dramatic tone.

However, the film was very bad when it came to historical accuracy, worse than usual I'd say. The film downplays the extent to which the Agojie were involved in the slave trade, and didn't start to oppose it until long after the 1820s. Dahomey was infamous for their slave raids, their war crimes, and their large-scale human sacrifices. There was only slight allusion at best to how King Ghezo came to power with the aid of Brazilian slave-traders because they saw him as helping their business.

Many are willing to look past the errors to see an interesting story. I am (more or less) one of them.

But I wonder if those same people would be so forgiving of these historical omissions if the main characters were a bunch of white male Southerners instead of black female Africans.

This film is definitely worth a watch, if for no other reason than to see how history can be misinterpreted to fit a modern cultural narrative.

This is definitely a very different Robin Hood story. Gone is the hopeful expectation of King Richard the Lionheart arriving at the end to provide a final justice to the land. In this version, Richard is more villainous and power-hungry and--reflecting the historical record--is killed before he has a chance to return.

Prince John and the Sheriff of Nottingham are more minor characters, with the former being an ally of Robin's for a crucial battle.

Robin Hood is not even technically Robin Hood, but an archer in Richard's army who is given the name and title from the actual Robin of Loxley, who dies near the beginning of the film.

The French are the main villains, with a scheming nobleman named Godfrey being the main bad guy for nearly all of the film.

The film has good battle scenes, good performances, cool imagery, a gritty and dirty (and most likely quite accurate) portrayal of life in the late Medieval Era, and interesting re-interpretations.

However, the movie also suffers from a confusing script, a failure to properly focus on key points like the Magna Carta angle, and the final ending needing to have a sequel, which unfortunately will likely never happen.

Still, I do not regret watching it.

When I first heard about this movie , I was not excited. I remembered the first two sequels being less than stellar.

Still, I wanted to give it a shot, watching it on HBO Max rather than take the extra time and money to go to a theater.

While I had low expectations going into it, I really should have had lower expectations.

It was not without its good parts. There were stunning visuals, the initial fourth wall-breaking tone was interesting, and I felt some feelings when seeing Trinity and Neo back together again.

It was also interesting to see how humans and machines were starting to work together more and some of the other technology changes that had occurred since Matrix: Revolutions.

However, the film was confusing, even by Matrix standards. It failed to let various revelations breathe and gel before moving on to the next thing.

The fight scenes, while sometimes cool, were lacking and look very poor compared to the first Matrix film.

There were no compelling villains. The "bots" were inferior replacements for the agents of the first film. At one point, The Analyst had a cool time-stopping power, but it was quickly and inexplicably undermined.

The flashbacks to the earlier films felt lazy and forced, while the newly added protagonists were mostly forgettable.

After viewing it, this movie felt more like a first draft to a much better film. A few more rewrites, better plot focus, better explanation on the revelations, and way better villains were all needed.

Next time, take the blue pill.

I watched this film on Netflix out of curiosity. If you enjoyed the 1980s "Knight Rider" series as I have, you will be disappointed by this low quality movie.

The plot follows an illegal arms trade being organized in the "near future" (the year 2000) by corrupt police and government officials, with Michael Knight coming out of retirement and being helped by new protagonists at the Foundation.

The film lacks a lot of what made the original TV series so memorable. There is no black Pontiac, as KITT was sold for scrap and had to be rebuilt. There is no Bonnie, the attractive and intelligent female mechanic who was in most of the series. There is no campy action or offbeat humor, the story is much slower-paced than the typical TV episode. And the beloved theme song is absent.

There's also a lot of discontinuity. Now Michael Knight is a genius with electronics, something that was never the case before. Now KITT uses profanity and throws temper tantrums, both of which were foreign to the original series. To say nothing of the fact that somehow Devon and Knight have both aged very little, even though the story is set 15 years AFTER the series ended (5 years in real life).

That said, its not without its interesting points. It is interesting to see some of the future predictions they had at the time. It is interesting to see the direction that "Knight Rider" went in post-TV series. As someone who just finished watching "Stargate SG-1" on Netflix, it was interesting to see a younger Carmen Argenziano before he was cast as Major Carter's dad.

Avoid unless you are a big Hoff fan or are interested in the things I mentioned above. Better to re-watch the 1980s series instead.

Watching the Outcast back in the 1990s must have been very different from watching it today.

The story follows Commander Will Riker as he falls in love with an alien who, while having biologically female leanings, belongs to a society intolerant of gender specific attributes.

In its own time, the story was a thinly veiled endorsement of gay rights and a denunciation of sexual orientation conversion therapy.

However, watching it in the 21st century, hearing dialogue that speaks of gender being biological, the episode now sounds like an attack on transgender ideology and gender reassignment therapy.

They say Revolutions eat their own Children. It will be interesting to see if this episode becomes anathema over its talk of male and female being biologically based and efforts to change that being harmful.

This episode serves as a follow up to the two-parter that ended season 4 and began season 5.

Teal'c is still brainwashed courtesy Apophis, so Master Bra'Tac decides that the only way he can free his mind is to undergo a dangerous ritual that will very likely kill Teal'c.

When I first saw that the ritual involved giving Teal'c flashbacks, I was ready to fast forward through most of the episode, because I thought it would be dominated by footage from earlier episodes (a "clip show," that is.)

But, boy was I wrong! Instead, nearly every flashback show new scenes featuring parts of Teal'c's past that took place before the pilot episode which provide an explanation for why he betrayed Apophis in the first place.

If you are a Teal'c fan, this episode is definitely for you. If you wondered why he betrayed Apophis in the pilot, this episode is for you. If you wondered how he became First Prime of Apophis, this episode is for you.

Simply put, don't skip it.

I make it a custom to watch this documentary every September 11th. It tragically and effectively captures what happened on that day that started out so normal.

The film centers on the New York City firemen and one proby, Tony Benatatos. Like the days leading up to the tragedy, the film starts out like an average story, reminding those of us who lived before 9/11 how different things used to be.

Then it goes deep into the pit of darkness, with the Naudet brothers filming historic moments from the ground level. It feels so raw and at times very intense. One thing that really sticks with me were the sporadic and extremely loud crashing noises heard when the firemen were gathered in the tower lobby. Later, it was revealed that these crashes were the bodies of those jumping from the highest levels of the Twin Towers. .

The wreckage, the close-ups of the faces of the first responders, the tornado-like destruction of the tower collapses, the shock of the crowds, and that cathartically sad dedication at the end. Virtually every scene was powerful in its own way.

I was a teenager when 9/11 happened and was in math class in Alexandria, Virginia, a few miles from the Pentagon. While I have no personal memories of what New York City endured, this documentary brings me back to that horrific day to remember, to pay respects, and, at times, to even cry.