About five minutes into this film I found myself wondering where I went wrong in picking this title. I rely heavily on IMDB's user rating system in deciding what to watch and what to skip. I realize that I miss out on a few completely watchable titles this way but it spares me the aggravation of investing time into titles I can't bear to watch clear through. This has been the case up until A Dark Foe. The acting is just plain AWFUL. How it's getting the score it's getting is baffling. This is just my opinion, but I really feel that someone at IMDB is getting a laugh -- either that or their scoring algorithms, which I thought were supposed to keep the thumbs off the scales, have failed abysmally on this title. No offense.
Reviews
8 Reviews
Proximity
(II) (2020)
Like nachos, it's a hot, cheesy mess.
15 June 2020
Okay, so I had low expectations for this one, having checked the IMDB score, but only minutes into the film I thought this might be one of those rare occasions where I'd been mislead by the user rating system, but what started out promising quickly fell apart. I love the SciFi genre and have a particular affinity for movies with bazaar first-contact scenarios, and although there is an abundance of cliche in this one there is a reveal at the end which really blindsided me. You don't often get to see religious themes where aliens are involved so I give the makers of this film points for trying something new, but the concept of the scientific validation of religious tenants deserves to be treated with more care than what's afforded by this film. What could have been powerfully thought-provoking got lost in the mess. By the end of the movie things had gone so utterly, hilariously (and yet, sadly) off the rails that a poignant, essence-of-life kind of revelation could not be taken seriously by anyone.
Madeline's Madeline
(2018)
WTF
26 January 2019
Have you ever looked at an abstract piece of art and strained to understand what the point of it was? I feel like I just suffered through some bazaar required viewing for a college art class. I stuck it out because I love thrillers (exactly how this movie qualifies a part of that genre is a mystery) and because of all the stellar reviews, but I did not have any answers by the film's end. Most importantly, I was not entertained or uplifted which are the only two reasons I watch cinema. Perhaps I'm just too shallow to understand what just happened or what the point to any of it was, but I'm typically able to appreciate 'artsy' stuff so it's more than that. No, I believe one must actually be mentally ill himself to appreciate this 'art', and it actually left me feeling as though perhaps I was cracking. The acting was superb, I think. I. Just. Didn't. Understand. It. At. All.
After Darkness
(2014)
Not the worst movie I've ever seen is the nicest thing I can say
24 January 2019
Okay so, to be fair, there are worse films one could point to than this odd snoozefest, but make no mistake, from start to finish you will find yourself wondering if your 98 minutes could be better spent doing something else. Nevermind the affront to science, there are bigger problems. The acting isn't the worst but it's pretty bad, maybe slightly better than an after school special but I'll admit I might be giving it too much credit. The characters are more like caricatures, and it's hard to care what happens to such shallow, exaggerated cliches. I wouldn't even really call this a scifi, more like a drama with science fiction undertones, and a bad one at that.
I watched this movie clear through so you don't have to, and don't endure to the end expecting to be rewarded for your sacrifice. I've seen some films that started out terrible but ended up surprising me. This was not one of those films. My suggestion is this: If after the first five minutes you find yourself hoping it gets better, know that it won't and stop wasting your time - I wish that I had. On the other hand if you're bored to tears and there's nothing else to watch, you could do worse (just not by much). I realize not everyone is going to agree with my low markings but if I really liked this movie I'd avoid going all in on five stars because it's so clearly bad that I'd look like a shill.
I watched this movie clear through so you don't have to, and don't endure to the end expecting to be rewarded for your sacrifice. I've seen some films that started out terrible but ended up surprising me. This was not one of those films. My suggestion is this: If after the first five minutes you find yourself hoping it gets better, know that it won't and stop wasting your time - I wish that I had. On the other hand if you're bored to tears and there's nothing else to watch, you could do worse (just not by much). I realize not everyone is going to agree with my low markings but if I really liked this movie I'd avoid going all in on five stars because it's so clearly bad that I'd look like a shill.
Pandora's Promise
(2013)
A Compelling Perspective with Some Important Omissions
3 July 2014
Warning: Spoilers
This documentary aptly illuminates the epidemic of single-mindedness within our society -- extremists on both sides of every major issue making decisions based not on facts but on deeply entrenched emotional convictions. It seems the vast majority of contributors to the nuclear power and global warming debates are more interested in tailoring facts to fit their views than they are in matching their views to the facts. Indeed many will go so far as to manufacture their own "facts" while suppressing or discrediting contradictory data in order to push an agenda. Attempting to find objective data on these issues is a daunting task so it was refreshing for me to see such unlikely advocates of nuclear power advocating for something they once admittedly abhorred.
Overall the film was well-produced and managed to make a reasonable case for nuclear power while maintaining a sense of balance by examining the arguments on both sides of the debate. I only have a couple of complaints. For starters I was frustrated and amazed, frankly, by the complete lack of captioning typically seen in a documentary. This wouldn't have been near as much an issue if relevant information such as locations, dates, and particularly the names of the contributors and their credentials were included in the film's narrative.
The only other major issue I had with the film is its failure in my opinion to adequately address one of the greatest concerns about nuclear power as a global energy solution -- proliferation -- the fear being that nuclear power would give any nation the practical capability of developing nuclear weapons at some point. The film attempted to address this important concern with the following lofty and somewhat naive platitude: "We won't get rid of nuclear weapons by forgetting how to make them; We'll get rid of nuclear weapons by deciding we don't want them anymore". The problem of course is that such sentiment presupposes a hallucinatory degree of trust and benevolence shared by heads of state and dictators everywhere.
In the spirit of full disclosure I generally espouse what most would consider to be conservative views but I don't like to be called a conservative. I see labels as limitations placed on thought.
Overall the film was well-produced and managed to make a reasonable case for nuclear power while maintaining a sense of balance by examining the arguments on both sides of the debate. I only have a couple of complaints. For starters I was frustrated and amazed, frankly, by the complete lack of captioning typically seen in a documentary. This wouldn't have been near as much an issue if relevant information such as locations, dates, and particularly the names of the contributors and their credentials were included in the film's narrative.
The only other major issue I had with the film is its failure in my opinion to adequately address one of the greatest concerns about nuclear power as a global energy solution -- proliferation -- the fear being that nuclear power would give any nation the practical capability of developing nuclear weapons at some point. The film attempted to address this important concern with the following lofty and somewhat naive platitude: "We won't get rid of nuclear weapons by forgetting how to make them; We'll get rid of nuclear weapons by deciding we don't want them anymore". The problem of course is that such sentiment presupposes a hallucinatory degree of trust and benevolence shared by heads of state and dictators everywhere.
In the spirit of full disclosure I generally espouse what most would consider to be conservative views but I don't like to be called a conservative. I see labels as limitations placed on thought.
The Broken
(2008)
A work of art or a child's finger painting?
16 October 2012
I've read several other user reviews of this film and there seems to be a common theme among the more positive entries: If you didn't like this film you must be a shallow, gore-loving Neanderthal. I find that interesting since I also read several of the negative reviews and found that few of those appeared to be suggesting the film contains insufficient gore.
The most common complaint seems to echo my own. The film starts out as a promising psychological thriller but ends up a haphazard mess offering absolutely no explanations for any of the utter lunacy the film has presented, forcing the viewer to strain in order to fabricate even the most unlikely hypotheses! I don't mind a few unanswered questions so long as the major plot elements of a film arrive at a reasonable destination, but no such elements in this film appear to even have a destination in mind. I've seen just about every major film of this genre within the last 20 years and never before have I seen so many questions presented with so few explanations provided. Perhaps I am just too much of a simpleton to comprehend this uniquely "abstract and cerebral masterpiece".
The most common complaint seems to echo my own. The film starts out as a promising psychological thriller but ends up a haphazard mess offering absolutely no explanations for any of the utter lunacy the film has presented, forcing the viewer to strain in order to fabricate even the most unlikely hypotheses! I don't mind a few unanswered questions so long as the major plot elements of a film arrive at a reasonable destination, but no such elements in this film appear to even have a destination in mind. I've seen just about every major film of this genre within the last 20 years and never before have I seen so many questions presented with so few explanations provided. Perhaps I am just too much of a simpleton to comprehend this uniquely "abstract and cerebral masterpiece".
Quiet City
(2007)
A taste of life . . . in case you don't have one of your own.
10 February 2008
First of all I should state that this is not the first independent film I've seen. I have nothing against independent films in general. On the contrary I have seen many independent films that I would highly recommend. Unfortunately this was not one of them. I suppose I can appreciate the film's artistic quality. It is about as true a "day-in-the-life-of-the-average-person" story as you'll find. The dialog seems almost unscripted. The conversations in the film are light and pointless, to the point of being somewhat awkward, which is exactly what one would expect from the typical interaction amongst American adolescents of today. I suppose it's possible that I am missing the boat here but by the end of the film I failed to see how I didn't just waste 78 minutes of my life as I watched in sheer boredom two fictitious characters waste 78 minutes of theirs. Maybe I'm alone here but when I sit down for a movie I do so with the expectation to be inspired or entertained. At the very least I expect my mind to be stimulated in some way. This movie did none of those things for me.
Consequences
(I) (2006)
Makes "Hostel" look like a masterpiece of grace and dignity!
3 June 2007
I've seen other reviews refer to this title as essentially a gay version of "Hostel" which might be the simplest if not the most apt description. In my opinion however the comparison is just as unduly flattering of "Consequences" as it is an affront to the "Hostel" films.
Now a quick word on the pillow biting aspect of the film. As a straight bloke I'd be lying if I didn't admit that it made me so queasy I may have thrown up in my mouth a little. I'm sure to get knocked by a few puffs and labeled a homophobic for being so candid but the truth is I've got nothing against homosexuals. I don't have anything against my mom and I wouldn't want to see her in the movie either. Having said all that my assessment of this film has little if anything to do with sexual orientation. Regardless of the direction one swings there are plenty of other reasons not to see this film.
I realize that regardless of what I think there is always a niche audience for this kind of thing. Such is the subjective nature of "art". So if you happen to be a desensitized, witless clod and you're really -- and I mean REALLY -- bored . . . AND you feel you're in the mood for some ridiculous and willfully vile, vulgar, repugnant, contemptuous, shameless depravity, then this film is for you, you sick, twisted degenerate. If you really must subject yourself to this travesty try to approach it with the mindset that you're watching a comedy and you might find it more bearable. At the very least you might not feel quite so insulted as this preposterous, heavy-handed hack job backhands you across the face with it's reap-what-you-sow pontificating in ways that make you ask yourself if the moral of a story can always justify the story. Not only is the acting talent on par what what you might expect to find at a high school play, but the "raunch factor" will leave you desperately hankering for a bit of pumice and a shower as you struggle to replace the inexorably revolting images in your head with thoughts of all the things you could have been doing during those 86 minutes of your life you'll never get back.
Now a quick word on the pillow biting aspect of the film. As a straight bloke I'd be lying if I didn't admit that it made me so queasy I may have thrown up in my mouth a little. I'm sure to get knocked by a few puffs and labeled a homophobic for being so candid but the truth is I've got nothing against homosexuals. I don't have anything against my mom and I wouldn't want to see her in the movie either. Having said all that my assessment of this film has little if anything to do with sexual orientation. Regardless of the direction one swings there are plenty of other reasons not to see this film.
I realize that regardless of what I think there is always a niche audience for this kind of thing. Such is the subjective nature of "art". So if you happen to be a desensitized, witless clod and you're really -- and I mean REALLY -- bored . . . AND you feel you're in the mood for some ridiculous and willfully vile, vulgar, repugnant, contemptuous, shameless depravity, then this film is for you, you sick, twisted degenerate. If you really must subject yourself to this travesty try to approach it with the mindset that you're watching a comedy and you might find it more bearable. At the very least you might not feel quite so insulted as this preposterous, heavy-handed hack job backhands you across the face with it's reap-what-you-sow pontificating in ways that make you ask yourself if the moral of a story can always justify the story. Not only is the acting talent on par what what you might expect to find at a high school play, but the "raunch factor" will leave you desperately hankering for a bit of pumice and a shower as you struggle to replace the inexorably revolting images in your head with thoughts of all the things you could have been doing during those 86 minutes of your life you'll never get back.
Tell Your Friends