Change Your Image
patchesalseier
Reviews
Kingdom of Heaven (2005)
300 meets Primary Colors
This movie/story is part fairy tale, part propaganda. It's one of those stories in which the events are placed in a time in history, but everything else about it is made up. No need to go into any more detail than so many others have about the politically incorrect people, places, circumstances and events--it all serves Ridley's idea of the way the world should work, not the way it really is, ever has been or ever will be.
People who like this movie, and even many who don't, also rave about the "beautiful cinematography." Well, most of that cinematography is digitally rendered, and much of the movie is shot against a green screen (like 300). How much more beautiful would it have been if filmed on location? Jerusalem--the real place--and the surrounding area is some of the most varied and beautiful terrain you'll ever see, but the movie rewrites the geography so that you have Jerusalem set next to an impossibly flat and featureless plain that runs for 100s of miles in all directions--stupid. There's nothing to admire about this movie.
Agent Carter (2015)
Forget the sexism; writing is bland
Agent Carter is anachronistic, sexist, boilerplate, and boring--just round it all out to "badly written." I watched almost every episode of the first season and my eyes and ears were bleeding from boredom near the end. Just because this show features a woman in a leading role doesn't mean you have to write in every cliché' known to man . . . hide under the desk when the boss walks into the room, wear a wig to "completely" disguise yourself, pretend you're just like everyone else when you have the fighting techniques of Bruce Lee, and on and on it goes. There's nothing new to look at here--move along, move along.
Are we supposed to be on board just because it features a woman as the action hero? Why should that mean it can't have good story and good writing? Why settle for less, folks, just because it is a woman? In fact, we should demand it stand above the rest and prove that showcasing a female action-hero is absolutely worthwhile. If you support this tripe then you're advocating inferior fare for female characters. Don't do it! And why does the woman have to be like a man to qualify as an action hero; why does she have to punch and jump and be a strong, solitary figure? Why not allow her to be feminine and yet capable? Pass on this.
The Expanse (2015)
Lame of Thrones . . .
Several reviews I read of The Expanse before it was officially released made the claim that it is SyFy channel's answer to The Game of Thrones--so, basically, it's "Game of Thrones in space." If that's what the creators of the show were intending (and it does seem that way), then it would appear they thought what made that other show great was the fact that there are many different factions fighting against one another . . . period. Apparently they didn't understand that what people like about that better show are the characters, the story and the exotic settings. All The Expanse has of any of the elements of The Game of Thrones is various factions vying for dominance over one another. There doesn't even seem to be a very compelling reason for this"war," either (I'm pretty sure it has something to do with water, but that fact quickly fell to the wayside in dialogue and setup). Most of the characters are thinly sketched out (owing to little screen time), the story seems disconnected (the show jumps around so much that I'm always left feeling like an episode was only 15 minutes long), and the settings . . . well, it's space, for the most part, which is just black and empty and not very interesting.
The writers here could have put more effort into getting us viewers more invested in one faction and characters within that faction, but they've failed on that point as well. As other reviewers have pointed out, the show tends to shift focus quite often- -sometimes to develop a particular mini-story and characters within it only to drop them later--and you find out the whole thing was just to set up some story point. I'm trying not to spoil anything here, but it's hard to write about this using general terms.
Mostly I feel the show lays out some very basic ideas and then jumps around way too much from one group/character to another; I've watched every episode so far (five I believe) and I have very little idea about what's going on. I predict The Expanse will not renew for a second season--and if it somehow makes it, that definitely won't get a third. SyFy has better, more successful shows already in the pipeline that will end up bumping The Expanse off the roster.
Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill! (1965)
Not good
I was surprised to see just how awful this movie was after all the buzz: "ultra-violent," "raunchy," "lots of booty," "savage," and many more superlatives are used to describe "Faster Pussycat." In reality it's dumb, dull, and docile.
Yes, there are some buxom-y ladies (but no nudity--not even ni---ple-bumps, and no sex, etc.), and some people do die--or I guess they do, as there's almost no blood when it happens (even after a "brutal" stabbing--and we have to watch that from behind the stabber so nothing is seen. The victim falls bloodless to the ground, but I guess there's a little redness on the knife?).
I think Faster Pussycat might really have been meant as a straight comedy instead of an exploitation thriller; the "fight" scenes are laughable (such as a large woman "karate-chopping" a guy hard enough to give him a slight massage--but it kills him anyway), and the dialogue is inane.
The story is slight, the scenery is humdrum (arid landscape for most of it) and the acting is horrible. It's not bad enough to rise to a "good, bad" movie, and it's not good enough for a cult classic. I have no idea why this thing even rates a look. Frankly I was shocked to find the lowest stars this movie gets--besides my rating--is like only four or five.
I'm giving this tripe a "2" just because it has some notoriety. My advice . . . don't see it, and above all don't pull this out for you and all your friends to enjoy--they won't.
Hellraiser (1987)
W.I.T.H. is going on?
Just watched Hellraiser for the very first time--mostly in preparation for one of my favorite "bad movie podcast" commentaries. While watching it I kept asking myself over and over, "What the . . .?" and "Why did he . . .?" and "Why did that . . .?" and "How in the world did that just . . ." and on and on. I find it's a common complaint I have with Clive Barker movies. It's like you know the movie's being made by someone who, if they were at a party telling you about their recently written fictional story, would speak half of what he wants to say in his mind and the other half out loud. Since HE understands it all so well, he doesn't bother with trying to explain it all to us, because he unconsciously thinks we can all read his mind.
Why a puzzle box? Why does it do what it does? How does Frank know about it if no one else has opened it (it was "meant" for him, after all, and no one else, according to the mysterious seller)? Where's the "pleasure" part of "pain and pleasure" come in? How are those disgusting creatures "angels to some" (if they're demons to someone like Frank who seems to have been on a quest for ultimate pain)? Does the box reveal different things if opened or closed a different way (seems to, but why and how, and where)?
Was the house they were moving into and/or buying a house the husband had once lived in? Sounds like it was. After all, they didn't seem at all surprised to find that Frank had been living there (and why did they never ask each other about Frank, and where he might be now, why he was living like a bum, and when he'll be coming back?). And the most niggling question of all, why does the main family, and all their friends, keep referring to that mangy, dirty, dingy, moldy, stinky, dark, gooey, yucky house as "A Great House!" and "A Terrific House!" and "You've got to see it to believe it!" What alternate world is everyone living in there? Weird!!
Some great and creepy special effects spotted along the way, and somewhat watchable for that reason, but no other.
Monsters (2010)
Couldn't resist
I saw this movie on "pre-release"--so, way back when. It made me mad then, and it makes me angry now. Plus, I've seen so many more, better (waaay better), cheaper (muuuch cheaper), independent, do-it-yourself, science fiction, character-driven, horror movies since then that haven't gotten as good ratings as this piece of crap on IMDb that I'm ready to start an "anti-Monsters revolution."
Don't pay attention to people here who claim that this is "intelligent," character-driven sci- fi for the discerning viewer. How's this for meaningful dialogue between the two main characters of this winner:
Samantha: "You know how people laugh, different, depending on who they're around? Or, like when you were little, you would practice laughing . . . you know? Andrew: "No" Samantha: "And you'd pretend--" Andrew: "You'd practice laughing?" Samantha: "You never did that?" Andrew: "Practice laughing? No." Samantha: "Yeah!" Fade to music and talking action. And that's as deep as it gets. Period. She learns he's an absent father and he learns she's a rich daughter. Deep characters. Rich characterization.
I'm giving this four stars because it has some nice visuals and a good score and the hint of a good concept. Make no mistake about it, though, it does have a point; there is a reason it was made, and it was to convey an idea. Who are the "real"monsters? Well, us . . . as in U.S.:
Gareth thinks the U.S. looks at Mexico and its inhabitants as infected "aliens" (illegal aliens- -isn't that clever!) who we need to keep contained, even if with a wall. We meddle all the time, too, sending in our jets and army without permission (not true) to render our justice on them covertly. But those sneaky, lovable Mexicans just keep coming through, whether there's a wall or not. So just give it up, U.S.! Love (tangly, slurpy, slimy tentacled 'ol love!) will always conquer. If we'd just put ourselves in their shoes, we'd see why they want to come here.
That's the point, Gareth. We do see; it's why we live here, and it's why we invite anyone and everyone else in the world (more than any country in history)--including Mexicans--to come and join us . . . legally! Come, please come and take part in our country. Add your flavor to it, we beg of you! But also contribute to our taxes, schools and oaths; it's not too much to ask.
But no--we Brits (Gareth) need to make you Americans understand by making an "intelligent" movie that subtly suggests the truth of the inequality and brutality of this relationship.
It's fair of me to vent because the movie is given so much praise here without accounting for the effectiveness of its message. It's easy to get angry; it does such a poor job at making its case. It's clearly done by someone who knows next to nothing about the real issues we both (U.S. and Mexico) face.
The message is confused, the analogies mixed, the message not compelling (We can never really sympathize with the so-called "monsters" because we know nothing about them). The characters do not draw us in and make us care. Here's Gareth's earth-shattering, "hidden" message:
Andrew: (sitting with Samantha looking at wall) "God, it's huge!" Samantha: "I thought I'd be a lot happier to see it. Like I feel I could cry, but I don't know if it would be a happy cry or a sad cry." ---Me: You're not happy to see a wall you can use to escape the scary monsters? But it's because it symbolizes the separation between the haves' and the have-nots'! But that's a mixed analogy! Bleh--too on the nose!--- Andrew: "You know, it's different looking at America from the outside . . . in. You know, when you get home it's so easy to forget all this. I mean, tomorrow we'll be back to our separate lives in our, like, perfect suburban homes. You know, everything that we've been through--it won't matter any more."
Yeah, I know--like, I'm so insensitive as an American that it's easy to forget dead people, destruction, huge, scary, tentacled monsters killing and smashing along. So easy, once you're in your comfy American home. . . . Not!
Dumb, dumb dialogue meant to get us to really "think hard" about our rich and famous lifestyles (not me, or you, probably). We who give more of our income than anyone else on earth as a whole? Yeah, we're THOSE monsters.
At one point the locals talk in Spanish about the wall. Samantha responds: "Yeah, it's like we're imprisoning ourselves!" Stupid, stupid, stupid. No, it's like we're keeping out monsters! Oh, you mean Mexicans! Wow, now that's intelligent! I never would have made the connection! Wowee! Brilliant commentary, Gareth!
Oh, and then there's this: Local: "When American planes come . . . the creatures? Very mad! You know, crazy, crazy animals! Very dangerous!"
Wait . . . wait a minute! You mean . . . Mexicans, don't you--really? Oh, so the bad cartels who bring crime and destroy things--they're really gentle. Except it's just the mean Americans and their guns and policing that riles them all up. It's been us all along. It's our fault! We create bad vibes in good people!
Such simplistic drivel! Ahhh, I can't take it anymore!! How about some real commentary on complex issues? Not here.
In the end, Monsters is a failed experiment--an attempt at clever double meaning using faux scifi as the venue. There's plenty better out there. And people keep making excuses for this movie by recalling the "tiny" budget it had! It's no excuse. And is $800,000 a "tiny budget"? Go watch "Absentia" and get your socks blown off by real, original sci-fi concept, direction, acting and delivery . . . for only $25,000!!!! I'm sorry Gareth, but back to the drawing board for you!
Tape 407 (2012)
They should call this 407 bad ideas
Area 407 is a movie about fake people superimposed upon a cheap desert set for an interminable amount of time while constantly repeating phrases, using gratuitous, redundant explication, and pretending to be hunted by things they don't seem to know is there, that they can't hear, never see and don't care about.
(Spoiler: the things are supposed to be creatures that are a part of some secret government "genetic experiment," or velociraptors, as some may call them, though the actors don't and never would because it's always so obvious they know they're supposed to be reacting to something that will be added postproduction, but they've not been told what that will be. Any idiot born in this universe would immediately know what to call the creatures, or at least compare them to, from even a momentary, peripheral impression of one. At the VERY least someone would say "dinosaur." All that to say that the second I knew what they were, which was almost the first sound they make, they became uninteresting, because I knew I'd already seen it all before in all the Jurassic parks movies, and done as good as it can be done. We also know, from those movies, the most probable behavior such creatures will display. So, we'll see absolutely nothing knew here.)
Just a couple of other things I would like to say about ALL found footage movies (and to those who make them):
First, today's video equipment, from the most expensive digital cameras to iPhones, will never, ever record video that will fade in and out, blur, pixelate, fuzz-out, freeze-frame or display ANY other type of "interference" pattern just because the user is running with the equipment, waving it about, screaming (or just because there's any kind of loud noise nearby), or because the equipment itself senses that something exciting and dangerous is happening at the time.
To cause some type of interference you'd have to drop the thing on a rock (after which the interference would never resolve), shake it violently, or get it very wet. The one type of display interference, though, that bothers me the most is when the camera suddenly can't hold a steady picture because a monster is nearby. There's usually never any other practical reason presented in the movie for the camera to behave that way, because the user is typically standing very still or just in shock--so no running or shaking the camera, or throwing it or anything. It's the equivalent of the camera getting scared and peeing itself. It's just dumb effects. Please make them stop!
The second thing is that it's completely unnecessary, and painful for us, to hear the actors argue on and on for half the movie about using the video camera to tape what is going on. WE DON'T CARE!! It's not going to matter to us or the story, so just have someone say something like, "we need to record this for posterity," or "our families" or "to make a million on a found footage movie of this experience if we ever get out of this alive, or for our families if we don't." Have everyone else say, "Hey, that's a good idea," AND SHOOT THE DARN MOVIE!!!
Absentia (2011)
9 stars (+ learn how to rate movies)
Most people have no how to properly rate a movie. Most will rate a movie based solely upon their own taste, and then against what they would consider to be the best movie they have ever seen. That best movie (which is probably also their favorite) had a big name director, movie stars and multi-hundred-million dollar budget, too (see how these same reviewers rated Avatar). So how could a little independent movie costing, maybe, $200,000 ever compete with the likes of that? In their mind, no movie of such small caliber could ever achieve above a 5 or 6 star rating compared to their favorite.
But movies should not stand shoulder to shoulder like that. I've been fortunate enough to see a couple hundred small, independent movies and perhaps close to a thousand major motion pictures in my lifetime. I can compare the major ones, and even do so by genre, which is how they should be rated. The small ones should also be compared to one another, and according to genre. If a film has presented: First--a unique idea or concept, and Second--in a convincing and well-thought-out way, with Third--some emotional impact, using Fourth--good direction, Fifth--appropriate and we'll-executed cinematography (including effects) and sound direction with Fifth--decent acting, then it has succeeded at close to its highest level in its category.
Absentia deserves an eight or a nine for these reasons. If you're looking for an original idea executed by a new face that represents a name "to look out for" in the future, then you've come to the right movie. Absentia does not deserve the ludicrous "5.6" rating it seems to have garnered. Sometimes people will love a movie and be prepared to rate it very high, but then don't like how it ends--though it's entirely appropriate, so they decide to hate on it instead. Please don't do that. Uninformed and lazy movie-goers who decide to write reviews end up destroying the perfectly good name of a movie, and Absentia is such a one.
Please support genuinely good, independent, original, well-directed, low budget, well- acted films like Absentia. It left me with a chill down my spine and an aversion to travel through any foot-tunnels any time soon. Look for this director's name to come to a big screen near your in the near future; he is becoming what Shyamalan was meant to be.