Change Your Image
amelieduchenne
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
What Jennifer Did (2024)
Use of A.I. generated images in deceptive manner and stolen content from hobby YouTuber
Attentive people noticed that there was something amiss with images used for this "documentary." As always, it was the fingers and hair first giving it away and later research confirmed it: The "documentary" makers created A. I. images of a happy Jennifer throwing peace signs to i dicate she was unbothered by the attack on her parents. This is shameful and dangerous both, as it falsifies reality.
There is no doubt Jennifer planned this heinous crime but that information, along with ACTUAL evidence, must be enough. There lies a great danger in creating false images to implant an impression in people's minds. In this case, it is clear the offender had no conscience and no remorse for what she did. What about other cases? Cases still on trial, or being investigated? There have been such documentaries; and an added issue is elements such as trial by media, resulting in biased juries, and/or the fact that judges may be up for re-election and feel pressured to come to a certain verdict, all directly influenced by A. I. lies.
Such images or even deep-faked video footage can severely impact a case to a magnitude we haven't seen yet and can't even fully calculate - in terms of ultimate ripple effect and results - yet.
So yes, here comes a new low of people feigning to show us the unadulterated truth. The old adage "An image says more than a thousand words" has never fully held true to begin with but has now lost all meaning. I hope laws will be put in place to prevent misleading viewers and steering opinions in that manner in the future.
Also, ans this has been said multiple times, the whole crockumentary was a sad and unsuccessful rip-off of the brilliant YouTube channel JCS Psychology whose creator both examined the case as well as the young offender's mental state. (The latter which this "documentary" entirely neglected.)
To steal for monetary gain from a little YouTube channel is embarrassing enough but that with all that fantastic source material the end product was but a tedious, excruciatingly boring and thanks to the A. I. issue factually dubious affair is simply unforgivable.
Living with the Dead (2002)
Lie-opic of unparalleled sadism
It's incredibly sad that a proven fraud, who has played with people's most vulnerable emotions centered around loss and grief, got his own pseudo-biopic. It's a lie-opic, really.
Even sadder is that celebrities with this reach and level of influence (Ted Danson, Queen Latifah and Mary Steenburgen) gave their names to support this train wreck of a production.
Verifiably, Van Praagh did NOT ever solve any cases for law enforcement. Verifiably, Van Praagh was analyzed, tested and debunked with scientific methods.
A better watch than this movie would be all of James Randi's videos debunking mediums and psychics, showing in detail how, with hot and cold readings, mentalism, showmanship, psychology, and subtle coercion, such conmen appear to know so much about our deceased loved ones as well as ourselves. And they all do it for large sums of money.
Even Derren Brown did a whole special on debunking an alleged medium.
This movie is the cherry on top of Van Praagh's sadistic cruelty towards deeply hurt and struggling people.
The way this movie depicts the protagonist as this meek, reluctant teddy bear type with a heart of gold is even more perplexing if you know Van Praagh and his methods as well as the lack of empathy and absence of a conscience it takes to go through with what he does to people.
Bottom line: An absolutely disgusting movie.
Intrusion (2021)
One major logic flaw
It didn't matter to me that I knew from the get-go where this movie was headed; there's only so much you can do in terms of storylines and surprise twists, particularly when it comes to Thrillers.
BUT. The biggest issue was with the fact that the abducted woman's father helped build the house...yet didn't think to check the secret basement underneath the office of the man he had claimed had creepily eyed his daughter shortly before her disappearance?! Him and his boy were just aimlessly trashing/searching the house instead.
Alternatively, they could have also just gone to the police. Now granted, the dad did say on the video he knew the police thought him and his family "were trash" but it's a missing person's case. The police will have questioned them to try and clear them. And dad didn't think to mention the eerie employer who'd serial killery lusted after his daughter?! This massive plot hole made me deduct some stars unfortunately. The acting is solid, particularly by Logan Marshall-Green.
There were a few scenes and info that added nothing to the plot, although it became clear this was added to try and give the wife some depth and likeability. Instead I would have liked to see more of the husband's background and how he became this way.
Nowhere (2023)
A steel shipping container CAN float
A steel shipping container may float at sea despite what anyone else in this review section may claim, so to rate this movie one star because of that is ludicrous. And here is how this works:
Containers will eventually sink as they are not completely watertight. The timespan of sinkage depends on the the type of container, its permeability and the cargo itself. Some containers sink immediately, while there are stories of containers floating across the Atlantic - in one case, taking 15 months to cross the Atlantic from the Caribbean to Spain. Once in the sea, water will enter through vents and seals. However, containers laden with lightweight, low density and buoyant cargo can float for years even when holed and waterlogged. The cargo itself may have enough uplift to keep the container unit afloat. I gathered this info from various shipping container websites.
Here's what was less realistic: Cell reception in the middle of the ocean. It IS a Dystopian world, so we'll just go with - in the future that is possible. Who knows, 25 years ago teachers told me I wouldn't have a calculator wherever I go and now we all have cell phones that prove that theory wrong.
The only serious issue that you couldn't argue away was really that mother and newborn would with almost certainty died of hypothermia.
I did laugh out loud when the whale came to "save the day." That was a bit much.
Otherwise and okayish movie. Great premise, exscution so-so. It did have its lengths and should, in my view, have been at least half an hour shorter.
The Reef: Stalked (2022)
Slow but watchable
One star for the water bubbles which were so incredibly hard at work covering the shark enough that we hardly ever even get a glimpse of it. And if we do, it's just the fin or a shadow. I guess there wasn't a budget for CGI. That's okay, and that wouldn't have been a problem, but the lack of a story is one.
I appreciate they tried to give at least one of the characters a backstory, but firstly that one took up too much time, and also if that's all there is and the other characters are cardboard cut-outs, well...it just doesn't work to well.
The acting wasn't great. Example: the mom who watched her child be thrown into the water with the shark and didn't instinctively shriek, cry, run to get a weapon and then plunge herself into the water to save her kid (I mean, harpoons and stuff do exist...). She was just standing there wide-eyed, seemingly half-bored encouraging: "Swim faster!" Gee, thanks, mom.
Now, a few people noted they didn't think sharks behaved like this, meaning the stalking. But if you watch shark documentaries, they do. There are also different survivor accounts of how their dinghy was followed by a shark and he got them one by one. And it's known that just like serial killers sharks return to places where they were successful before. So this part was realistic at least.
The last 20-30 minutes are probably where most of the suspense happens, though not to the degree of the first Reef movie, or other rightfully successful shark movies, because once you finally get to see the whole shark (especially in the shot where his head surfaces above water) you can tell these are archive footage bits, probably from some documentary. Again, this isn't necessarily terrible, just very noticeable.
The end "fight" was okay though.
Overall a bit slow and the constant flashback scenes were a bit distressing, in my view.
The Requin (2022)
Scary mainly due to the horrific acting
I can't remember if Alicia Silverstone could ever act because it's too long I've seen her in anything. Overacting doesn't even begin to describe it. Truth be told, I have no idea what she was doing in this movie, other than screech like a bat, and I guess when she scrunched up her face it was supposed to be crying. I felt second-hand embarrassment all over the place while watching this movie, and she was largely what made the film unbearable. But halt, there's more.
First of all, I like the general premise of a tropical storm sweeping a little hotel hut into the ocean and the characters having to try and survive. But this was more a marital drama (and a weird one) rather than an action flick. There was mainly just boring conversations, accusations and screeching by Silverstone.
The CGI was cringeworthy. The very few times the shark was actually shown, I thought I could have drawn a better one. The ultimate jumping the shark moment - literally, no, I mean literally - occurred when the shark jumped up out of the water like a dolphin and came at Silverstone in her little dingy. It wasn't just that it was ridiculous but it just didn't seem to fit with a movie which had tried hard to be taken seriously and add a tragic backstory so people "can relate." (We can't. Anyone who can is lying, I posit.)
James Tupper, why are you in movies like this, sigh. Tupper is a really solid actor, he simply deserved better. Kudos to him for spending months with someone screeching at him at the top of their lungs. I hope he's not deaf after that experience.
Angel: Blood Money (2001)
Nice Easter Egg
I'm surprised so many people did not pay enough attention to realize the major Easter Egg in this episode, the true motivation for Angel to return to his friends: The head of the homeless shelter who now goes by Anne.
In Buffy The Vampire Slayer, she went by the name "Chanterelle," and was part of a vampire cult, briefly meeting Angel in Sunnydale. She reappeared in BTVS season 3 when Buffy went by her middle name Anne while waitressing in L. A., ultimately asking Buffy if she could borrow that name to use it for herself. "Anne" even mentions meeting Angel years ago but obviously neither of them recognize the other.
Angel once helped her turn her life around and now she is doing the same for him. Without "Anne," he wouldn't have reconnected with his friends. This is a very sweet little episode, plus it has Mark Rolston (Alastair in SPN) in it too, so great fun all around!