Change Your Image
russelldresearch
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
The Woman in Black (2012)
The Haunted House is Back - but that's all
Reading some of the reviews by people who highly rated this movie, I could conclude only that they came from people who grew up on Harry Potter books and movies, because this is a very poor ghost story and even weaker horror movie. I tried to suspend my overriding feeling that Harry Potter had grown up to become an estate agent (US: real estate guy), but it was hard to shake because Radcliffe is so typecast by being the main actor in the ELEVEN movies based on J K Rowling's novels about a school where kids learn magic.
The movie had good production values, but the haunted house is the best thing in it. I couldn't rate it higher than 5/10, because the script is predictable, the dialogue is cliched, and the acting is middling - except for Radcliffe, who drags it down to amateur level. His displays of emotion are often inappropriate for the scene - he doesn't look scared when he should but does look scared when he shouldn't. He often seems too stiff and flat to be credible, and he needs to learn to relax his arms so we aren't feeling his internal tension about performing. OK, he was just in his early twenties when he made this movie, but I haven't seen an improved performance in any of his latest movies either.
Radcliffe is not as annoying as a Hollywood nepo baby, but neither is he far away from such a status, either. I'm not sure if another actor could have rescued this mess of a movie, but Radcliffe clearly couldn't. Maybe if he makes it up with J K Rowling, he can appear in the twelth Harry Potter movie: Harry Potter and the Deathly Acting.
Pearl (2022)
Something missing
Pearl is a good movie in terms of style and production aspects, but like the main character, has something essential missing. For Pearl the character, what's missing is a conscience. For Pearl the movie, what's missing is a storyline. The basic story is that Pearl is bored with her life working on her parents' farm, and would like to escape by succeeding at an audition for dancing. But it doesn't work out, so she kills everyone she knows. That's it, basically. The dialogue and skeletal story both drag along at a slow pace, trying to fill up 100 minutes, and most of the killing scenes are gory but not scary. When the movie ends with Pearl smiling and weeping as she silently stares into the camera for almost two minutes, I felt like she was reflecting my expression looking back at this movie. I tried to enjoy it but ended up weeping at wasting and hour and a half of my life.
Babylon (2022)
Babylonian boredom
This is a visual and auditory extravaganza, focusing on the decadent and delirious side of the US movie business in the 1920s. It focuses on four characters. Lots of other characters drift in and out of the proceedings, often for no clear reason. Brad Pitt's character is fairly amusing to watch, but Margot Robbie's character is totally overblown and overdone, making her hard to watch because she's too cringeworthy. Although it has high production values, it doesn't have much of a storyline and after about an hour you start to realize its all about shock and awe, loosely hung around a bunch of set pieces (party, movie set, etc.).
It starts off with an elephant opening its bowels over some poor bloke - a metaphor for what this movie is doing to the viewer, maybe. Then it cuts to a debauched party of the rich and famous. People at the party are taking drugs and having sex (surprise), and the only way it really differs from parties I've been to over the years is in its gross opulence (e.g., elephant guest) and fantasy hedonism (e.g,, cocaine mountains). So, yeah, it was fun to watch some of the wilder parts of this scene - but parties are fun to be at and mostly boring to watch. The next long scene follows the chaos on a multi-movie set, but it's all rather self-indulgent and silly. After about 90 minutes I got really bored and couldn't face another 90 minutes, so I gave up, like I am going to do with my review about this long cinematic yawn.
Bad Education (2012)
Bad comedy
Not funny. Just not funny. A television show can be well produced, reasonably directed, fairly well acted, and technically proficient, but still be awful because the script is poorly derivative and because it has Jack Whitehall in it, desperately trying to fuse the styles of other comedians into his performance to come up with something believable, but still desperately failing. Who the hell would laugh at this pathetic drivel? If a comedy isn't funny, what is the point in making it or showing it? They should have just cancelled it as a bad mistake. I've had funnier toothaches. Did I mention that this is just not funny?
Fear the Walking Dead: Remember What They Took from You (2023)
Remember what this took from you
What a stinker. This show was always the poor man's Walking Dead, but it just became the dead man's Walking Dead. I idly tuned in to see where it was at, having given up on the show about three seasons ago, and it's got worse. The storyline doesn't make much sense, the actors come over like they don't want to be there, and the characters keep on saying things which don't just ring true or feel credible. It's like the script writers are still at college and they aren't going to many lectures. Can't even be bothered to persuade you - the actors can't be bothered to act, so why should I. Check it out yourself if you don't believe me. Thank Chaos it's the last season, thou shalt not suffer a turkey. What a pile of poop.
Mayfair Witches (2023)
AMC's Mayfair Witches
I've read the books and now seen the show, and overall I prefer the show - it's lively and gripping, and you can't always say the same about Anne Rice's books. I'm being provocative - her novels are mostly full of good chapters, but then she seem to lose concentration and jump the live creative rail and career off the tracks into the desert and tumbleweed. Anyway, I just can't figure out where all the negative reviews are coming from. For instance, the show is an interpretation of the books, it doesn't have to be a loyal televisual replication. I enjoyed the story and the style of the show, though I did start to wobble around the second and third episode as it meandered around too much, but then it really picked up and I'm glad I persevered.
The acting, script, locations, cinematography, directing, editing, and special effects are all top class. Alexandra Daddario always draws your attention with her lovely voice and facial expressions, and convincingly brings the main character to life (and other places). The guy playing Lasher (Jack Huston) does well for the most part, but he doesn't have the gravitas to persuade you that he is the most powerful, charismatic and sneaky being in the whole franchise or whatever. Things were just starting to get really interesting (Lasher gets laid, and Rowan givers birth to a spirit baby with a wobbly face) when the season comes to an end. Can't wait for season 2, I reckon I will continue to prefer the show to Rice's erratic writing, which ranges from amazing to boring within a single book.
Predators (2022)
Great visuals, shame about the commentary
This series shows some excellent filming of wild predators in their natural environments, with great use of all the latest technology to get close-up shots and to follow animals running at fast speeds. The editing and overall production are pretty good too. However, we don't learn much that we haven't already learnt from previous wildlife shows, and the approach is one which will appeal to the general public rather than the more scientifically-minded viewer. I would have given the series an 8, but the thing that really spoiled it for me was the choice of Tom Hardy to do the commentary. Not only is the content of his commentary fairly tedious and a bit anthropomorphic at times, but he sounds like some TV presenter from the 1950s or 1960s speaking in the RP of those times. Is that his natural voice? Is he trying to sound like David Attenborough? If so, he fails. He comes over really plummy and traditional upper class, and you would have thought that an actor of his experience could have adapted his voice to something more 21st century and cosmopolitan. It's really irritating, and I had to watch with the sound down after a few episodes. If they had to employ a posh English bloke to do the commentary, I think I would have preferred Benedict Cumberbatch.
Survive (2022)
Even the stupid survive
Sophie Turner and Corey Hawkins both perform fairly well and are very watchable, but I can't be bothered to give a broader review because their characters are so stupid and the script and dialogue are daft. This story isn't credible in several places, and the two main characters seem oblivious to the most obvious things to do - like stay at the crash site (given the location) rather than wander off across miles of mountain peaks and snow. Then there's the part at the start where Jane (ST) breaks into the pharmacy at the mental health agency she is in - if it was that easy, there would be no drugs left in the pharmacy! But the most annoying part of all is when Jane and Paul haul themselves into a cave after an avalanche. They are very hungry, cold and fatigued; they're battered and bruised from the plane crash; and Paul has broken ribs, and then gets a panic attack. Yet they have oxycodone and fentanyl tablets with them, which would reduce much of the pain caused by all of the above problems, and allow them to move on - but they don't consider these pills as having any use other than suicide if things get really bad for them! If they both popped a few of those opioid tabs, they could probably have skipped and danced down the rest of the mountain to the nearest town, and we could have ended with a nice sex scene or something. But no. Unless you like laughing in disbelief and shouting at the screen, avoid this movie.
The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power (2022)
The Things of Power
7 episodes in, people are very polarized on their evaluation of this show. Most of the show's good and bad points are well documented in these IMDb comments. The show has many good points, which is why I give it a generous 7: for instance, cinematography, locations, photography and soundtrack. Acting quality is mostly high and otherwise passable, and there are some great performances, notably from the actors who play Galadriel, Adar, Elrond, Durin and Disa. But this is Tolkien, and OK is not good enough. The show drops 3 points because of some critical errors in judgement about both the story and the delivery. I will confine myself to four of the most salient issues.
First, the pacing and material is poor. TRoP drags out what would be 15 minutes of story in similar shows to about 60 minutes, with the lack of judicious editing and creative script-writing making things seem far too ponderous and uninspiring. Speeding things up wouldn't just make the story seem livelier and more gripping, it would allow for better development of characters and building in much more interesting sub-plots. Many of the characters are one-dimensional, with little back-story or opportunity to show personality. Furthermore, since TRoP is based on just a small amount of material about the Second Age in the Lord of the Rings book, the writers were free to explore many intricate aspects of the story (e.g. Numenorean culture, events in Valinor) but decided to keep things simple and dumb everything down instead - a big, boring mistake. In particular, I think it was a tedious cliché to keep us guessing about who and where Sauron is for so long. As the Boss of Evil in Middle Earth, an ancient Maiar with a long and terrible history, Sauron's presence and impact could have been portrayed more excitingly from the opening episodes (especially if he is Halbrand or the Stranger). The same goes for Gandalf and the Istari. If TRoP is going to go with the alternative account of the arrival of the Wizards in Middle Earth in the latter part of the Second Age - rather than the accepted contention of 1,000 years into the Third Age - then why don't they just get on with it and introduce some entertaining Wizard action into the story? One of the most serious character misjudgements is Galadriel. She is several thousand years old, and yet her character often comes across like a petulant teenager whose actions are more determined by emotion than thought - rather than a magical immortal immersed in wisdom and mystical powers. And if the writers are going to shoehorn Hobbits (Harfoots) into the Second Age, they need to do more than just wander along on their migration munching on berries and snails, occasionally blowing hot or cold on the useful and intriguing Stranger. I was also hoping to see some of Middle Earth's weirder beings by now, like Ents and assorted monsters. Patience!
Strangely, one thing the show doesn't make use of at all is the fact that at this point in time (somewhere in the final century of the Second Age) the world is still a flat plain with the Valar and most Calaquendi Elves now living in Valinor on the island of Aman over the western sea. It isn't until the very end of the Second Age that Eru sinks Numenor, turns the world into a sphere and removes Aman to a higher plane (a kind of Heaven). There is creative mileage in this flat-earth mythology, but it's not even mentioned.
Second, much debate was generated about whether Black actors should be playing beings described as representative of Northern European mythology (notably the 'fair' Elves and the 'Anglo-Saxon' Hobbits), but a more glaring issue is the accents the show uses to characterize the main groups of humanoids. Elves speak in middle-class English, Dwarves talk like Scots, Hobbits speak with Irish-ish accents, Orcs are cockneys, and 'Men' mainly have northern working-class accents. These decisions tell us quite a lot about how the show's creators and writers view these different races, and very little about the more detailed picture that Tolkien presented in his books. There was room for far more nuanced development of the differences between and within each race, as thoroughly and beautifully described by Tolkien, but TRoP prefers to more cartoon-like caricatures.
Third, the dialogue in TRoP can be embarrassingly weak and sometimes laughable, and reveals the lack of calibre and experience of the writers employed for the show. Given their huge budget, we would have expected them to have the resources to consult the best Tolkien experts and nerds, and so ensure that the language of the characters was authentic and worthy of Tolkien's high-class literary creation. Instead, the writers have delivered a much cruder approximation of Tolkien's style, and the dialogue often sounds like it's been written by teenagers studying Shakespeare at high school who have yet to properly grasp the phrasing and prose. How else could they come up with daft and clunky lines like 'the sea is always right', 'the same wind that seeks to blow out a fire may also cause it to spread', and 'unlike the stone, her gaze is not downward, but up'?
Fourth, though the title of the series suggests that the 20 magical rings will be a core focus of the show, seven episodes in they serve as little more than a collective MacGuffin, and a poor one at that. Why aren't Celebrimbor and Gil-Galad featuring more in the show, and filling us in more on the technology of the Rings and their purpose, or musing over possible unforeseen technical problems - notably that Sauron might use a master Ring to control the wearers of all the other Rings, like a monstrous computer hacker? I know they might get to all of this eventually, but I'd have expected the Rings and the magic powers they represent to feature far more in the unfolding story by now - particularly since it is so thinly spread across several episodes. For instance, they could have used more back-story about the Silmarils and the Trees and even the Lamps to show how the Rings have evolved from a long line of magical objects. Instead, the treatment of the Rings is vague and trivial: the Things of Power...
Last, some people are annoyed by the decision not to give female dwarves beards. But a stranger omission to me is why there are no Elven children. I know the Elves are immortal with a preference for small families (could be a fertility problem), but you would expect to see the occasional Elf kid. And there are no Orc children or women. But I guess Tolkien's books also contain this problem.
It's hard to understand how they spent half a billion dollars making this show. For that much money, you would have expected them to hire the best writers and directors and get the best of everything, yet TRoP comes over just like any bog-standard Saturday evening show produced on a regular budget (e.g. Merlin, Atlantis, Once Upon A Time). Like many, I'm disappointed. I live in hope that creative people of the calibre of Peter Jackson and his collaborators get the honour of producing a show about the First Age of Middle Earth - The Silmarillion - before the wrong people get there first and do another injustice to Tolkien's beautiful story of Middle Earth.
Three Stars for dull Hobbits under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf scenes in those halls of stone,
Nine for the Elves with the best story-lines,
One for the Dark Lord not shown 'till the end
In the Rings of Power where poor writing lies.
Jeepers Creepers: Reborn (2022)
Jeepers Creepers Regurgitated
All the people who came here to give this movie a rating of 1 are just reacting to their immediate experience of viewing the movie, which would inevitably lead them to focus on its obvious bad points. They are therefore being unfair by ignoring critical assessment criteria like its less obvious good points. Indeed, when you look for such indicators of quality across such movie dimensions as casting, the script, acting, dialogue, directing, photography, cinematography, editing, catering, and general production values, then its undoubtedly worth a 2. Maybe even a 3 if you watched it while drunk.
Pistol (2022)
Pistake
I don't really care how accurate this version of the Sex Pistols story is, because there are only versions, there is no objective story. And the sound and visuals are predictable, all fine and dandy and par for the course. What sinks this stinker is bad casting and poor acting. Anson Boon's attempt at Johnny Rotten comes over like Rik Mayall, while Louis Partridge fails badly as Sid Vicious - you can hear his middle-class vowels peeking through in several places. Gary Oldman he ain't. Hardly anyone has a clue about what Jones and Cook were like, so who knows how good those portrayals were, but the actors didn't really look much like them. And though Thomas Brodie-Sangster gives an animated depiction of Malcolm McLaren, he still looks like he hasn't passed through adolescence so doesn't pull it off. The best performances were Sydney Chandler as Chrissie Hynde and Emma Appleton as Nancy Spungen. Apart from them two, Pistols is a mediocre pistake. Ever get the feeling you've been cheated? Good night.
Pleasure (2021)
The pleasure and the pain of porn
I'm guessing that this movie got low ratings from many men because it wasn't the straightforward pornographic movie they were expecting. Though I'm sure some still managed to get sexual relief from watching this movie, most would have been turned off by this hard, gruesome look at the porn industry through the eyes of one woman. And that's because that is the intention of the movie: to get the viewer to see the true nature of the hidden process that leads to their sexual self-pleasuring product. Sadistic and aggressive porn is the most worrying, not least because it leads some men to believe such sex is the norm rather than a minority interest. Increasingly, porn degrades and devalues sexual love and pleasure - it's almost the opposite of eroticism. Comparing porn to eroticism is like comparing fast food to a 5-star gourmet meal.
Anyone who is into porn but feels a growing unease about what they see should watch this movie and examine their own attitudes to visual depictions of sexual activity, to women, and to their own sexuality. Though porn can now be obtained free on the internet, it isn't free - it has a cost, and that cost is the potential corruption of your own sexual feelings and your attitudes to sex; as well as the exploitation of many women who are coerced and forced into making porn movies.
The lead actress Sofia Kappel gives a stunning performance as a young girl trying to make it in the US porn industry, and the movie is well directed, skilfully edited, and has impressive production values. But if it makes you feel as much disgust and disdain as I did, this is a movie you will want to watch only once, unless you are addicted to porn - one of the few pleasures which is more habit forming than heroin, and as destructive as alcohol and tobacco.
Encounter (2021)
Discounter
If they had used a better script, this could have been a good movie. The production and direction are generally impressive, and Riz Ahmed is an excellent actor - indeed, his performance is the only real good thing here, and he keeps you watching and hoping that something interesting will develop. The two young actors playing his boys also do OK, but just don't have enough decent script to show their worth. So, despite a reasonable premise - a soldier with PTSD becomes deluded that aliens are taking over humans - the directionless tale plods along until it simply fizzles out rather than concludes. It seems strange that none of the experienced team involved with this movie couldn't see the elephant in the room: the script was woefully under-developed.
The Lost Symbol (2021)
The Lost Opportunity...
This is a poor quality TV show, one big long yawn. Basic televisual standards are approximated, but creatively and dramtically it fails - yet it could have been so much more. The script is clearly aimed at people who like their mystery formulaic and don't want their brains being taxed too much. Even the actors look like they know they are in a turkey and just want to get their money and run. The main characters (our two heroes) are devoid of any discernible charisma, and Eddie Izzard stumbles around self-consciously and is just not up to the job at all (stick to comedy, mate). But Eddie did make me laugh with that ridiculous long forearm that is supposed to represent a normal arm with a chopped-off hand, but is clearly a prosthetic masking a normal arm with its hand still attached. Sack the make-up and costuming people. Actually, just sack the whole production team, this is drama by numbers from people who are bad at maths. Bored after two episodes, I'm done.
Stowaway (2021)
Throwaway
Other reviewers have said it all about this one. But, so I can get my bottom jaw back up again, I just had to point out that THERE IS NO WAY outside of a seriously dumb script that a worker involved in preparing a spaceship for take-off could get accidentally sealed inside the paneling and awake to find themselves a 'stowaway'. Space missions are planned with great precision to the last detail, and it's a zillion to one chance that a spare screw would be left on the ship before take-off let alone a human being. Though, come to think of it, there was that cleaner who was sweeping the floor of the Apollo 11 back in 1969 when ... no, hang on, that was a dream - or maybe just another unbelievable movie.
The Father (2020)
Old bloke gets dementia
Technically, The Father is well made, with good quality direction, cinematography, editing and sets. But the script, acting and general atmosphere left me cold. Already too long at 1 hour 37 minutes, this movie is the cinematic equivalent of falling into depression over several hours (it actually feels like centuries). One of the UK's most over-rated actors, Anthony Hopkins, executes his lines with his usual hallmark 'character' and aplomb, but was operating in an empathy-free zone and I felt strangely unmoved by his plight. The other actors take a workaday approach to the job, but all those middle-class English accents prattling on froze my brain, and I missed a lot of their lines because I was yawning (my jaw still aches). This movie is unattractive, uninspiring, tedious, annoying, and life-draining.
But it did make me feel something: it made me feel depressed about the prospect of getting old, and the growing probability we all have of getting dementia. Having relatives with dementia is bad enough, but watching someone's mind dissolve in front of your eyes for entertainment must be appealing only to people with a sick sense of humour or disturbed morality. Hope I die before I get old. Or at least before I ever have to watch this movie again.
Cherry (2021)
This movie has a cherry on top, but not enough underneath
The acting in Cherry is generally average to quite good, with only the titular Tom Holland excelling. Having said that, he does fail to pull off the appropriate intensity of emotion in a few places, like when his army pals get blown up in a car - the stress shows but not the shock. The story mostly manages to hold your interest, but it wasn't original enough to be gripping because too many similar movies already exist - and I don't just mean messed-up people getting more messed up with drugs. For instance, the army part reminded me too much of Full Metal Jacket and all the derivative movies which followed it.
The drug scenes are generally authentic (kudos to the specialist adviser), though it's unlikely that anyone would try to rob a bank while in the puking stage of opiate withdrawals - when you can hardly stand up or see. Cherry would have needed a hit (or at least some methadone) to even think about getting the job done, because the awful, disabling withdrawal symptoms would have overcome the feeling of desperation by this point. Another drugs glitch is when Emily ODs on heroin, and the hospital doctor checking her vitals says she has a racing heartbeat - when opiate poisoning almost always leads to the heart slowing right down (death occurs when it reaches a stop). Last, most heroin users would try detox or rehab before they became desperate enough to get themselves sent to prison in order to escape the Groundhog Day of an opiate habit. It would have been more credible if the police had simply caught him after a car chase. I prefer realism to fantasy.
The cinematography is classy - probably the best aspect of this movie. It's main fails are that it's too long and too sentimental. The excessive duration arises from poor editing, too much slow motion, and a hefty wedge of narrative padding (notably the endless bank robberies). And while the Russos were clearly trying to achieve a deep emotional tone in the movie, it often came over as emotion-jerking and romantically cliched (notably the final scene). The over-done musical score plays a large part in this.
This movie was OK but unoriginal and flawed, and I wouldn't give it two hours and 20 minutes again.
Stand Up and Deliver (2021)
Stand down and eat liver
I watched this show because I love stand-up comedy (I'm in Liverpool!). But it was almost enough to put me off SUC for life. It was too over-controlled by the production team - while trying to make it appear like reality TV, so spontaneous and natural, it came across like Britain Has Talent ("ooh, I am blown away by how good this 12 year old singer is, so unexpected!" says the celeb-judge who has already seen the act 3 times in rehearsals).
Worst of all were the comedian-mentors, none of whom could train a dog to hold its paw up, let alone show someone how to be funny for 5 minutes (and only one of them was funny enough to be a stand-up anyway). Religious people and Tories cannot be funny by definition, so those two were non-starters from the start. The Corrie actor and the Love Island guy tried but didn't succeed because a planet-size ego is incompatible with being funny (too many examples to give an example). So we were left with Shaun Ryder, the only real good bet from the outset. But the poor guy is now so befuddled, we could only laugh at him and not with him.
Laugh? I nearly cried.
The Dinner Party (2020)
My kind of dinner party
This is an excellent horror film in almost every respect: acting, direction, cinematography, editing, etc.. There's probably the usual proportion of fake reviews giving it high ratings, but there is also a significant proportion giving it low ratings from people who like their horror films formulaic with lots of gore and monsters. The Dinner Party is not short on gore, but happily avoids the cliche of making Lucifer appear at the end with a leathery face and goat horns.
Sure, it has some predictability and weaknesses in the story and a few other glitches, but it stands out from other movies in this genre by using effective slow pacing in the first half, followed by a sudden explosion of action in the latter part. It also gives the main characters sufficient backstory to make them real, and their performances are of very high quality. As an obsessive watcher of horror movies, I am pretty good at predicting the ending by half way through (such as one of the key characters turning the tables on the bad guys), but The Dinner Party also finishes off with a surprising and satisfying twist. My only criticism here is that they should have extended this final scene between two of the key characters - for instance, by including a flashback to the origin story of the 'magical woman' (I'm trying to tone down any spoilers).
I get the feeling that the intellectual themes that run through the script and dialogue (such as the discussions of opera and magical ideas) may have been unattractive to many horror fans who prefer scares and special effects to psychological tension and cultural depth. But this movie was right up my street, and I rarely rate horror films as highly as this (8). Highly recommended.
I May Destroy You (2020)
I May Annoy You
The other honest reviews here have already said the main things that need saying about this show - in short, great production values and acting, overstretched and tedious story, and despicable characters. I guess if you missed out on sex and drugs as a young adult you may find this show titillatingly sordid or vicariously shocking. But if you've been there, its just a flashback to things which seemed exciting once but are not so interesting once you have matured to more complex and varied pleasures. Perhaps it appeals to younger people (under 30s), especially if they aspire to such a vacuous existence of shallow emotion and superficial relationships. I got bored, gave up on it, took some shrooms, and listened to The Residents with my one and only lovely lover. Conclusion: this show is more I may annoy you than I may destroy you.
The Undoing (2020)
The Uninteresting
Two ageing stars in new murder-courtroom drama.
Yawn.
The Walking Dead: World Beyond (2020)
Beyond Belief
After the fall from grace of TWD and the continuing mediocrity of FTWD, you would expect that some kind of lesson would have been learned by the producers and writers of these shows. Believe it or leave it, that is not the case: TWDWB is easily the worst of the three.
The scripts and screenplay are predictable and unexciting, the main characters are one-dimensional, and they even have a shady baddie with a British accent. There's the usual gory stuff as zombies are finished off, but without a gripping story-line or interesting characters it's far from enough. I guess this show is targeted at teenagers, but the ones I know found it as boring as I did. I made it to the second episode but it was hard to stay focused and I don't think I will be watching any more.
Trump vs the Illuminati (2020)
Trump is way more ridiculous than this movie
This movie was always going to fail in one obvious way: it's not possible to spoof Donald Trump. Nothing could be as ridiculous, absurd, bizarre, strange, repulsive and laughable as the big orange man himself.
Archons (2018)
Archoboloxine hydrochloride
Even with the cheap monster costumes, this movie had the potential to be a low-budget classic (location, concept, premise, etc.). But it fails dismally. It doesn't even qualify to be one of those B-movies which is so bad it's good. It's just so bad it's bad. But I generously give it 3 points: 1 for the beautiful forest, 1 for the amusing monsters, and 1 for the spooky sound effects. As regards production and technical aspects, it's only quite bad. But the directing, script, editing and acting are very bad. The story is simple, derivative and cliched, and its got more holes in it than a piece of Swiss cheese. You get the feeling it was all filmed in about two or three days on a budget of less than $50K.
As a doctor of Drugology, I also have about 23 pedantic gripes about the drugs content. Here's the seven main ones:
1) Why do the three main characters all smoke so much tobacco? Haven't they heard of e-cigs and nicotine replacement products? Maybe the movie was funded by a cigarette company. Perhaps their chain smoking is supposed to indicate they're amazing rock stars? If so, where's the weed and cocaine?
2) It turns out the acid they took didn't contain LSD but "some stuff natives take to go on their spiritual journeys". In Canada that would very likely be psilocybe mushrooms - but how would you get a bunch of shrooms (or any plant materials) into a one-centimeter blotter?
3) Canoeing while tripping is very risky and dumb. As is tripping with people you have just met. Haven't these morons heard of set and setting?
4) The only notable psychedelic effect they put in to reflect the characters' trips was some river water changing color. I've had better trips on Red Bull.
5) Trying to explain the strange events they've experienced, Mitch says "maybe our minds have expanded." No, I don't think there's any evidence of that.
7) The monsters should have been given sub-titles because most of us don't speak Archon. And I always imagined Machine Elves would be more amazing looking than this lot, who trudged around the forest like festival hippies on Mandrax.
8) What happened to my sixth point? Did someone spike my acid with archoboloxine hydrochloride?
The Virtues (2019)
Stephen Graham excels
The Virtues is gripping. Not much TV drama moves me these days, but this did. It's excellent at just about every level. There is high quality acting from all involved, but Stephen Graham runs away with it. He may just be England's top actor.