brian_dines Reviews

Crazy Rich Asians (2018)

wall-to-wall clichés - worst movie I've seen in years.

[1/10 · 26 August 2018]

Let's see if I can tick off all the clichés in this film:

-poor, scrappy down to earth girl meets super rich guy -family disapproves of scrappy down to earth girl -family and friends try to sabotage relationship -Asians (as if they're all the same) disapprove of the "Americanize" girl's values -Let's sit around the table, learning lessons while making dumplings -Let's sit around the table, learning lessons, while playing mahjong -couple breaks up, man admits he was wrong, proposes marriage, but -she's so noble of character (guess 'cause she's Americanized) she turns him down rather can compromise her values. -eventually the family relents and accepts her ... wee!

It's been years since I've seen a more predictable, formulaic movie. There was nothing unique about this film except the "Asian" part. If the cast was Eurocentric, Afrocentric or anything else, this would not have been made. It's too stupid.

The actors did a fine job, given the stilted nature of the wall-to-wall clichés, and Singapore looked nice, but I felt like my intelligence was being insulted. Frankly, I was embarrassed. This is the equivalent of a movie featuring a family of African Americans sitting around talking about Jazz while eating fried chicken.

For God's sake, unless you think all Asians think and behave alike, don't see this film.

The Fall (I) (2013–2016)

Terrific show ... glad I found it

[9/10 · 4 February 2015]

In some ways, I think we're in a golden age of TV, with movie actors unhappy about limited and stupid roles in film working out their craft in well-written dramas like "The Fall". I just started watching this a few weeks ago, but I'm hooked and I hope there's another season coming.

Gillian Anderson is amazing in this. Her accent sounds good, the acting is great and the other major characters are all lending genuine quality. This one goes down in my book along with shows like "Banshee", "the Good Wife", "Suits", "House of Cards", "The Walking Dead" and other quality shows that don't insult the intelligence of the viewers, bringing adult-ish stories to the little screen. The fact that this is set in Belfast helps with the intrigue.

I'm Happy I stumbled onto this show.

Stalker (2014–2015)

I'm liking this one

[8/10 · 19 January 2015]

To me, this has been disappointing TV season. I started watching "Scandal" with great expectations, but after six episodes I decided to call it quits; "Scandal" is crap, predictable and always swinging for the lowest hanging fruit. Same for "Masters of Sex", which has been very dull. So with the sour taste still in my mouth from those disappointments, I didn't expect much if anything from "Stalker", but ...

it's a good show. The characters are written and acted well enough that I can't guess what's going to happen next, and the dynamics between the two-woman/two-man cast of main characters is compelling enough that their histories and interaction keep pulling me into the story.

So I'm adding this to my list of great shows: Walking Dead, Suits, Orange is the New Black, The Good Wife, Mad Men, Sherlock, The Americans, True Detective, etc.

Ballplayer: Pelotero (2011)

People as commodities

[9/10 · 19 January 2015]

"They are the product to be sold", one of the coaches says during the documentary. I don't remember which coach said it about his player, from whom he planned to profit, but it was said nonetheless, and that basically sums up the tenor of this documentary.

There really are no heroes or villains in this, except perhaps the Orioles "talent scout" who appears to trigger an investigations into one player's age order to artificially lower the player's value and buffalo the player and his coach into signing on the cheap. It's all just shrugged off as if to say "that's baseball."

For the extreme pragmatist, baseball is entertainment and players and their amazing skills provide that entertainment. Players in this system are examined and graded like diamonds and little concern seems to be expended toward their lives beyond the commodity value they can bring to the entertainment business.

It's an extremely raw, open and telling dynamic that's on display in this documentary, and it's hard not to see your own work situations in light of what's displayed here.

The One I Love (2014)

Suspend disbelief and have fun with this one

[8/10 · 12 January 2015]

With nearly every movie or TV show, one has to suspend logic and reason in order to get behind the story and enjoy it. What's the point of going to see "Iron Man", after all, if you're going to sit there and say "You can't fly like that!"

"The One I Love" is like "Iron Man" in that way, and you'll need to do that suspending exercise at least as much, but the liberties this film takes with reality allows it to gets to the heart of problems that plague many long-term unions and marriages: the tendency to look back with unrealistic nostalgia at "how things were" with our mates while look with dread and guardedness at that same person in the present.

The film focuses on Ethan (Mark Dupluss) and Sophie (Elizabeth Moss) who are struggling with their marriage after five years, an affair and disappointment. At the suggestion of their marriage counselor, the couple drives to a Northern California property containing a lovely main house adjacent to a guest cottage. It's here that Ethan and Sophie discover their current and former selves, allowing each of them to compare and understand themselves, their partner and what's become of their marriage.

Effectively, the movie asks a question: what if we could turn back the clock and be reunited with the charming, easy-laughing, fun and flirtatious person with whom we'd fallen in love? And what is it, really, that differentiates our presents selves from who we were when the relationship started? Are we really all that different, or has our view of ourselves, our relationship and our partner just become jaundiced?

It's a good film.

Vikings (2013–2020)

late review, but what the hey....

[10/10 · 8 January 2015]

So I just got finished tearing into the comparably poor new Netflix series "Marco Polo" when I realized how much I love Vikings. Really, there's a pantheon of great shows we all know about: Game of Thrones, The Wire, Boardwalk, The Good Wife, Banshee, Suits, The Borgias and, king of them all, the Walking Dead, to name a few.

To me, Vikings is amongst the two or three best TV shows every produced. When you think about crap big-budget, yet sub-par shows like Marco Polo and Masters of Sex, there really are all kinds of dramatic pitfalls and traps the producers and writers of shows can fall into.

Viking could have tried to clone Game of Throws, spinning out a dozen or more minor characters wrapped in fantasy and gore, but it didn't. It's a nice, tight cast of entirely believable characters.

The makers of Vikings could also have strayed into all kinds of outlandish story telling (dragons, oh my!), but actually stayed close to the plausible story line that the real Ragnar might have recognized. The addition of "the priest" and his part in the story is the one acquiescence to fiction over history, but what a clever piece of story telling that is, given that we (the viewers) will naturally see this drama through the priest's POV.

So my congrats to the producers and writers for not screwing up. Vikings is a wonderful story, well written, acted and set, and it's quietly one of the best shows every produced (IMO).

Marco Polo (2014–2016)

not what I was hoping for ...

[4/10 · 8 January 2015]

With the success of shows like "Vikings", "House of Cards", "The Borgias" and "Game of Thrones", I was expecting Netflix "Marco Polo" to deliver quality story telling along the same lines.

Unfortunately, I think the show's producers came from the land of Made for TV movie and apparently missed TV's dramatic upswing in quality over the last decade or so.

And there's really excuse for it. Yes, Marco Polo comes from a book, but there's plenty of room within that story for some interesting characters, plots and sub-plots. I've now watched seven (7) episodes of this show, hoping things would improve, but it hasn't, and scene after scene of semi-naked Asian women wiggling like snakes does not make up for an empty story.

Frankly, there are really only two interesting characters in the show: Marco Polo and Kublai Khan. They and they alone appear in three dimensions. The rest of the characters are a mere caricatures, pulled from a zillion Kung-Fu theater reels.

Let's see, we have the:

Mysterious Blind martial arts teacher who seems, I guess 'cause he's blind, to have omniscient powers. (Should pay royalties to Kung Fu) Mysterious Asian sex kitten who's as good in bed as she is deadly with knives. Omni-malevolent brother of Mysterious Asian Beauty, who owes is success to her but threats her like crap (Game of Thrones rip off) Sad king's son who's constantly sulking about not meeting his father's expectations (get in line, bit--!)

Sadly the list goes on and on. If I were an Asian actor on the set of this show, I'd organize a cast-wide strike until the producers and writers stopped with clichés and started writing some decent Asian characters.

Hey producers: the US public is ready for 3-dimensional, Asian characters. Give us some credit, will you?!

True Detective (2014– )

nod to McConaughey

[3 March 2014]

I've always looked at Matthew McConaughey as just a pretty boy dreadful Rom-Coms like "Failure to Launch", but he's been absolutely astonishing in this role as Russ, on par with the kinds of characters dredge up from the gloom by Christian Bale.

Woody Harrelson's doing a good job as a foil and back drop for McConaughey. But while I think McConaughey could easily play Harrelson's role without missing a beat, I just can't see Harrelson carrying off the role of Russ with the same cool mystery that McConaughey is bringing.

Amazing performance ...

Masters of Sex (2013–2016)

Not up to par

[4/10 · 6 January 2014]

I'm not sure where the train went off the tracks with this show. The cast is potentially great and there's certainly enough material there to work with, but Masters falls short of what it could and should have been.

The problem, I think, is that this show is satisfied picking only the lowest hanging fruit in terms of acting, character and story development. Exception for the nudity and situation, this plays no better than a poor, made-for-TV movie from the '90s when it could have given viewers the ride they get from Boardwalk Empire, the Wire, etc.

All the characters are basically one-dimensional straw men, written and acted with the minimal effort.

Lizzy Caplan, whom I've loved in everything else I've seen her in, is among the most wooden, predictable characters imaginable despite the fact that, on paper, she's playing a frisky, single mother trying to break the social mold ('50s America) she's stuck in. Lizzy's playing the role with less intent than June Clever.

I really wanted to like this show, but it's not worth the effort in my view, and I'm guessing the fault lies with Michael Sheen, the producer and main character in this. Where's the effort, Mike?

Childrens Hospital (2008–2016)

better late than never

[9/10 · 6 January 2014]

I just started watching this show in 2013 ... I live in Europe and don't always get the latest of everything, but in short I've found this show very, very fun to watch. The director/cast are clearly trying to deliberate (in a fun way) confuse the audience, particularly during the "previously on Children's Hospital ..." bit, but it just adds to the laughs if you ask me.

The show's almost like a very abbreviated (only 11 minutes per episode) version of the old spoof show Police Story, but this does even better, mocking ER, House, Grey's and Scrubs - all of which had it coming. There's even a faint reference to St. Elsewhere if you're old enough to remember that.

So glad I found this to fill the void left by 30 Rock. Lake Bell is hysterical. I hate Rom/Coms, but I'd watch one if she was in it.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011)

Interesting, but an 8 out of 10 it's not.

[5/10 · 8 August 2011]

First, it's not a bad movie, but neither is it a great movie, which what the 8 average (as offered up by IMDb users) have given it. That would put this movie above Titanic (7.4) and just below Avatar (8.1), which is ridiculous. It's not even as good as the Mark Wahlberg movie a few years ago.

Having said that, it's decent film that movie fans should see, but seeing on the big screen isn't mandated. The story telling in "Apes" is unique in that it tells the story from the point of view an orphaned chimp named Caesar, adopted as a lab-test animal by a drug researcher played by James Franco, who's good in this. Franco's character is trying to find a cure for Alzheimer's, which his father, played by the terrific John Lithcow, is in the grips of.

But the stories is told through the eyes of chimp Caesar, who goes from family pet/child to being the punching bag for a tyrannical chimp in a California rescue facility for apes. But as clever Caesar outsmarts his aggressor, he comes to realize that the humans that run the facility -- and the world at large -- are the real tyrants, and he sets out to set things right.

That portion of the story works well. What doesn't work is the predictable evil pharmaceutical boogeyman playing God by splicing DNA for profit.

As I said, the movie is OK, but and 8? Give me a break.

Up in the Air (I) (2009)

Up in the Air -- it's a nice adult film

[8/10 · 7 March 2011]

I'm not sure what percentage of movies are about the complexity of meeting the right person in this day and age, but it's got to be 30 percent or more. I find it interesting how these kinds of films have evolved over the years, from the simplistic, hyper-romantic films you got pre-1970s to movies like Up in the Air and Love and Other Drugs, both of which are good movies.

Recently I saw When Harry Met Sally again and loved it, but what made that film interesting at the time was the non-traditional way the two main characters came together, first disliking each other on a road trip, meeting in an airport and then finally becoming friends despite Billy Crystal's relationship law #1 that "men and women cannot be friends." I loved When Harry Met Sally, but it's amazing that in just 20 years that film's dated that story's plot now seems when compared with Up in the Air, which follows the life of Ryan, a professional hit man, who flies from city to city firing people instead of killing them.

He's good at his job and enjoys traveling all over the country, amassing frequent flier miles while easing people out of their jobs. At some point along the way, Ryan (played by George Clooney) he meets the character played by Vera Farmiga, a fellow business traveler. After a nice little fling, they decided to synchronize their schedules when possible so they can continue their "casual" relationship whenever they can. But as the story moves along, you see Clooney's character start to question his philosophy of life (it's easier to travel with an empty backpack than a full one) as he begins developing a deeper interest in Farmiga's character, something he eventually decides he wants to pursue beyond the limits of hotel rooms. It's a nice, subtle film that's well acted and scripted, painting what I think is a fairly realistic, yet entertaining, picture of the complexity of white-collar relationships.

I'm guessing Love and Other Drugs, UP in the Air and 500 Days (of Summer) simply reflect back to the audience the changing nature of relationships. If you liked any of those films, DO NOT SEE the movie It's Complicated, one of the worst and most predictable films I've seen in years. Trust me on this.

Love & Other Drugs (2010)

Risky love ... and thoughts on Hathaway

[7/10 · 17 February 2011]

This is a decent movie, to start with. Let's call it a rom-com, but this isn't some thoughtless schlock like "Must love Dogs" or "Valentine's Day".

It starts out in the usual fashion with Jake Gyllenhaal playing "Jamie", a charming schmoozer who's irresistible to women. After losing his job, the former med school student signs on as a drug rep for Pfizer and struggles to get his career going. We don't see Anne Hathaway as "Maggie" until Jamie accidentally intrudes on her doctor's visit 20 minutes into the movie. Jamie and Maggie, after a few compromises, end up in bed ... again and again and again. Maggie has Parkinson's Disease (incurable) and the crux of the movie is whether these two characters, well acted by Hathaway and Gyllenhaal, can over come their fears and forge a real relationship from an extended fling.

The fears both characters have are very real, not some little plot prop. Maggie knows she'll never improve and only get worse as time goes on, and she's not interested in inflicting that pain on, or becomin dependent on, anyone. And Jamie is unsure if he's really up to the task, after a very frank conversation with the spouse of another Parkinson's patient.

Hathaway has been doing comedy for some time, and she is somewhat funny in this role, but the performance she gives as a woman wanting to live out her remaining time on the planet to the best of her ability, unhindered by legal or romantic attachments, is quite good. Her portrayal is layered and believable. You can see her struggling against her attraction and love for Gyllenhaal's character, breaking through the fear in little fits and starts. And when Gyllenhaal expresses the slightest doubt that he's man enough to see her through this disease, she bolts. It's a thoughtful, real and metered performance by her. Gyllenhaal is also good.

Valentine's Day (I) (2010)

Yeah, this movie blows, but there's something interesting to see

[3/10 · 17 February 2011]

No question, this was a dog of a movie from the outset, the very premise wreaking of schlock, but whenever you get of these ensemble casts together it's interesting to compare what each of the actors brings to the screen. In particular, how often are you going to get Jessica Alba, Jessica Biel, Jennifer Garner and Anne Hathaway together in the same movie?

With the four leading ladies, I think you've really got two different groups: the two Jessicas are known more for "serious" roles rather than comedy, and there's a pretty good reason for that: neither are funny. There are a couple of scene where Biel and Garner share the screen for a few seconds, and Garner's enormous charisma and humor dominates the scene, though I'm sure unintentionally. Garner can't help be but funny.

It has to be said that Jessica Alba is the worst actress on the planet and it shows clearly in this film. She is painful to watch. The woman has got to take some acting lessons and get out of her head; she may well be the re-incarnation of Natalie Wood. Biel is much better and honest.

So that leaves the two comic actors, Anne Hathaway and Jennifer Garner. Garner is just mesmerizing to watch as all that energy and enthusiasm explodes like an over-full can of whipped cream on the camera lens. Hathaway is exactly the opposite. You get the sense from this film, more from other films, that Hathaway is deliberately holding something back, dishing out her intensity in metered amounts. They're both are funny, but you get the impression that Hathaway's performance is a thoughtful bit of acting, while Garner is just cranking out another funny performance. Watching these two reminds me of watching John Wayne and Henry Fonda: both did Westerns, but you never forgot you were watching John Wayne while Henry Fonda got lost in his roles. Hathaway is Henry Fonda and Garner is John Wayne, but I think in today's world, Hathaway will have the longer and stronger career.

Anyone wanting to see a good performance from Hathaway should see "Love and other Drugs", which she's absolute great in.

It's Complicated (2009)

I wanted to like it, but ...

[1/10 · 3 March 2010]

I was honestly looking forward to seeing this movie. I liked the cast and the premise based on what I saw in the trailer. The idea of 50- somethings rediscovering love is a novel idea for a film.

But the film was terrible, contrived and more predictable than anything I'd seen in years. It made "You've got mail" seem like a Tarantino film. There wasn't one ounce of truth or honesty in this film. It was pure Marshmello Fluff from the start, touching every possible clique out there. Meryl Streep's character was tossed aside for the younger woman who turns out to be a b**ch after she marries Alec Baldwin's character. Meryl has a nice, tight (all white) circle of girlfriends who encourage her affair. The kids are all perfect, but are confused by the re-engagement of their divorced parents. The whole pot smoking scene was milked dry of any element of humor. How could one joint last so long and get so many people high?

Even though a film is a piece of fiction, it still must be true. The emotions, the dialog and the characters must be in some way reflect something real and honest.

A good example of that is the film my wife and I enjoyed the following night on TV -- "Gross Pointe Blank". It's also a Rom-Com, and although the plot is more preposterous, nearly every character and conversation rang more true than anything in "It's Complicated."

I left the theatre without laughing once.

The Dark Knight (2008)

Ledger's performance

[9/10 · 21 July 2008]

First, I hate Batman movies along with most other empty-headed summer escapism movies, but I was very interested in seeing this one as critics have rightly rated it very highly.

Plenty has been said about the film and its qualities, but I'd like to add that Heath Ledger's performance was by far the highlight of this movie, and I'm not saying that for any kind of sentimental reason. It was Shakespeare who first concluded that the most important ingredient in a drama was the villain must be strong, believable and sympathetic to the audience. Ledger's performance was all of those things. It was a hyper-dimensional performance showing real courage and intelligence on his part. The performances of every other actor (except Gary Oldman and Maggie Gyllenhaal) were wooden by comparison.

The film is an achievement, primarily because of Ledger.

Transformers (2007)

Terrible movie ... how did this thing get a rating of 8?

[1/10 · 24 July 2007]

These days it seems every move that comes out, whether it's an epic like "The Departed" or a complete piece of crap like "Transformers", gets an average score of 8.

You people who don't know a good movie from pure junk should find another website. This one is for serious movie watchers.

Transformers was stupid, infantile, predictable and boring. The only relatively entertaining scene was at the kid's house with the transforms hiding all over the place. Not even the special effects/animation was any good. Please people. If you thought Transformers was a good movie, go find another website to post your opinions.