Change Your Image
SteverB
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
A Quiet Place: Day One (2024)
Cloverfield did it better
I thought that MAYBE there would be some delicious backstory to how "The Quiet Place" had started in the first place. There was none of this. It was (I assume, because it wasn't really clear) that the creatures came from some other world and not from some lab experiment gone horribly wrong. I say that "I assume" because there is one QUICK shot of something spaceship-like shown over the street the main characters are on, but it's very quick and I guess the producers didn't want to pay for spaceship effects in addition to the aliens. It was more of a darkness in the sky than a ship.
The film is a good drama, but that's not what it's supposed to be, or what any of the trailers tell you that it is. Lupita Nyong'o is superb, as she always is, and the rest of the cast, especially Joseph Quinn and Frodo the cat, are excellent in their roles. Quinn brings a scared man who is also a "regular guy," finding himself in a situation he never expected while going to law school in New York. Frodo, whose real name(s) are Schnitzel (excellent!) and Nico were as well-trained and responsive as movie dogs. I truly didn't know a cat could be trained like these two felines were. Someone else mentioned that no cat appearances were CGI, so that only makes it doubly fantastic.
The story, and the script were LACKING a good story and a good script. If you're going to call yourself, "Day One," you should probably be showing A LOT more detail as to WHAT happened, HOW it happened, and the response from the government and/or the City of New York. There WAS a globe with Post-It Notes on it showing, I guess, where all the invasions had happened, but not much else in the way of "Quiet Place" origin story. Instead, we get the story of a woman (Nyong'o) who has cancer and is on transdermal pain medication, on a field trip of sorts, into New York City from the hospice she stays at, to go to a show. As I said, a pretty good drama, just not what had been packaged. My title is "Cloverfield did it better," because I happened to catch "Cloverfield" a month or so ago, and despite its flaws, it gave a backstory IN the original film. We didn't have to wait years for "Cloverfield: Day One" to find out (or not) how it all started.
Naturally, if you liked the first two films (and I did), you'll probably want to catch this, but don't expect any great level of exposition. I see a few others calling this a "cash grab," and it's hard not to think that that's all this is. All this ends up being is "a story" in the "Quiet Place" universe. 5 Mehs.
Shogun (2024)
Certainly not for everyone
This show is certainly not for everyone, and I have a feeling if you aren't familiar with either the books or the 1980s mini-series, you will be profoundly bored out of your mind. I made it through about 40 minutes of the first episode until I was asleep. I guess I get the great reviews in that the show LOOKS good, but as an American, and I assume this was made for American audiences, I found I have almost no interest in feudal Japan, or what went on there. I have subtitles running on all of the movies I watch, so reading them was not a problem. The problem was that the story is completely unrelatable to me, and no, I don't watch "superhero" movies either, for those of you who just suggested I go do that. I just simply didn't care about this at all. The glut of award nominations made me finally tune in, and I tuned out just as fast. Again, I'll say, not for everyone. Make sure you know what you're getting into if you decide to watch.
Capitol Riot: Minute by Minute (2022)
Just a riot?
I have only two issues with this film, the first being that to call what happened on January 6, 2021, a simple "riot" in the title, undercuts what actually happened. It was a sustained, violent insurrection on the American government in an attempt to overthrow a free and fair election. I would think BY NOW that reasonable people could agree with that. I might have titled this, "Insurrection at the Capitol: A Timeline," which leads to my second issue.
The film was simply too short to adequately cover what needed to be shown for a full understanding of the day. "Minute by Minute" implies that we will get a detailed view of the event and although I didn't literally expect a minute-by-minute account, this was more of an overview without much detail. The high points were mostly hit, but then a few were glossed over or not mentioned at all. There was no mention of Ashley Babbitt, and the insurrectionists stalking the halls of the Capitol chanting, "Hang Mike Pence," was only mentioned in the narration. I realize 50 minutes is a short film at best, but leaving those portions out was like doing a 9/11 film without mentioning the Pentagon.
All in all, I liked this film as it might be something for younger people just learning about American history to view without getting too far into the weeds. It should generate the desire for further research into the topic by viewing other documentaries, reading books, or reviewing what happened in the January 6th Committee investigating this attack on our democracy. Recommended.
Trump's Rosebud (2023)
Trump's Rosebud
This documentary's purpose is to claim to examine the life of Donald Trump to try to find his "Rosebud," the classic red herring of "Citizen Kane" that although a mystery until the end, may represent the last time Citizen Charles Foster Kane was truly happy. This doc does not do that. Rather, it's a vast array of talking heads like Bill Barr, Sebastian Gorka, and Jeffrey Lord, all coming before the camera to tell us how smart they feel Donald Trump is, how he knows what he's doing at all times, how he manipulates the media, and most importantly, how he went to Washington to shake things up and "drain the swamp."
The claims made by participants in this documentary never even consider the idea that a majority of Americans did not want what Donald Trump was selling, as illustrated by the popular vote in both elections. That's where these so-called documentaries fail every time -- they spend so much time spinning their view of reality, there is no time left to consider the negatives of their thesis. People are, for the most part, NOT stupid, and yet, documentaries like this continue to present ideas as though the audience is unaware of anything outside of the film. Surprising to me, the one person in the doc who spoke in the most balanced and intelligent way was the anchor from Newsmax, which I did not expect, but he presented his ideas as an actual journalist. He had opinions, but they were based in objective reality, not the alternative facts with which we now live.
In good conscience, I can't even recommend this to people who support Donald Trump. It's tripe, very subjective, and seriously, having to listen to Sebastian Gorka bloviate on and on is not worth anyone's time. Maybe Donald Trump doesn't have a Rosebud, or maybe he does, this film never came close to answering that. Skip it, and watch "Citizen Kane" instead.
My Son Jeffrey: The Dahmer Family Tapes (2023)
Surprisingly good, despite the Fox Nation distribution
As another reviewer pointed out, there are things in this four-part series that shed new light on the Jeffrey Dahmer case. I lived during the time of Dahmer and although I didn't, might have even run into him when he did his forays into Chicago at that time. It was a very scary time in both Milwaukee and Chicago. In addition to AIDS being a relatively new phenomenon in the gay community in 1990-91, Gacy had been arrested less than a decade before Dahmer started his killing spree.
Oddly, the documentary doesn't even mention Chicago, where one of Dahmer's victims was picked up near to a popular gay bar in Old Town. Regardless, the series takes a "30 Years Later" look at the Dahmer case. There are several interesting interviews with people associated with the case, including his defense attorney, a neighbor where he lived, the heartbreaking interview with the woman who tried to save Konerak Sinthasomphone, the 14-year-old Laotian boy found wandering the streets of Milwaukee naked and obviously incapacitated; by calling 911 and finding out later the police returned the boy to Dahmer's apartment after Dahmer convinced them that Konerak was 18 and they were having a lovers' spat, where he was then killed. There is even an interview with Rita Isbell, who screamed and fought to get at Dahmer at his sentencing while giving a victim impact statement and had to be held back by five sheriff deputies. The common thread to the interviews is that these people are still affected by this today.
I point out all of these very interesting interviews (and there are more), to say that other than what is really an exploitative hook of these TAPES that Lionel Dahmer, Jeffrey's father, made while talking to him in prison on the phone, I didn't quite buy the idea that the tapes themselves were needed at all. They didn't really reveal anything, except perhaps the weird creepy vibe of BOTH Dahmer and his father talking about Dahmer's crimes, feelings, thoughts, and memories, while also hearing Lionel keep trying to bring religion into the conversation. Why would Lionel WANT to talk to his son about what he'd done, in detail, ad nauseum? It seemed as though Lionel was trying to absolve himself of guilt, which considering the family history, was probably warranted. The phone recordings all had a weird edge to them, and the series would have been fine without them. But Jeffrey Dahmer has been dead for 30 years, and Lionel died last December, so it's not like we're going to get an explanation for releasing the tapes. Let me sum it up this way; the tape recordings are mildly interesting, but superfluous to the rest of the series. They seem to be something that should have been kept private; we didn't really NEED to hear them, and I had the uncomfortable feeling of eavesdropping. They're there, it's fine, but if they weren't there, it would be fine too.
Keep in mind also that this is NOT "Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story," which Ryan Murphy released in 2022. This is the real thing, and when viewing this case again after 30 years, it's hard to compare them. "Monster" is a very sanitized version of this story, and considering how people reacted to "Monster," keep that in mind. If anyone had bothered to get this rated, it would be TV-MA for language and subject matter. All crime scene photos are blurred, but you can still tell what you're looking at. Recommended.
Happy Valley (2014)
Nothing learned...
I really thought I'd seen this doc years ago, but now that I've watched it, I have no recollection of that. I'm not even sure why I watched it today, but I did, and it left me with the feeling that I'd love to see a sequel, "Happy Valley: 10 Years On," or something like that.
This is, of course, what is probably the definitive documentary on what happened in "Happy Valley" after Jerry Sandusky, a convicted sex offender and former assistant football coach at Penn State, was found guilty and sent to prison for the rest of his life in 2011-2012. The focus was more on what surrounded the conviction and the ability of this sexual abuser to get away with his crimes for so many years under the watchful eye of Joe Paterno, the head coach for five decades, and others.
It also focuses on the cult of football at Penn State before the charges. Jerry Sandusky didn't molest and rape in a vacuum. People knew what was going on as early as 1998. Joe Paterno clearly knew what was going on in 1998 as he was told by an assistant coach, then told his superiors at the university, and did NO follow up afterwards. Nor did he report Sandusky to police, or anyone else outside of Penn State. These facts cannot be argued with. It's what happened.
The controversy, if it can be called that, was that although Paterno did what was legally required of him in 1998, did he fail to do what was morally required? We know now that four more boys were sexually abused and/or raped by Sandusky between 1998 and 2011 when he was arrested, so it's difficult to say that what Paterno did in 1998 was enough. Sandusky continued working at Penn State after 1998, so it's not like Paterno didn't know where he was. I don't think I could have lived with myself if I didn't make SURE that what was reported to me in 1998 wasn't dealt with in an effective manner. But, apparently, Paterno felt differently.
What struck me the most in this doc is that, by the end, there is a new head coach (Paterno was fired, and then three months after the Sandusky arrest, died), and this documentary crew was at the first game of the new season -- the first game after Sandusky's conviction. Fans were looking into the camera from the crowd and shouting things like, "ESPN, we don't want you here!" and "Stop reporting bad news about us!" The crowd then went on to cheer and applaud and HAIL the new coach, Bill O'Brien, as if nothing of the past year had happened at all. Somehow, Paterno held NO blame whatsoever, and it was "the media" that hyped the story to the point that Happy Valley was no longer happy. Even Paterno's widow said that the media should have concentrated on the perpetrator and left the rest of the community alone. As I said earlier, Sandusky didn't do what he did in a vacuum. He was enabled and got by with it for years due to the football community in Happy Valley EXCUSING anything he might have done because NOTHING was going to interfere with their cult-like enjoyment of football at Penn State. There was NOTHING LEARNED by the Penn State defenders. Even the artist of the mural portraying the Penn State football staff, where Sandusky had been painted over shortly after his arrest, and on which he'd painted a halo over Paterno's head after his death, but then painted over THAT with the feeling that "we're all human," after the 1998 revelations came out, came around and ended up painting a white rose in Paterno's hand. Ugh!
And all of these things are why I'd love to see a sequel to this. To try and find all of the people interviewed in 2013 and see how they're feeling these days, in hindsight. Would they have the same feelings? Would they defend the same bad actors? Has everything of this been painted over in the last decade like Sandusky on that mural? I'd sure like to know.
This doc is a solid 10/10 for me. It did what it set out to do, and that was to show just how insidious "hero worship" can be; from Jerry Sandusky to Joe Paterno to Penn State football. HIGHLY recommended.
Leave the World Behind (2023)
WOW! Did I LOVE this movie!
There are times, reading through IMDb reviews, that I wished people were required to enter their age along with their review because at least then you'd know better from what vantage point in life the reviewer was coming to the film. The reviews for this film don't need that as it's VERY obvious that the age group and mindset this film is about didn't like it, and they can't really even tell you why.
Julia Roberts, Ethan Hawke, and their two teenaged kids rent a palatial estate in the New York countryside in a sort of Airbnb situation that's far enough from the city to be away from it, but not so far away that they couldn't get back quickly if they needed to. On their first night at the house, the owner shows up in the form of Mahershala Ali and his daughter, played by Myha'la. Something has happened in New York City, and they couldn't stay there, but drove back to their house. The rest of the film is what happens when these two very different families are stuck together in an isolated situation.
Julia Roberts and Ethan Hawke are fantastic in their roles and have just the right chemistry together to play THIS husband and THIS wife in a very believable way. The two kids, who are asked to do FAR more than most kids in this kind of family dynamic come through as sharp and ever-present in their roles. Myha'la, who I was not really aware of, is a revelation as Ali's daughter. Her character is at times biting and sarcastic, and at other times, tender and heartbreaking. As far as Mahershala Ali, I could listen to him read a phone directory and be happy. He ALWAYS brings it to whatever character he plays, and this one is no different.
There is quite a bit of slow-burning tension throughout most of the film and unlike some other reviewers, I REALLY liked what the director did with the camera. Going through objects that a camera shouldn't go through is always, well, delightful to me. Cinematography is top-notch, as are the special effects. I assume, for example, that the deer were digital creations, but it was very hard to tell other than in the way they acted.
Then we come to the ending and the explanation of my first paragraph. The ending was absolute perfection in that it shows the final resolution to the point of most of the film. Did people not see throughout the whole film, from the very first scene, how much we as a people DEPEND not only on electricity, but on screens and the internet to LIVE? That has only happened in less than 20 years. There are a lot of us that depend on the internet daily for our livelihood. I have a job that I absolutely couldn't have had 20 years ago! And now, we have become completely dependent to the point of being unable to function without our screens, and online connections. In only 20 YEARS! So, seeing these "thoroughly modern people" be hamstrung by the situation outside because they couldn't even get satellite TV is the point of the film. We are slaves to our devices now. And if you disagree, try going completely off the grid for 24 hours.
Seeing the reviews saying the plot was either far-fetched, said nothing, or maybe my favorite, "had a horrible ending," makes me sad. Basically, it tells me that people under about 35, can't POSSIBLY see that in the situation as presented in "Leave the World Behind," they would be completely helpless. So, I'm sad that we're in this place, and maybe sadder that nothing can or would be done to alleviate it. This is how it is now. The girl at the end of the film is US. Her frustration at not being able to go online and finish the show she started was finally resolved. It came at the expense of almost everything else in the film's world because her happiness (i.e., OUR happiness) became all that mattered in the end.
On that happy note, SEE this movie because it has more to say that a lot of films I've watched recently. It's suspenseful, intriguing, and a great mystery throughout. But a warning that if you MUST have everything in a film explained or tied up in a neat bow by the end, this will not satisfy. HIGHLY recommended.
I Saw the TV Glow (2024)
Mesmerizing.
I was about 30 minutes into this film when I realized my leg was asleep because apparently, I hadn't moved a muscle since the beginning of the film. I was hypnotized by it, and I am NOT the target audience; in fact, I'm probably at least twice the age of the target and still loved it. The problem I'm having is that I'm not sure I can explain why I did. It's just one of those things that's best explained by saying, "I just did."
I knew nothing about it going in, and have since read some of the reviews here, and I don't know what people were expecting, but I have to give high praise to the reviewer who said, "We as an audience are constantly asking for things we don't really want. Original stories, unique plot, scenes that push us - there are all things we ask for but don't really want." I think it's VERY clear from the 1- and 2-star reviews here that what this reviewer said is absolutely true. We THINK we want unique things. We THINK we don't want more super-hero movies. We SAY we want original stories, ideas, plots, and all that, but then, when we get them, like this movie has in spades, we reject them because, "it's too HARD." I would also add that being genre-marked as "Horror" doesn't always mean knives slashing, blood and guts, or Jason sliding his head down the blade of a machete. Sometimes, "Horror" is more esoteric, as it is here. Sometimes it's just something horrible. Expand your definitions!
I also love David Lynch, but most of the time, his films and TV shows fall into the same category as this film, I like it because I just do. Yes, it is quite a useless review on the surface, but I suspect a lot of others feel the same way. I DON'T claim to know what exactly is going on in this film (or in the average David Lynch outing), but there is a lot there worth seeing and experiencing. If you know what I mean, "I Saw the TV Glow" is well worth the effort.
Civil War (2024)
A Solid 10/10
I'll just go ahead and make the prediction now: this film will be nominated for Best Picture, and Kirsten Dunst will be nominated for Best Actress. And although I don't follow the Oscars much, I would be shocked if both those things didn't happen.
I haven't seen a more visceral film in a long time - "Saving Private Ryan" may have been the last. The best part of the film is upending the expectations of the audience by calling the film, "Civil War," and then making it about news and photojournalists getting from New York City to Washington DC (in the midst of a civil war). I knew very little about the film before I watched it, but I didn't expect that. As other reviewers have mentioned, one is dropped into the deep end from about the third minute of the film and it doesn't let up. There's no stupid romance going on, there's no other dramatic beats but the civil war that's taking place in the US, with the journalists following it.
It is safe to ignore EVERY review that calls this film boring, or plotless. There isn't a boring moment in it and the plot, including WHY the civil war happened, is pretty straightforward. Just about anything outside of Los Angeles and San Francisco would be more than willing to "sign up" with Texas. It's only been a few years since portions of California wanted to break away from the main state, after all. The "why" is self-evident.
I honestly don't understand the 1/10 reviews here, and especially the "boring" comments. They don't seem to come from one political side or the other, so it's like they watched a different movie. Kirsten Dunst is better than anything I've seen her in, and Cailee Spaeny, who plays Jessie, has a long, successful career ahead of her. Jesse Plemmons has a ten-minute scene that will be hard to forget. The entire main cast worked like a well-oiled machine. This is a phenomenal movie and well-worth the time to see it. Highly recommended.
Fire Island (2023)
Seriously?
Well, I guess we gays have now gone mainstream, because we can now get what should be direct-to-video crap films too. How progressive. Showtime did this? I'm kind of amazed that anyone green-lit this mess of a film. Connor Paulo, in addition to being not hard on the eyes, gives a believable performance, but the rest of the cast seemed like they punched in and out for a paycheck and didn't bother to do any other work. This alleged HORROR movie was bland beyond belief. By the end, when the "big twist" is revealed, I had to go back into the film to discover where this twist of a character came from. As it turned out, he was sitting at a bar, stalk-staring at Paulo's character, but was otherwise nondescript -- just some weirdo at a bar, and even though you might know the basic plot going in, would never think that the director would make the killer so obvious so early in the film. Trust me when I say that doing that is, in fact, NOT a twist, it's just a lazy annoyance. And who was the old guy with the beard that pops up twice to recite weird ominous messages at Paulo? He had nothing to do with anything, and this writer/director is NOT David Lynch, so I don't know what he was supposed to represent. It was ridiculous.
Then the film had the audacity to leave open the possibility of a sequel! Don't bother with this. Don't bother with the sequel -- don't ask how I know it will be bad, I just do! Another review called this a "hot mess," and it's that, and so much less. NOT recommended.
Madonna: The Celebration Tour in Rio (2024)
Fantástico!
Something this week triggered me to watch the 1990 Madonna Blond Ambition Tour concert video, and although I gave that one an 8/10; on that scale, this one deserves a 15/10.
I honestly didn't expect to like this concert much, as Madonna is now 34 years older than her 1990 tour, and with my being only six months older than her, I didn't expect anything like what I got. I have been a big fan of Madonna since the mid-80s, so imagine my surprise that just 10 days ago, she performed this 2.5 hour set for 1.6 MILLION people in Rio de Janeiro. It was, in a word, fantástico!
Her dancers are, and have always been, some of the best in the business. The choreography was on point throughout the show, and although Madonna herself wasn't as "dancey" as she was in the 1990s, the show worked through that so that if you weren't looking for it, it was hardly noticeable. I think at 65, we can cut Madonna a break!
Her voice was as strong and PRESENT as it's always been and although another review complains about "playback" happening during the show, (and it's there in places, no doubt about it), it doesn't detract from the show itself. I'm sure that NONE of the 1.6 million fans gave it a second thought.
There were also several new song arrangements that I liked quite a lot. "Vogue" and several others were changed in such a way to bring them into 2024. Songs, as do singers, age, and if an artist like Madonna breathes new life into old hits, I welcome it. I'm not one of those that goes to a concert expecting to hear EXACTLY what's on a CD or stream. I've always appreciated remixes, reboots, new arrangements, and the like.
Even the stagecraft of this show is phenomenal. Stages extend out into the crowd, and there were several gigantic screens on stage and throughout the venue that were used to great effect. This is actually a celebration of Madonna's career -- whether it's her final concert tour is hard to say, but it is exactly that: a celebration of her career. The screens were used to show both still images and video throughout the 80s, 90s, and this century, following Madonna through all those years. And as she's always been a gay icon and a gay ally, "Live to Tell" is dedicated to many people lost to AIDS throughout the years, with their pictures filling the screens. Finally, the Mistress of Ceremonies (of a sort) is Bob the Drag Queen, and he is perfection from the opening of the show throughout the various guises he portrays throughout.
I can't imagine the necessity of this warning, but there is the usual sex mixed with religion in the show, and no one does that better than Madonna! There is also a bit of female nudity to the waist, but only I believe, during one song. Madonna uses "salty" language, as usual, but it seems more tempered and not used for shock value as it was in 1990. Madonna speaks during the show, about her career, and the love she has for her fans, both in Brazil and the world over. And although she probably gave the same speeches in every show on this tour, it seemed sincere and not pandering.
If you have the opportunity to find this concert somewhere, DON'T miss it! I am hoping that it's released on 4K Blu-ray because although Globoplay did a great job, there were still some digital artifacts due to some portions that had too much information on the screen, and it would be great to have this without their logo on the screen throughout. HIGHLY recommended.
Bridge of Destiny (2020)
Nothing more than pretty pictures and A LOT of melodrama
I have no idea what I just watched, and I rewound several times because I thought I'd missed something, but no, it's just an incomprehensible story. I thought maybe the subtitles were "off," but no, they seemed to be right in the context of what the actors were saying. The film itself is mostly very pretty to look at, both the actors and the countryside of Vietnam.
As near as I can tell, two men in 1999, fall in love. One is a field worker, and the other is a "master" of some kind -- maybe his family owns the fields the other works. Their love cannot be, of course, due to prejudice and all of the other usual reasons. The wayward master son finally agrees to marry a woman, and then we skip 20 years to 2019, where the story continues.
That's really all I'm sure I understood. SOMEONE becomes the antagonist of the field worker's now heteronormative family, and this someone seems to be connected, somehow, some way, to the original master son. As the other reviewer stated very well, this someone character is a major role in the film, and somehow knows everything from 20 years before. He is too young to be the original character, and also doesn't look like him, but then the original woman who the "master" son was going to marry refers to him as her husband, which also doesn't make sense because he is young enough to be her son, yet she is also the woman who was thrown down on a bridge (the titular Bridge of Destiny, I assume), and is implied to have miscarried her original child, so I came out of the film having NO idea who this character was. Oh, and in case you missed it, this woman has heart problems. Broken, I assume.
Does this sound like a good time? Have at it then! I won't be watching this again, I know that. Find another film for the evening.
Independence Day (1996)
Have people forgotten how to suspend disbelief?
I really had no intentions of writing a review of this film, but I watched it tonight in 4K and thought I'd drop in here to see what others had to say. I didn't read a lot of reviews back in 1996 and just thought this was a great film. Don't mistake me, it's not, "The Godfather," or "2001: A Space Odyssey," but it IS a very watchable film that, for me, still holds up today.
I didn't then or now, expect a realistic film depicting what would happen if Earth were visited by alien beings because that's not what this was. It's a summer blockbuster that back in 1996 was a crowd pleaser. Back then, apparently, people were more able to suspend their disbelief at what they were seeing and just enjoyed the film for what it was.
Now, it just seems that people want to nit-pick this film to death. Even Roger Ebert did it. I read through his review and then the comments below it and found it hard to accept that either Ebert or the people commenting there were taking this film so seriously. Why did this happen? How did that happen? How come Will Smith left his soon-to-be wife and son behind when he left to go fight the aliens? Why didn't they just destroy everything at one time? The CGI is dated (No, it's not!). And on and on with the buzz killing.
I'm seeing this a lot more in the past few years. People just ripping things apart for usually dubious reasons. Will Smith hadn't slapped anyone at the Oscars when this film was made. Randy Quaid was a relatively normal person when this film was made. The Twin Towers still stood in Manhattan. The 2008 housing crisis was still 12 years away. COVID was more than two decades in the future. And yes, Jeff Goldblum always talks like that, and it's wonderful!
In sum, I enjoyed this movie tonight as much as I did when it first came out. CGI still looks great, and if it didn't, surely 4K would have made that even more obvious. I don't have complaints about the plot. It is what it is. Some of the cliches people are complaining about actually CAME from this movie. What I did see that I wasn't really expecting was a confirmation of my own opinion that the best possible thing that could happen to America and the whole Earth right now is an alien invasion, because it seems like the only thing that might bring us back together as one human race. Nothing else seems to be working, and it definitely works that way in this movie.
It's a good time, this film, and deserves the classic status it holds. A hard 10 from me and definitely recommended if you haven't seen it already, or even if you have. Give it another go.
The Talented Mr. Ripley (1999)
The best Ripley
It's 25 years later, and this film still stands above the rest. I recently watched Netflix's "Ripley," and although good, it had many flaws, one of the biggest being the ages of Tom and Dickie. This story depends on all of its pieces in place, and the idea that Dickie, well into his 30s in "Ripley" still depending on an allowance from his father is ridiculous. Expanding from that major flaw is the fact that Tom and Dickie are supposed to be the same age, or near to it, and Andrew Scott, although a fine actor and a fine Ripley, doesn't fit the bill.
Contrast this with Tom and Phillippe in "Purple Noon" and although it's clear that those characters are the right age, the story is so disjointed that one is hardly aware of where characters are, what they're talking about, or their motivation for doing things. First, you're dumped into the middle of the story and hardly get any exposition of what came before, then Tom kills Philippe in a boat, but seems to have no motivation to do that except that they've been talking about "what ifs." I have never understood the high praise for "Purple Noon," when about the only thing it has going for it is Alain Delon acting as eye-candy. They couldn't even manage to get the ending right, thereby ruining all that came before it.
But then I come to 1999's "The Talented Mr. Ripley," which in my mind is a perfect film. I realized tonight, while seeing it for probably the tenth time since '99, that Matt Damon is probably the creepiest Tom Ripley ever put to celluloid. For some reason, on this viewing, rather than rooting for him and hoping he'd get away with everything he was trying to get away with, the performance actually made me a little uncomfortable. It could be that I know the film so well, I knew what was going on with Ripley at all times. Jude Law is well-named as "Dick(ie)." Marge, at one point, tried to paint him as some sort of misunderstood god by voicing the opinion that when you're in Dickie's gaze, you feel like the only person on Earth, but when he turns to someone else, it's very cold. Yes, well, that seems to be Marge's romantic justification of his horrible behavior towards her, and eventually most everyone. Dickie is, to use 1950s vernacular, a cad. Did he deserve to die for it? Probably not, but then, he seemed to have no idea that he was in a small boat with a sociopath.
The background characters were also pitch-perfect. Silvana, Dickie's father, and ALL of the Italians. The film is beautifully shot, and Italy never looked so good! The addition of Meredith Logue, brilliantly played by Cate Blanchett was a masterstroke on the part of the screenwriter. Here is this woman that is not in the original story, always managing to show up at the most inopportune times. From the first time you see her to the next time is probably over an hour, and there she is! She's brilliantly written and acted.
Jack Davenport's Peter Smith-Kingsley, also not in the original story was there, I believe, to bring out the homosexual aspects of the story a little more blatantly than had been done before. It's not seen hardly at all in "Purple Noon," and "Ripley" makes that Tom asexual. This film leaned into the gay angle a bit heavier than others, and I think it was the right choice. It gave Ripley the opening to show a tiny bit of humanity amongst all the sociopathy. Tom and Peter could have made a go of it, but then there's Meredith again, who only knows Ripley as Dickie. So, Tom is left with the choice to continue getting away with all he has to either kill Meredith, her aunt and "Co.," or to kill Peter. There is really no choice when stuck on a ship.
Philip Seymour Hoffman is absolutely the best Freddie Miles by miles! "Purple Noon" gave us a bland, nondescript Freddie, while "Ripley" gave us a serene, controlled, interesting Freddie Miles, but not really in a good way. Freddie should be the large and in charge colorful rogue that he is in Hoffman's portrayal, and nothing else. This is a dark story, God knows, so Freddie should bring in all the color. The only version that accomplishes that is Hoffman, RIP. I HATE that he's gone!
So, I say, read the book, watch all the versions you can, but this one, to me, is perfection, start to finish. HIGHLY recommended.
Ringu (1998)
Yes, boring, but also...
I just watched the US version of "The Ring" last night and decided to give this one a watch to see the supposedly, "one that started it all." No, not even a little. I don't even care that there wasn't ANY moment of fright in it, I would have taken a drama -- much like "The Ring" -- over what I got. There were several things that were different that I was very glad the US version had gotten rid of: the whole well saga, for example. What was the thinking behind having to drain the well, only to end up in the same place the US version ended up? Even without seeing "The Ring," the idea to drain the well was nonsensical -- if you can stand up in it, you don't need to drain it to, I guess, find an old body.
And the thing I haven't seen anyone talk about is the horrendous acting. It may be my lack of knowledge of Japanese cinema and/or culture, but there were so many jarring moments of ACTING that I was constantly pulled out of the film. Do people act that way in Japan? Talking quietly, and then suddenly SHOUTING SOMETHING at another character? I'm not coming from a racist viewpoint, but from one that simply doesn't understand the acting style in this film, it's really ridiculous. I've seen many Japanese films that don't do this. I just don't get the sudden screaming dialogue that, according to the subtitles, wouldn't have been screamed anyway. WTH?
At any rate, I can't recommend this unless you're being a "Ring" completist. This is definitely one time that the US version is so much better than the original, so watch it if you must, but your time would be spent better watch "The Ring" again instead.
The Truth vs. Alex Jones (2024)
Each of my stars is x10!
I was trying to remember if I'd ever felt more satisfaction from a documentary before than this one. The satisfaction comes from the fact that not only is it a well-made film, but it also documents the mighty fall of Alex Jones. He may still be "broadcasting" on his whatever site, but I don't think he will ever have the power and reach he once had. As it turns out, there ARE limits to what he continues to try to claim are his "First Amendment Rights." You can't defame people and get away with it, and he certainly defamed people, both living and dead.
The thing about this film is that I never knew just how bad this situation was. This is NOT a doc that you can skip if you know the basic story. I'd heard about Alex Jones through the years and his "theories" about Sandy Hook, but I didn't know just how malicious and damaging to grieving people he was. The doc reveals that with court testimony. It details how the parents of the murdered children were harassed for a decade -- A DECADE! -- by Jones and his followers. And all so Jones could make money off the backs of murdered children. I guess even now, after all this country has been through for the past eight years, I CAN still be shocked by what some people will do to fulfill the wishes of a stochastic terrorist. I don't have much religion in my life, but I can say that Evil truly does walk the Earth in several different guises, Alex Jones being only one of them.
With all of that said, this ends up being a very satisfying story because in the end, Jones gets a little of what's coming to him. The Satan Construction Corporation is currently hard at work on those extra levels of Hell they're going to need for these people. Highly recommended whether you're an Alex Jones fan or not. A solid 10 like the best HBO documentaries often are.
American Conspiracy: The Octopus Murders (2024)
Just STOP it!
I had avoided this doc series for a few weeks because it first of all had the word "conspiracy" in the title, and secondly because it didn't seem to be that interesting. I should have paid attention to my gut instinct.
I don't know if all Netflix docs follow this formula, but it was pretty good in the first two episodes, then took a nosedive fast in the third. This was, apparently, a HUGE story in the early 90s, that of a journalist either committing suicide or being murdered in pursuit of a story of a vast right-wing conspiracy involving purloined government software that they stole from the developer, nefarious plots and schemes in Reagan getting elected, running guns for the Contras, triple murders, Indian reservations, and lions and tigers and bears. The many twists, turns, and switchbacks in this are hard to believe, and even harder to prove. In addition, Christian Hansen, the journalist in this, basically gets to the point of believing everyone involved is insane and that he's wasted ten years of his life on this case. Also, the director should be only a disembodied voice behind the camera if he has to be seen or heard at all. What was all that camera time about?
I stopped caring about half-way through the third of four episodes but stuck it out until the end. Then, in its last minutes, Christian gets a call from Michael Riconosciuto, who has already started to sound like Mike Lindell with a NEW theory and some NEW surefire evidence, and tells Christian to meet him because, "PEOPLE ARE DEAD!!!" The name "Michael Riconosciuto" was invoked at least a hundred times during the series and was played up to be a REALLY. BIG. SOURCE. And as it turned out, by the end the evidence suggests that he was nothing more than a fabulist, suffering from paranoid delusion.
So, honestly, through all of that, I don't know any more about anything than I did before I watched it. I never quite understood what the point was in "investigating" a 30+ year old suicide/murder, and then interspersing a governmental conspiracy that can never be proved within it. As others have said, don't waste your time on this. It's not really as compelling as it first seems, and at best, it could have been a 90-minute documentary. 5 stars because it is the very definition of average.
Star Trek: Picard (2020)
Perfect show, start to finish.
I think it's understood now that the question at the end of each review, "Was this review helpful?" with a Yes or No button, is not really a sign of the reader's "helpfulness" rating, but whether they agree or disagree with the review. With that said, and based on other reviews, I'd expect the No ratio on this review to be pretty high.
I simply loved this show from start to finish. Each season being its own story arc was a brilliant idea, with, I suppose, the show never quite knowing whether they'd be renewed or not. Surprisingly, the last season, which was announced well before it started airing, is the only one with a "cliffhanger," of sorts. But it's also safe to ignore it and be none the less for it. I mean, I would probably watch the show that is suggested in the last few minutes of the finale, but I'll also probably forget about it in a few weeks.
I see a large number of reviews concentrating praise on Season 3, and trashing Seasons 1 and 2. That was not my experience. Season 1, bringing Picard back to space was well done, and introduced compelling characters along the way. The story also tied back to the original series and filled in some of the story holes that were left.
Season 2: The Borg are back, what's not to love? The Borg are the TOP villains of, maybe, the entire franchise, so I really don't understand anyone who loves Star Trek finding the 2nd season anything but compelling.
Season 3, that everyone else seems to find perfect, is the one with some issues; the biggest one being the sudden replacement of the new Borg Queen introduced in Season 2 gone and finding the Alice Krige Borg Queen in her place in Season 3. I assume there's only ONE Borg Queen, so I don't know what that was about. Other than that, some of the writing in Season 3 seemed lazy, while 1 and 2 were fresh. It's actually, for me, Season 3 that was the least compelling. But I'm a viewer that enjoys change and stories that continue and expand, and Season 3 seemed to rehash old Star Trek: TNG dialogue and situations that now seem tired.
And the swearing! I loved it! Star Trek has always been a little too sanitized for me, so the swearing was a welcome addition, showing that the characters talked and acted like real people and not cardboard cutouts. It's also worth noting that our entertainment reflects the times. When TNG premiered in the late 80s, it was a great show for that time. We were coming out of the "Greed is Good" decade, and TNG was a tonic to that. Now, of course, the whole world seems in chaos, and ST: Picard reflected that. There's more violence, more swearing, and more darkness. This is a show that needs to be watched in the dark because so much of it IS literally dark. The bridges are all low lighting, the hallways, even conference rooms and what they chose to put in the holodeck. It's a dark place -- much more "Alien" and less "TNG."
But, overall, for me, a GREAT show. Due to how channels and services have abruptly ended shows for the past several years, I don't watch anything until it's completely over, so I binged the whole series in about a week or so. Watching it that way turns it into three very long movies, and I highly recommend watching it that way. You can take a break between seasons because of the show's structure. ST: Picard turned out to be all I hoped it would be and I can highly recommend it.
The Mental State (2023)
Derivative of Something
This is not a great movie. I might call it decent if I could latch onto something in it that made it that way, but the story itself feels derivative of things like school shootings in general, and maybe a little bit of "We Need to Talk About Kevin," but not nearly as engaging as that film.
In addition, the overall message of the film was bad, and I'm not even sure what kind of audience the film is aimed at, or what the message was supposed to be. School shootings are bad? Stalking is bad? A lack of mental health will get you killed eventually? People who have mental health issues will eventually grab a gun and if not actually go to school and start shooting, at least LOOK like they're going to? Religion doesn't REALLY care about you unless you have the money? That's why I say the message was bad -- there seem to be several messages going on at once, none of them engaging, surprising, or helpful.
I think anyone under 25 or so would be rolling their eyes for most of the film, and anyone over 25 wouldn't really GET anything out of it. No matter what audience this was supposed to be for, I can't recommend it to anyone. 3 stars for the effort.
The Zone of Interest (2023)
Claustrophobic
I have been looking forward to "The Zone of Interest" since I first heard about it, and was NOT disappointed, either by the film or its direction by Jonathan Glazer. After watching, I came here to rate, and maybe review, but got caught up in reading others' reviews. After reading 40 or 50 of them in whatever order IMDb defaults to, I'd made a decision about my rating.
This film is incredibly difficult to rate. On the one hand, it is a portrait of the commandant of Auschwitz and his family, living in their home just this side of the wall separating "normal" German life from one of the most prolific deathcamps of Nazi Germany. On the other hand, it is also a film about the (can't think of a better word) banality of that family's life, while living next door to Auschwitz. And their lives are banal, just like most of our lives are banal. We get up in the morning, brush our teeth, eat breakfast, go to work, come home, have dinner, watch TV, or in the case of 1940s Germany, read books, and talk to our spouses before going to sleep, and starting it all over the next day. It's mostly boring, and it's certainly boring to WATCH it happen. BUT none of us LIVE NEXT DOOR TO AUSCHWITZ!
THAT was the thought that kept me glued to this film from start to finish. Whatever this family did in its everyday, boring, banal existence, they live next door to Auschwitz, and they are so inured to it, that they don't even notice, except when some elements become either a "prize" for the family like a fur coat for the wife or some new teeth for a son's collection, or a problem, like human cremains in the river, or unwanted ash in the garden.
After about 45 minutes of this film, I realized that the film is best at being claustrophobic. The viewer is trapped in this place with this insane bunch of people. Everything has a wall around it, or a locked door, or a light that is being turned off, or nighttime scenes that make little sense, but add to the feeling of being inside one of those nightmares where you can't find your way out. And another reviewer focused on the dog, Dilla. The dog knew what was going on and was aware of everything, all the time. Agitated, always agitated.
I've seen reviews here calling the film boring, or slow, or having no plot, and I have to agree; the film is slow, boring, and has very little plot, and that's the point. The "banality of evil" is exactly what it says -- banal. Banal is slow, boring and has no plot because that's what it is. In exactly the same way as our own individual lives are banal, so were the lives of the people depicted in this film, BUT the big difference is not only did they live where they lived, but DAD was in charge of the mechanics of the millions of murders taking place just on the other side of their garden wall. THAT is the evilest aspect of the film and the story. This film will stay with me for a long time. I highly recommend it.
Who Invited Them (2022)
You don't really know how bad until 20 minutes before the end.
Lazy, stupid nonsense, but, unlike a lot of reviewers here and professionally, I tend to watch a movie for what it is as it happens. I'm not necessarily "looking" for stuff to write about later. So, no, I didn't see the "twist" coming, but when it happened, I also wasn't surprised by it, and as soon as it happens is when the movie takes a downward spiral to that stupid ending. And does that stupid ending leave open the idea of a sequel? Ugh!
Before all of that, it's pretty entertaining because if you're simply following what's happening onscreen, you're trying to figure out what's up with this invasive and uninvited couple that claim to be "the neighbors." There is a bit of comedy, but most of it is from the ridiculousness of the main character, who comes off as one of the douchiest characters there is. He's that mid-late 30s guy who is still trying to be 25 and failing miserably at it. His wife seems to blow around with the wind -- whatever someone suggests, she weighs the idea for a millisecond or two, then goes for it. The "hip" couple play them like fiddles, but you don't know why.
Then comes the "big reveal," and it is mighty lame. By the time you realize how DUMB it is, the movie's almost over and you might as well watch it to the bitter end. I'm sure there was a sign on the road that I missed along the way to define what we were watching in the last two minutes, but I'm not nearly interested enough to go back and see what it was.
I'd also like to help a fellow reviewer who has questions:
Why was the husband (Frank) who hit the dog/animal with his car such a beta male? I didn't notice that, except that he lied to his wife about hitting a branch when it was an animal (a dog?).
How was his wife (Teeny) able to find the location of the injured animal but not the house she was looking for? There was a big white cross on the side of the road to find the animal, but apparently, she didn't have GPS.
Why was she too weak to end the animal's suffering? I don't know. I'll come back to her.
Does no one have smartphones in this movie? If this movie was set in an earlier year, I could see that. NO, apparently not. They TALKED about phones, but I don't recall ever actually seeing one.
Why don't people just simply call the police? Good question, again, no phones!
How could the woman (Teeny) hold the rifle so terribly and still hit the "wrong" target? Here's where I blast that whole story arc. What was the purpose of Teeny being out in her car in the first place? She was supposedly going back to the kid's house to get his stuffed monkey, but that could have easily been left out of the script with no effect on the story at all. Her ONLY purpose seems to have been to be there to shoot Adam, which makes NO sense. If she'd managed to shoot Tom and/or Sasha, then this would have been a good use of her screen time, but all she did was shoot Adam! So dumb and unnecessary.
Why wasn't the wife (Margo) concerned at the end when the husband (Adam) was having a meltdown? I don't even know what was going on there. With the blackout between that scene and the scene before it, I thought "time had passed," and we were getting a look at Adam and Margo after the events of the movie. That whole thing could have been in Adam's head. He came away from the "incidents" probably pretty damaged, so he might have only been having his meltdown in his head. I have no clue. It wasn't well-written, and I lost the plot there. He seemed excessively paranoid, as if Tom was now living in his house and Adam was the intruder. I kind of stopped caring.
We know what cantaloupe is but what is rutabaga? Cantaloupe was "they die," rutabaga was "they live." Silly kids!
Hope that helps. That's my take on this movie and these leftover questions. I can't honestly recommend this because although it shows promise for the first hour or so, the last 20 minutes kills whatever good feeling you might have had for it. Skip it.
Lypsinka: Toxic Femininity (2024)
Surprisingly awful
I LOVE Chloë Sevigny, and I LOVE John Epperson as Lypsinka, but this was simply awful. It's not that I came into it with any expectations of a Lypsinka "concert" film, I literally started watching without knowing anything about it except that "The New Group" had it streaming on their website.
I expected to like it, even without knowing anything, because of the massive talent involved, but that SCRIPT! Ugh, what the hell? I understand that most, if not all of it, was from recordings Joan Crawford made of her 1959-ish book, entitled something like, "How I Live My Life." She may made one of the first audio books! But, even with that recording as a guidepost, this still fell flat.
The film was disjointed in its editing and direction. Epperson lip-synced (what else?) the Crawford recording very well but left me cold and indifferent to it. In addition, the audio started glitching about ten minutes before the end, and I gave up on it because it was unwatchable from that point, even with the subtitles on.
I EXPECTED to like this, and I am SO disappointed that I didn't and can't possibly, in good conscience, recommend it to anyone.
Squid Game: The Challenge (2023)
TWO for the set pieces
I swore to myself a long time ago that I would NEVER be one of those reviewers that tried to review a show after only watching one episode, but here I am. I would rather have waited another year or however long it takes, for a 2nd season of Squid Game over this reality TV garbage. The show is OBVIOUSLY scripted, and I would guess had many "takes" of certain scenes, as if they were actually presenting the 2nd season of the real show, which this is definitely NOT. I wish I could say that I'll watch the rest to see if it improves, but with umpteen streaming services that have QUALITY shows on them and as all of us have a limited amount of time on Earth, I can't possibly devote one more second to this show and help give Netflix the impression that they should do this again. No! Ugh! WTH, Netflix?
Haut perchés (2019)
Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
As another reviewer said, I too am interested in LGBT cinema, but I am not willing to acquiesce to ANY film that features LGBT themes, situations, and people. A quality film is important, too. This film had a seemingly interesting premise, five people (four gay men and one straight woman) are in a high-rise Parisian apartment, dealing with their upset over relationships each of them has had with a man who is secluded in another room of the apartment. Each of the players enter the room individually, while the remaining cast remains in the apartment, drinking champaign, making apple slices, passing around chocolate, and eventually when the food runs out, eating fried sardines. It seems the upset has to do with each person's humiliation and/or discovery that the relationship they each had with "the man who shall not be named" wasn't equal in that they each fell in love, while the other man was faking it.
From THAT premise, we have a filmed stage play filled with angst, oh, so much angst! The person in the other room, (tied up or something, we never find out) is the receiver of each of the players one by one going into the room alone with the man and coming out some time later. NOTHING about what happens in the room is revealed, as it's one of their "rules" for the evening. Meanwhile, they each reveal fantasies to each other or their various perverse (their word) desires. At the end, which someone opined should take your breath away, is yet ANOTHER soliloquy as the sun comes up over Paris.
There is no genius in not fleshing out the story. There is no mystery to any of these characters. I'd say they were pretentious, but they don't even rise to that level. They're young, but WAY too old to be dealing with whatever they're dealing with in this angst filled way. MOVING ON may have been an option! WHAT exactly did this "MAN" do to each of them? We never find out. Yawn.
I can't in good faith recommend this. It's ultimately boring and pointless. I learned nothing. The characters learned nothing. I don't see the point of this film.
Rock Haven (2007)
Mary, please.
Oh, man, the triteness of this movie is only outmatched by the script, which obviously wasn't longer than a 30-40-minute short film. That length would have made the film more bearable and hopefully have done away with 80% of the shots of the Pacific crashing against the rocks. If that was supposed to be a metaphor for something, it completely went over my head.
The DEEP sincerity of this film was gag-inducing at times. On a more positive note, the acting from the two boys seemed natural and realistic. I liked especially how Brady used his eyes in some scenes, quickly looking away, and then back, to avoid talking about what was being discussed. The actor who played Clifford made the most of what he had to work with, as did the actress who played his mother. They seemed like mother and son -- both free spirits. Brady's mom, on the other hand, was played as a stern, rigid, frozen Christian woman who followed her faith right off the cliff. The final scene between her and Brady should have meant more than it eventually did. With heartbroken Clifford off to Barcelona, I fully expected Brady to move in, at least temporarily, with Clifford's mom, at least until his mother came to terms with her own feelings. One thing missing from the final scene, whether intentionally or by neglect, is that Brady tells his mom that he just needs her to love him, and she responds that he will always be her son. Pointedly, she did not say that she loved him, which may have been something he needed to hear at that moment.
At the very end, I thought, "well, at least the gays didn't DIE!" But would it kill a writer/director of an LGBTQ+ movie to let it have a happy ending? So, Brady's mom has her son, Clifford has flown off to Barcelona to live with his dad (I guess due to his heartbreak), and Brady, from all his strife, feels closer to God. Whoopee!
This is not a film I will ever watch again. Overall, it's depressing, and there's enough in the world to do that without it crossing my movie screen. So, 4 stars, and a Mary, please! Recommended if you're feeling a bit masochistic.