Change Your Image
Gray62
Reviews
Exposed (2016)
Not a bad movie, but way too sad.
This actually is a decent psychological drama, but viewers need to be aware of this and expect an artful movie, where nothing is exactly as it seems. I saw it on Samsung TV, where it was listed under "Crime" and labelled a "Thriller". That's not helpful. This is much darker and slower moving than a typical "Law & Order: SVU" episode and it takes strong nerves and patience to digest the rather depressing developments in this film. The acting (impressive: Ana de Armas) and direction ain't bad, even though the role of Keanu Reeves is seriously underdeveloped, which makes him indeed look like sleepwalking thru the story, as another reviewer criticized. He simply wasn't left much to work with, especially no action. I rated this movie 7 stars, but I understand that many watchers were left disappointed, especially "John Wick" fans, because this wasn't what they had expected at all.
Solo Sunny (1980)
Boring movie about boring people in a boring country
In my western German view, it's a movie about a not very smart woman, with a talent for singing, surrounded by mostly not especially intelligent people, in a communist country where intelligentsia was either toeing the one-party-line or regarded with suspicion. Apart from a few easily recognizable and unrealistic propaganda statements, certainly necessary to help the film pass censorship, it's probably an honest depiction of the life of mediocre musicians in a country where art and culture where regulated by the state. It's also very boring, because there was no freedom to do interesting things and no such opportunities anyway, I guess. If you're not especially interested in life in the former GDR, stay away from this sad example of top-down imposed mediocrity or you will regret you wasted your time on this.
The Equalizer (2014)
Ok action movie, but has nothing to do with the TV series
As an action movie, this would have rewarded 8 points, despite logical flaws (like, wtf, leaving fingerprints everywhere?). However, it's been styled as being about Robert McCall, the star of the TV series, but it's got nothing to do with that character. And that ain't Denzel Washington's fault, who did a stellar job, but that of the screenwriters and producers. The movie's McCaul is simply a totally different character from the TV guy. So, to advertise this movie as "The Equalizer" is fraud, there's no way to excuse it. Younger folks who don't know the series may not care about this, but if you had been a fan, you will be disappointed.
Blue Bloods (2010)
Too much of everything
Too much sugarcoating of controversial issues, too much self righteousness, too much "family values" brouhaha, too much blind patriotism, too much stereotyping, too much focus on religion, too much Republican ideology, too much machismo, too much unrealistic success (careerwise and at solving crimes) in one family, too much of everything to be remotely realistic. If you like police drama series' that stick reasonably close to reality, like Hillstreet Blues, NYPD Blue and Law & Order, this annoying show, which apparently panders to an uncritical, elderly, conservative audience, is not for you!
Which is sad, because with the budget, the cast and even the general concept, much more could have been possible. But the writers (certainly on orders by the producers) wasted all chances to make this more reality based and created one cheesy, annoying, stupid story after another. All nuance is lost there, they overdo the drama, the coincidences, the characters, simply everything, every single time. To say this is pulp magazine standard would be an insult to great writers like Dashiell Hammett and Raymond Chandler, who started their careers writing for these mass publications. The quality of the "Blue Bloods" episodes is low even for cheap entertainment.
The stupid pomposity starts with the grandstanding title (police aristocracy? Ha!), the family name (Reagan? Omg. Why not make it interesting and call them Croker?), the Irish catholic background without any minority intrusions into the family tree (how stereotypical can it get?) and the fact that not only the patriarch is the commissioner (Tom Selleck can't show his Jesse Stone deepness here), but that his father also held this position before (why couldn't he have been a mere sergeant, early retired because of corruption?). And it doesn't get any better after this "too good to be true" start. This whole series insults the intelligence of every viewer who is reasonably aware of reality.
Of too many examples of totally unbelievable stories to list them up here, just the most mind boggling idiocy of season 1 (the only one I watched, I won't buy another DVD box of these fairy tales): **SPOILER** The son of the commissioner, a member of a family that is very much in the focus of the media, goes undercover and befriends a Mafia guy! No concerns that the wise guys may watch TV or read tabloids and recognize him. This is so idiotic, even most ten year olds must notice the absurdity. It's ridiculous.
So, this is entertainment for people who can really turn their brains off when watching TV. I still give it five stars for some good acting (excellent: Jennifer Esposito and Nicholas Turturro), for the camera work (solid, though not groundbreaking), stage design (it's obvious this ain't a cheap production) etc. But the stories only deserve one star, if at all.
Lusitania: Murder on the Atlantic (2007)
Great documentary that stays close to the facts
I saw the docudrama today, thanks to Youtube, and can't support the criticism of the two other reviews here at all. Imho this BBC movie is a very good effort at educating the public about this crucial episode of history, regarding the constraints of the budget and the running time of the movie.
As a German citizen, I am, of course, not a totally impartial party (even though I try hard to be), but neither are British nor American commenters. However, I have read one of the most comprehensively sourced books on the subject, Colin Simpson's "The Lusitania", as well as countless in formations on the Internet and I'm basing my judgment on the facts that historians agree on, something that is lacking from both other reviews. And, as I see it, this BBC film got the most important facts right, while at the same time offering great acting and a storyline that shows the human side of the tragedy.
To the facts: - The Lusitania transported ammunition for the British war efforts, and this has been proved with documentary evidence. The movie mentions the fact, without going into the length of telling us that not only British officials knew this, but also US ones, as well as the German intelligence service. Since the complex US and German subplot would have taken a lot of time to tell (and introduce a lot of additional players), it is understandable that the movie leaves this side out. However, personally, I would have liked that a least a mention of the overwhelmingly pro-British tendency of the Wilson administration (especially the role of Col. House) would have been made, but it may have made the storyline too confusing.
- Not only ammunition, but also military personnel on the way to the war zone was transported. The movie doesn't show this, probably because it would have necessitated to introduce additional characters.
- As the movie mentions, the Lusitania was indeed on the list of British auxiliary cruisers. What the filmmakers doesn't tell us is that even basements for naval guns had been installed on the Lusitania after the war. Among passengers and staff, there were even rumours and that the guns were already hidden on the ship. Also mentioned by the BBC, contrary to agreed rules of naval warfare, Admiralty had issued orders to the merchant marine calling for deliberately ramming of submarines.
- It's a fact that British officials deliberately asked how the US would react if American citizen would be killed on a British ship. This is shown in the movie, even though it is left to the judgment of the viewers if and how this influenced the Admiralty in their decisions. The movie just shows the known facts, without taking a clear stance, which is a good idea regarding the lack of decisive evidence.
- The Germans had declared the waters an unrestricted war zone, and really warned passengers in the newspapers. The Lusitania, as a well known British ship, was in imminent danger, while at the same time neutrals, like American vessels, would have been relatively safe. Like the movie showed, it was dangerous ignorance in combination with misguided believe in the Admiralty safety promises that led many passengers to ignore the grave risk.
- The movie shows only one torpedo being fired. This is in accordance with German documents and testimonies, and the established view of historians worldwide. There has never been compelling evidence that more torpedoes were fired. The question, why the Lusitania sank so fast has never really been answered, the most recent view being that both the specific construction of the Ship (longitudinal bulkheads!) and an explosion of a boiler played a role. The movie doesn't show how the second explosion happened and so stays neutral on this question. Imho a good idea, because this isn't essential to the story.
- The Admiralty really did take an unfair stance in the court case, as depicted in the movie. Also, the order for the so called "advised course" contradicted other standing orders, as well as the necessities of navigation. And many important information were never relayed to the Lusitania. What isn't shown is that the Admiralty even presented doctored wireless logs, and that the judge noticed that. Maybe it would have been good to include this in the story, since it adds to the understanding of the administration-critical stance of the Judge, and of the consequent verdict.
Only the most important facts, and imho they are covered in a fair and still entertaining way by the movie. It would have been impossible to show every detail in a 90 minute feature, but the viewers get a good summary, which stay close to the view of the historians. And there isn't an especially pro-German bias (hey, it's a BBC production!). The hypocritical stance of the German Kaiser and his Admirals, who didn't want to be remembered of their own orders after public opinion turned against them is exposed, and German sub captain Schwieger is shown as a somewhat weak character, drawn between ambition, orders, and what may still have been left of ethical values. If there's any bias at all it's pro-American, because US officials, who put their countrymen into danger by deliberately ignoring the illegal transport of war supplies on a British passenger ship, aren't given any scrutiny at all. But, OK, this sideline would have taken another 20 minutes or so to tell.
So, all in all, a very good docudrama combining historical facts with good storytelling an cinematographic values. The special effects, the appearance of the Lusitania and the sub, don't look too cheap (which is often the problem with docudramas), also the use of historical coverage is accomplished in a convincing way. Taking also in consideration the good acting, especially the performances of John Hannah ("Four Weddings And A Funeral") and Adrian Topol, this movie deserves 8-9 out of 10 points. Job well done, BBC!