Change Your Image
loveandthunderstorms
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Open Wide (2024)
If you're looking for an educational doc about orthodontics vs orthotropics, this isn't it
I was attracted to this documentary by its preview, thinking it would have information and facts about orthodontistry vs. Orthotropics. I got 3/4 of the way through it and realized this film is about John Mew and Michael Mew, not about orthodontistry, the Mews' method of orthotropics or even the "mewing" trend. You'll hear opinions, opinions presented as facts and plenty of dissent but no actual facts or science about the practices and procedures at the center of this argument. Aside from mewing, I still don't know what exactly the standard practice in orthotropics is or what it involves. My best guess would be that it includes jaw and tongue "training" as opposed to standard orthodontic procedures, like fixed braces or surgery. But I'm still not sure and plan to do my own research since this doc didn't appear to do any. Imo, this is a film profiling John Mew and Michael Mew. This is not an educational documentary. Personally, I found the film to be a big bore. The banter between John and Michael wasn't entertaining or endearing to me and I wasn't interested in their personal lives in the slightest. Despite the presence of professional challenges, there was no background, information or explanation of what they were facing, so that didn't leave me with much. I had reached my threshold when a young patient's mother whipped out her ukulele and said she wrote a 7 minute long song and then proceeded to start strumming it that I switched to my K dramas. Unless you're a big fan of John or Michael Mew, I'd recommend skipping this film.
Relentless (2021)
Problematic. A blunt review with spoilers
Ooh where to start...I don't like being reductive but people read reviews because they're curious if a show is worth their time. So that's my goal here. Major spoilers ahead.
Basically, this show is a perfect example of what would happen if you took an earnest and dedicated but extremely naive armchair detective/documentarian from L. A., plopped them down in a somewhat rural southern community they know nothing about and watched them slowly lose their mind as they spin their wheels running after every rumor that comes their way. Christina Fontana seems like a very caring and compassionate individual. And I believe that is her ultimate downfall. In this show, you'll watch her make mistakes over and over again over the course of 10 years. You read that right, she becomes obsessed with this case for 10 yrs. And according to this show, is still driving herself mad over it to this day. She refuses to believe for a second that she's being taken advantage of by the victim's family, despite the fact that her own footage shows the family matriarch changing her statements, contradicting herself, altering her statements to fit whatever topic and mood is present. Fontana even admits to not reviewing all of the evidence in her possession. If she had, she would've known the family was lying to her from day 1.
But the family is just a fraction of the problems here. Fontana becomes way too emotionally involved. She gets too close to both the victim's family and the other people she works with on this project. She doesn't seem to vet anyone. A volunteer "retired" cop begins assisting her but she never researches him or questions his motives. His involvement does nothing but ramp up the drama before ending tragically. Her questions during interviews are also problematic, as she rattles off names of people she suspects of being the perpetrator to anonymous callers claiming to have information. Her methods of research are so messy and fraught with issues, it negates any validity that may be contained in the body of her work. While the Hannibal Police Department certainly come across as shady and corrupt, it also seems like they're just sitting back, letting Fontana spin her wheels and taking bets on how much longer she'll last. By the time I reached the 5th episode, I got the feeling that a lot of what she's gathered is mostly bs. But if you step back and take a broader view of everything, a picture emerges that we can only say, "this is what most likely happened". Just short of finding the girl's body, I think that's the best it's ever going to get. By the time I reached the final episode, I also felt drained and frustrated. Just like the silly paranormal shows and mysteries that get dragged out with no conclusion, this show is no different. The missing girl isn't found, nothing has panned out and you're left looking at a drained, obsessed woman, no closer to the truth than she was in the beginning, weighed down by rumors impossible to prove/disprove. She has dedicated her time, money, patience and sanity with nothing to show for it except a clickbait program that only serves to stir up drama.
Overall, a slightly interesting armchair detective series that won't resolve anything, will leave you frustrated at the end and might be more enjoyable if you watch just to see this person spin her wheels over every local rumor from questionable sources. Watch at your own risk.
The School Nurse Files (2020)
An atypical Korean show with elements of shamanism
This show is not your typical Korean show and definitely isn't an example of your "typical K-drama". There is little to no explanation, diving into lore or setting up moments of dramatic romance. Add a healthy dose of social awkwardness, magic and weirdly cartoonish bits of animation and you get School Nurse Files. If you're looking for something weird, quirky and entertaining, this show might be what you're looking for.
No doubt, the elements of magic will likely confuse many. In Korea, different religions are practiced but an aspect of Korean shamanism or muism is still present in Korean society. This is a multi-theistic, animistic belief system that includes spirits, once-human deities and gods, among others, as well as energies that can be manifested through intense emotions. The main protagonist, nurse Ahn Eun Young is, in some respects, similar to a shaman, helping people in ways they'll never see or recognize. This belief system has been infused with Buddhism and Taoism over time but shamanism itself has never been exclusionary of other religions and beliefs. In short (tl;dr), it's a belief in a spirit realm, where spirits and/or spiritual manifestations can interfere in human affairs. Shamans can see and interact with this realm, thus helping troubled spirits move on to the afterlife or relieve humans of suffering. This is why, for example, some east Asian cultures find ghosts so frightening. There is a belief in a spirit realm where human spirits wander. The prospect of being terrorized by a ghost takes on a different meaning with these beliefs.
Now that that's out of the way, hopefully that will help to make this show a bit less confusing. It could serve as "mindless entertainment" for those who aren't inclined to make the associations with shamanism but there's an element of depth you miss in doing so. The nurse protagonist is not your typical Korean female lead, which I love. She's quirky and socially awkward and people think she's weird. But she's dedicated to the school students and does everything she can to help and protect them. The actress who plays her, as well the rest of the cast, look like people you might encounter in Korea, so to a westerner, it won't look like a parade of Korean beauty standards, which I appreciate. The use of symbolism in their wardrobes is also a nice touch, with Ahn often wearing simple, clean lined pieces with sheer layers of black over white. Hong In-Pyo's old fashioned wardrobe (in addition to his name) hints at his connection to the school, it's history and his relation to the original headmaster. This contrasts with MacKenzie's wardrobe and style, which is in line with modern fashion and western styles, as his character is Korean American.
Overall, a really fun and quirky show. It moves along at a snappy pace so it never gets boring and at 6 episodes, isn't a slog in any way.
Dedeu eogein (2017)
Small budget, low quality "Korean" film
Having been on a Korean film bender lately, I started watching this film not realizing it was written and directed by an American. Not that it matters where the director is from but I've been partial to Korean films lately due to the quality storytelling and skillful blending of genres, which provides a more fulfilling experience in my opinion. Something I find to be lacking in big studio films in the U.S. lately. I wasn't expecting Dead Again to be a masterpiece but thought it would at least be entertaining and affecting in some way. Unfortunately, it appears that the director has brought his American mediocrity with him to South Korea and has not done the Korean movie industry any favors.
The film's premise has potential but was poorly executed. The writer and director, Dave Silberman, had only done a few short films in the U.S. before heading to Korea to direct this flop for reasons unknown. The budget for this had to have been very small and it shows. I would've been less discerning if the film had other qualities that would overcome a limited budget, but such is not the case here. The special effects were poor and ineffective. There were a few instances when practical effects might have been easier and more believable. Scenes that were intended to build tension and dread were simply a bore. And the graphic scenes leading up to the climax toward the end were decidedly anticlimactic and really not that graphic or shocking in the least. It also didn't help that the main character was a Korean American adoptee when it was clear that the actor portraying him was not. My uneducated guess would be that the director used this as a way to cover up his lack of knowledge as it pertains to Korean culture surrounding death, burial and the influence of Confuciunism on death, funerals and mourning.
In short, this film is nothing more than a late night B-movie you used to find on obscure cable channels at 2am in the U.S. masquerading as a Korean horror film. Except those films were at least so bad they're entertaining. This movie doesn't even have that going for it. There's no tension, no mystery, weak scares, mediocre attempts at being surreal that screams "I wish I were David Lynch", poorly written dialog, poor direction and lackluster cinematography. If I were to praise anything, it would be the cast of Korean actors. Most of them seem to have some skill and probably could have given a good performance had they been given good material to work with. Unless this movie is free or included for free with a membership on a streaming app, don't waste your money on this movie. In fact, my advice would be to not waste your time. A total bore with no redeeming qualities.
Casting JonBenet (2017)
Think of it as a social experiment
So, this film is obviously polarizing based on the reviews here. I felt compelled to write my own review because I think the film would make more sense if we thought of it as a social experiment and not a documentary. If you're looking for a typical documentary experience, or even looking for more information on the Jonbenet Ramsey murder, you're going to be disappointed. Some may even be incensed by what they watch in this film.
As others have stated, the basic premise involves a group of local actors in or near the Boulder, CO area who are "auditioning" to portray the people involved in this case. Right off the bat, this description is misleading, as these actors are not industry professionals, but rather people who work as actors but are essentially regular people. And this auditioning process we see in the film is actually the role itself. This aspect was the first to make an impact with me. The decision to use these local actors is ingenious. As actors, they're able to immerse themselves in the character and speculate on what their character may have been thinking or feeling during the events that took place. However, they're also not so professional that they won't open up and begin chatting about their own theories. The thoughts flow naturally and the actors speak freely. We see this organic flow of thought when these people are placed in their "roles", essentially placing them within the mystery itself. We see a group of people who already have civilian knowledge of this case who are speculating on a mystery, while also projecting their own personal experiences, resulting in a wildly fluctuating and differing opinion of what they think may have happened and why. And this is exactly what we, the public, did back in the 90s.
I was a freshman in college when the Jonbenet Ramsey murder occurred. The media storm that followed was intense. In 1996 and 1997, most people were still getting their news via newspaper, magazine and television. It seemed every publication had a Jonbenet story, in every issue. These media outlets were all trying to "out-scoop" each other by finding details or clues that their competitor may not have. This resulted in a media free-for-all and a fight for sales. There were/are so many blanks to fill in regarding this girl's murder and yet, there were also so many details being released to and scrutinized by the press, and we the public couldn't help falling into the same game. It's human nature to want to know the answer to a compelling mystery, especially one such as this. It's also not unusual for the human brain to try to fill gaps in information in an effort to decipher something which is incomplete and impossible to solve definitively. It's faulty thinking in the sense that the information we use to fill those gaps is manufactured and colored by our own personal experiences, opinions, and attitudes. The actors in the film projected their own experiences to form many differing theories. And that's what happened back in '96/'97. I count myself among them. These actors, strange or narcissistic or gossipy as they may seem, are all of us.
I think some of the negative reviews here are a bit contradictory and missing the point. One reviewer said the film "seemed like it could add a new layer of commentary to a tired, old story" and was disappointed when that didn't seem to happen. Well...this isn't just a "story" and just because it's old doesn't mean it's "tired". This murder case isn't, and never was, a story for our personal consumption. It holds our fascination for the reality and shocking nature of the crime. But searching for additional meaning or commentary about the case or murder is pointless because there is none. This film doesn't seek to shed new light on the murder. It's shining the light on us and it isn't the most flattering light. We watch films about this little girl because we all have some sort of morbid curiosity about her or the murder. How could we not when the news would publish photos of Jonbenet's body showing the little marks on her skin that were supposedly caused by a stun gun? We were given so much that it drove our imaginations. Often, discussions about the case would begin with, "Well, if that were me..." or "I would never..." We projected. We interjected ourselves into this mystery and chatted with friends and co-workers about the ransom note or the suitcase under the window. We were torn between our intense desire for justice and our own morbid fascination. I use some of the negative reviews here as example because on the one hand, these negative reviews say how morbid and exploitative it was to watch such blase attitudes about a little girl's murder, while in the same review complaining that they didn't get what they wanted out of the film. And this is exactly what I'm talking about. Some people watch this film hoping to get something more about the case, something to fill whatever void they may have in this mystery. But isn't that our own exploitative nature being exposed? For these people, I would advise finding a more traditional documentary that will discuss all the details and facts. And after viewing it, I challenge any viewer who didn't witness the frenzy in the 90s to not create your own theory or speculate on at least one person involved. It's what we all did and continue to do and I think some of the negative reviews miss the contradiction.
As a result, the actual murder case, the real people involved and any real facts fall to the wayside in this film. It's haunting in the way the actual case and Jonbenet herself seem like fading background photographs in this wildly colorful montage. I think it is here where the film's statement lies. When someone says, "This case took on a life of its own", I think this is what they're referring to. The public became so enmeshed in the tedium and sensationalism that the case itself fades into the background. Our theories, colored by our own experiences, feed the frenzy until you're left with what looks like a vapid, exploitative pony show. I think this is why there are so many reviews stating this film is pointless or exploitative. But that is the reality of what happened in this country in '96/'97. We all had an opinion, a theory. We personalized it. And we all just spoke up about what WE thought occurred. We became armchair detectives and regurgitated "case facts" that we read here or there like we knew what any of it meant. In an effort to satisfy our own curiosity, we interjected ourselves into the narrative and essentially took it away from the actual people involved. I think this film portrays that perfectly.
Goodnight, Sugar Babe: The Killing of Vera Jo Reigle (2013)
Sad story, an even sadder film
I'm a big fan of documentaries and while browsing Amazon, stumbled upon this film. I wasn't sure what to expect but figured it had to at least be an interesting story. This film was sort of like watching an episode of Jerry Springer. The colorful characters that make up the story seem as though they'd fit perfectly on the set of the notorious talk show, unafraid to air personal dramas and tales of violence. I say this, not to be mean, but to make the point that this film does not seem focused on portraying the victim or embarking on a larger narrative about her, the cycles of abuse that seem commonplace according to the family members and acquaintances interviewed, or how her mental capacity may have made her a target for abuse. Instead, the focus of the film seems to be on the victim's abusers, with much of the subject matter revolving around the matriarch of this "family". I also found myself uncomfortable with how locals and family members were portrayed. This film feels like sensationalism, intent on pointing out the most lurid and shocking details about these people and their behaviors, despite the fact that some of it is irrelevant to the story.
This film also feels incredibly amateur. Production quality is low, with much of the film looking and feeling like something made by sophomores in the AV Club at the local high school. There is little structure to the story. You're given a quick slideshow presentation of everyone being interviewed for this film, with its respective fade in/out of each photo and their names typeset in Bradley Hand below each one. And then the story takes off. The information comes in small jumbles that are (kind of) in some type of order. But it all ends up feeling like you're sitting in their living room, surrounded by all of them, and being bombarded with the story of every extenuating circumstance surrounding this woman's murder and having to do your best to make sense of it all. Occasionally I found myself lacking clarity on the victim's murder itself, which...well isn't that why we're all here??
Despite the films preoccupation with the seedier details of the people in the victim's life, I did feel a sense of sadness for this woman. She had no advocate and local authorities did little to nothing to help her. In fact, this is one of the points I wish had been further explored as well. Overall, a truly sad story made even sadder by what I saw as a pervasive atmosphere of neglect, physical, sexual and emotional abuse, poverty and incest surrounding this woman with mental challenges. I don't really recommend this film. It feels seedy, exploitative and cheap.
Nymphomaniac: Vol. I (2013)
Psychology, Not Sex
I rarely write IMDb movie reviews but I felt compelled to do so with Lars Von Trier's Nymphomaniac Part I after seeing the countless reviews and message board posts proclaiming this film to be "porn". This film is graphic but it is not porn. I would say that anyone who has ever suffered emotionally, struggled with apathy and/or resigned themselves to risky behaviors as a result of their emotional struggles will find a deeper understanding of this film, elevating it far beyond pornography. This is a review examining the story and psychology of the film, rather than a focal point on graphic sex. To focus only on its graphic nature would be to miss the point of the film entirely.
Nymphomaniac Parts I and II comprise the third act of Von Trier's "Depression Trilogy". The other two films being Melancholia and Antichrist. This "trilogy" came about as a result of his own experience with a major depressive episode and the psychological insights he gained of the depressed psyche. Nymphomania (or excessive sexual drive) is a legitimate psychological disorder that is recognized by the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) of the World Health Organization. Sufferers are often apathetic, their behaviors reckless and impetuous with little regard for consequences. The film begins with the protagonist Joe (Charlotte Gainsbourg), beaten and abandoned in a rainy alley where she is found and subsequently taken in by Seligman (Stellan Skarsgard) after refusing medical help. Seligman is a kind man who offers her food, clean clothes and a place to rest. They begin a conversation and Joe begins to tell Seligman her story, beginning with her childhood. Their dialogue is interspersed with flashback scenes of a young Joe (Stacy Martin), following her from childhood to young adulthood.
I'll cut to the chase. Much has been made of the nudity and graphic sex in this film. Is it necessary? Yes, I believe it to be. Joe's mix of self hatred and indifference are conveyed in her many emotionless encounters with various men. The encounters are straightforward and at times, mechanical. One can easily deduce that these are not encounters of passion but rather, compulsiveness. This is not a film that aims to portray Joe as a victim, nor the men as predators (and vice versa). That would be far below Von Trier's abilities as a writer/director and too simple of a concept for a character as tumultuous as Joe. Rather, I feel he aims to bring us into the life and psyche of Joe, illustrate the desperation, compulsivity and dispassionate nature that began dominating Joe's life from a very early age. Compulsive hypersexual behaviors actually have very little to do with the sex itself, so some of the usual dynamics of sexual relations between two people (joy, jealousy, euphoria, power struggles, etc.) do not come into play here. At least, not for Joe anyway.
Despite such a bleak interpretation of sex in this woman's life, the material is handled with care. Some scenes are extremely graphic and shocking in its content and intent but the way in which it's handled contains a certain level of sensitivity. Joe is reckless and callous but Von Trier doesn't shame her in his interpretation. That's not to say that things do not get intense later on in Part II.
I found the film to be beautifully shot, the dialogue well written, almost poetic at times. Gainsbourg and Skarsgard are mesmerizing in their scenes together and Stacy Martin gives a solid and subtle performance as the young Joe. I was not pleased with the casting of Shia LaBeouf as Joe's first sexual encounter and Christian Slater as Joe's father. Neither of them were very good at affecting a British accent, nor did they transform at all in their prospective roles. I merely saw them both doing what they normally do, just dialed down a little bit so as not to disrupt the flow of the film. Unfortunately, any scene involving either one of them completely took me out of the film. Despite this, I still found myself very affected by the film overall. By the time I had neared the end, the final scene that held so much promise of hope and emotional connection for Joe was rendered heartbreaking with her exclamation that she couldn't "feel anything". I found this moment to be especially wrenching. After watching Joe naively explore her compulsions, one could feel a slight amount of tension building and more than once, I wondered, "the other shoe has to fall at some point". With Joe's pain filled cries of "I can't feel anything" (her first display of intense emotion), one senses that this is the point at which things take a sad and dark turn and a perfect point to end Part I before embarking on the consequences and even darker and more disturbing elements contained in Part II.
There are those that will continue to tout this film as "pornography". I suppose the best analogy I have for those who just can't see past the graphic sex would be to compare Joe's sexual compulsions with the compulsions of a drug addict, one difference being that drug addiction is a widely seen, accepted, understood, discussed and examined issue. Hypersexual disorders and behaviors are not, unfortunately. However, being able to identify with certain behaviors at the exclusion of others would be a rather narrow minded approach. How many of you have had a bad day, been fired, been broken up with and decided to go out and get rip roaring drunk, incredibly high or rebound with a stranger in order to deal with the disappointment? You know better, you know it isn't the best idea, you know there will be consequences but you do it anyway. Now imagine the same scenario except there's no inner monologue, no weighing of options. You do it because you seemingly have no choice.
The Canyons (2013)
A weak soap opera with few redeeming qualities
This film was intriguing to me for a few reasons. I was curious how Lindsay Lohan fared in this role. As her private life imploded, her career vanished in an instant. Not that I'm a big Lohan fan but she showed promise once and I was curious if that spark was still there. I was also intrigued by the fact that Bret Easton Ellis had written the script and that the film was created on a mere $250,000 Kickstarter budget.
A fairly simple (if not somewhat familiar) plot, Christian is a trust fund baby turned movie producer who is in a swinging relationship with Tara. When Christian discovers that the lead actor in his film has a past with Tara and that they are having an affair, he decides that murder is the best way to deal. As another reviewer stated, this film basically felt like one big soap opera. And a weak one at that. The film focuses on the assumptions and dramas that surround the characters but we never see them actually working. In fact, the film only occasionally ventures outside of the characters' impressive apartments/homes so we don't see anything of these characters other than their sordid personal lives. I was unimpressed with Ellis' screenplay. The concept of sleaze, sex, money, violence and apathy has been done to much greater effect in his other works, such as American Psycho and Less Than Zero. With a runtime of 1 hr 40 min, it feels much longer. I found myself fighting to stay invested in the story. I wasn't interested in the characters and the plot was thin. After watching Ellis slam yuppie Wall Street and trust fund baby drug addicts in the previously mentioned films, his trademark of extreme actions performed in an unaffected way when applied to the world of Hollywood and filmmaking felt derivative. We already know Hollywood is heartless and superficial. What's new? The acting, while not bad, wasn't too good either. The dialog seemed rushed, as though the actors were just waiting on each other to finish their lines. Lohan looked tired and bloated and her performance too subdued. I'd like to think Lohan can turn out some quality work but it's difficult to tell from this film, as I just didn't feel she was the right fit for the role and I couldn't tell if it was truly bad acting or just botox and booze that was limiting her range. Nothing yanks me out a film faster than an actor whose face doesn't move. It renders any scene involving expression of emotion ineffective. I've read somewhat positive reactions to James Deen's acting. While I do feel his acting exceeded my expectations, my bar wasn't set very high. Porn actor or not, his performance was better than I expected but still a bit too subtle for me.
Funny thing is, for me, I think the film would've been much better if the actors never said a word. I found the cinematography outstanding. Desaturated, washed out images of decrepit, abandoned movie theaters scattered throughout the film and during the end credits were visually stunning. I found myself enjoying the end credits more than the film itself.
I haven't yet decided if I disliked the script because of the script itself or because of the acting. Something I've discovered after watching The Canyons is that Ellis' work requires very strong, talented actors. Otherwise, the overall effect is hollow, unconvincing and uninteresting. The characters are detestable and one dimensional. I did wonder for a moment how this film might have been different if it had a Hollywood budget. But then again, one could argue that this film was a big middle finger to the world of Hollywood and the studios.
Overall, I wouldn't say this film was a waste of time. The stylized visuals set the mood and feel so if the actors themselves didn't compel, the visuals did. I also stop short of saying the acting was "bad". It wasn't good but not bad considering the actors were paid next to nothing. I wouldn't pay to see this but it wouldn't be a total waste if you happen to catch it on cable. Watch it on cable and form your own opinion but I don't feel it's worth shelling out any money.