Melvin_Tigerfists Reviews

A Different View (2018–2019)

Engaging But Superficial and Preachy

[6/10 · 6 September 2022]

This is basically a soap opera infused with hamfisted and predictable feminist messages. There are some interesting characters and storylines, but very little to make you think or keep you guessing. In fact, in order to make certain you are thinking exactly what the director wants you to think, the melodramatic soundtrack gives very clear signals. The show has all the pieces present to make possible an amazing series, but is content to lead the viewer around by the nose and use tried and true clichés. At over one hour per episode, there was plenty of time to go deep. As with any foreign series, you do learn things about the country of origin.

Wonder Woman 1984 (2020)

Filled With Encouraging Human Moments

[8/10 · 2 January 2021]

Those who grew up loving Christopher Reeve's Superman films (the first two) will see some clear similarities here.

I personally have had it with bombastic superhero films with giant monsters, portals in the sky, etc. I want to see some actual characters, some redemption, and some heroic behavior, not just slapstick jokes and fights.

This film has heart in addition to action. It has the small character moments that get lost in many comic book movies, and it sends some encouraging messages that used to be typical but are now novel in our cynical times.

I loved it.

Star Wars: The Rise Of Skywalker (2019)

Incomplete as a Film. Fine as One Element of Lore.

[7/10 · 22 February 2020]

The first time I watched TROS, I did not like it. I did not like the Emperor being back with no explanation. I did not like the Snoke clone business. I did not like Han Solo "appearing". I did not like the Jedi Jesus force healing. I did not like the incongruity with TLJ. I did not like the giant Final Order fleet rising out of the ground or the Emperor blowing ships out of the sky with lightning.

I have always watched Star Wars films multiple times at the theatre and many times after, but I read none of the expanded universe novels, very few of the comics, and played one LucasArts video game. After this film, I started listening to some Star Wars YouTube channels to see what they had to say. I was surprised to find that virtually all of the stuff I found arbitrary and unsupported in TROS is grounded in canon lore or in those expanded universe stories which have been relegated to non-canonical "Legends" status by Disney.

Do I think it's a good idea to make a finale to a film series that suddenly requires that you have familiarized yourself with previously unrelated books, comic and games to make any sense of it? No, I do not. It's completely ridiculous.

However, when I went back and watched it a second time, I really enjoyed it. It makes me want to read some of those comics. It made me feel that, rather than a pandering film that will do anything to be a crowd pleaser for general audiences, this is instead an intimate and geeky movie aimed at the hardcore Star Wars fanatic. I dig that. It pushed this film way up the list for me in my ranking of the saga chapters, and I'm looking forward to what comes next.

Unicorn Store (2017)

The First Half is Enjoyable

[3/10 · 1 May 2019]

The first half of this film is basically like if you took the uncomfortable "plastics" conversation from The Graduate, with all its accompanying coming-of-age angst and the overly concerned parents, etc. and spread it all out to an hour. All the way through the corporate marketing pitch, I was patient with the film and just enjoyed some of its more funny and endearing moments. It's not exactly high art, but it's pretty fun and serves up some surprises.

But then it suddenly turns on a dime and regresses into pure self-obsessed, infantilistic horribleness that reflects very badly on the creators. I found the last act embarrassingly bad, which was very disappointing.

It's free. See what you think.

Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018)

When Very Good Is Not Good Enough

[6/10 · 18 June 2018]

Solo: A Star Wars Story is a very good movie. Ron Howard did a very good job of delivering a competent and polished film from what was reportedly a production disaster. The kid whose name I can't remember did a very good job of playing a young Han Solo. The film did a very good job of making connections with the Star Wars universe and answering questions about origins.

Very good. Very ordinary. Which is heartbreaking.

Not all Star Wars films have been very good... parts of them have been downright embarassing, they have been uneven, and they have been infuriating. But they have never, EVER been ordinary. I read that Lucas already had this film in development when Disney bought the franchise. I don't know what he would have produced... I suspect it would have made everyone mad for different reasons, but it would not have been ordinary. The Phantom Menace SUCKED, but I went to see it three times, because it was not ordinary.

Two things had to be true about this film in order to justify its existence:

First, the actor who stepped into Harrison Ford's shoes had to be freaking amazing... a force of nature. When we first encountered Ford as Solo, he was radiating attitude. As soon as I saw him as a kid, I wanted to BE him, not that whiny Luke Skywalker. You liked him, but you didn't know if you could trust him. You liked him anyway. When he was winging it and taking chances, he really sold it. You really believed he was endangering himself and everyone else. He was a rebel and acted like he wanted to be left alone, but was still irrepressible. That's 100% Harrison Ford, not the script or the direction. If you can't duplicate that level of presence, just don't go there. I'm sure Lucasfilm knew that. I'm sure they thought they had a winner. But the actor was only very good, which is an insult to the legacy of Han Solo.

Second, the movie had to make you want more. More movies, more stories, more Han Solo. More Star Wars. This film made me want less. Less of this kind of Star Wars film, anyway.

Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi (2017)

Adult Crybabies Ruin Their Own Movie

[8/10 · 18 December 2017]

Let's start with some facts:

a) The original Star Wars films were playful, bubblegum films based on classic Hollywood tropes and Saturday serials. They were both melodramatic and deliberately silly, because they were made for children of all ages. They were not masterpieces of filmmaking (with the exception of the visual/sound effects, of course). If anything, they were masterpieces of adventure and entertainment. By the time Return of Jedi was released, Lucas's vision had started to unravel and the films had become ridiculous in certain respects.

b) The prequels were uneven at their best, having none of romantic charm of the original trilogy. Mind-numbingly bad characters, dialogue, and pacing plagued every episode and made common people wince. Horrible.

The Force Awakens was a simple reboot, if not a retread. But at least it was competent entertainment in most respects, with a couple of great new actors and characters introduced.

Which brings us over the course of 40+ years to The Last Jedi.

There is nothing more sad than to hear bearded men with college degrees and real jobs pissing and moaning about canon and expectations while completely missing the point. This is excellent, exhilerating entertainment and escapism, and by the end of it I was 12 years old again. I wanted to be Luke Skywalker. I wanted a real lightsaber. I wanted to branded as rebel scum.

The film has issues. The entire Finn/Rose subplot was a useless distraction, and chews up time that would have been better spent on central characters. But many of the glaring, maddening failures of Lucas as a filmmaker seem to be forgotten now. Now there is only contempt for Disney - and everything they do with the Star Wars universe.

My hope is that some aspects of the lore that seemed to be trivialized in this film will be better addressed later. And we have the new addition of the standalone films being released, to reframe and clarify.

We Need to Talk About Kevin (2011)

Willfully Frustrating Film

[7/10 · 25 November 2017]

This is not an easy film to watch, on any level. If, like me, you immediately begin arguing in your head with the director from the beginning, you will have to drag yourself through it. After about 30 minutes, I just had to roll with it, and it was ultimately rewarding.

One of the things I ended up appreciating about the film was its stubborn resistance to giving the audience anything they have come to expect in this type of story. There is no preaching, no messaging, no resolution... just the starkness of the account. That touches on my primary criticism of the film, which I will return to later.

A few great choices by the director that undermined any sentimentality or dog whistles to well-worn narratives and debates:

• The choice to make the dad useless. - The choice to make the setting a relatively wealthy family with apparently few temporal problems or concerns. - The choice to make the home large, impersonal and practically empty. - The choice to sidestep any political distractions of gun ownership. - The choice to portray the parents as highly imperfect or worse.

A few minor criticisms:

• John C. Reilly's character was truly one inch deep with canned lines. He had two functions in the film - to frustrate the mother and to placate the child. And that is exactly what he did. No more, no less.

• The mother's workplace was too cartoonish and so were her co- workers. It's a crummy place to work full of losers. We get it. No really, stop, STOP, we get it!

My primary criticism of the film, however, is that the director made the editing and the facade of the film a giant, unwelcome distraction. It's a gimmick. The story would have been MUCH more powerful had it been told quietly, but instead the entire film is almost dominated by (what I took as) nightmarish portrayals of the inner workings of the mother's mind. This is like the Marilyn Manson remix of what would otherwise be a very subversive and chilling film.

Justice League (2017)

Decent, but Disappointing

[6/10 · 20 November 2017]

I am one of the few who has enjoyed the quirky darkness of the DCEU films, flaws and all. Marvel's films are just about pitch perfect, and I love that, but I liked the fact that the DC films took risks and set out to do something different. So it was not welcome news to me that Suicide Squad reshoots were being done to make it more funny, or that Justice League was going to move in the direction of being more lighthearted.

The primary flaws with Justice League are as follows:

• The "lighthearted and funny" icing is applied scattershot across the whole film. As a result, they lost some of the distinctiveness of the characters. Let the dedicated comic relief characters like the Flash carry that aspect of the film. Batman should be dark, driven and frightening. This Batman was practically in Joel Schumacher territory compared to the excellent portrayal in Batman vs Superman.

• The villain is an action figure. Totally unconvincing, totally disposable.

• Because there has been no investment in solo films, only Superman has some genuine context and depth, and even that has been rushed. The guy has been alive, dead and alive again in three movies, only one of which was his own film.

• Why does Aquaman have such a cowboy attitude? Would Aquaman really throw an empty liquor bottle into the ocean? Why is Cyborg so upset about not being dead? Did he have, like, a promising future in football or something? Who knows? They just show up, and off they go.

• The ending is superhero movie paint-by-numbers. If I see another film where the superheroes have to fight through total chaos near a giant beam of energy going into the sky in order to save earth from an interdimensional/alien threat, I am going to lose my mind. They all look and feel and end exactly the same.

• The movie just feels very superficial and flat. Knowing that Affleck has yet to make a Batman film and they are already losing a grip on what made his character work is depressing. I can see why he wants out.

What worked:

• Superman, once they take 5 hyper-compressed minutes to straighten him out, is pretty awesome. Batman's contingency plan is fairly surprising. I expected Kryptonite weaponized something-or-other.

• Godot as Wonder Woman is still working well. Her fight scenes are not as impressive as in the solo film, but she makes it through Justice League with the gains of previous appearance intact. Her banter with Batman and how she responds late in the film are highlights that bring some genuine forward movement and depth to the character.

• The Flash is well-defined as a personality. He still suffers from minimal context and history, but it works for the purposes of the film.

• Given the production challenges, the movie holds together well and manages to get some traction.

In short, this is a barely adequate film by creators who have lost their confidence and are trying to mimic the successes of other franchises instead of continuing to blaze a new path. I'm pretty bummed about that.

The Glass Castle (2017)

Grotesque Story of Broken, Co-Dependent Adults with No Boundaries

[8/10 · 22 September 2017]

First, this film is apparently based on a true story, so it makes no sense to criticize the message. Life is messy. Please do not take my review as an appeal to make all films tidy and redemptive.

That said, not all true stories are worth committing to film and being held up as examples of family commitment and unconditional love. I found the "heart" of this film to be twisted and dark, and the message to be potentially harmful to people with truly abusive and heartbreaking family circumstances.

Woody Harrelson plays an abusive drunk who terrorizes and mercilessly deprives his own children. He also meticulously manipulates his co-dependent wife to enable his dysfunctions and remain cooperative with every sick development, including the sexual molestation of their son by his own grandmother. This is supposed to be "balanced" by the fact that he is a dreamer who is occasionally nice. Heck, he even coughed up some tuition money. Once. After stealing money from the same kid earlier. What a great dad.

As the kids mature and literally escape into independence as adults, the mentally deranged parents follow them all the way to New York City and continue to sabotage their happiness. When a family member attempts to draw boundaries in order to establish some sanity and peace, they all conspire to leverage one another back into the nightmare with guilt trips.

The central character, one of the daughters, actually manages to put together a relatively sane life (one in which she copes with her background by lying to others about it), but is repeatedly told by the father that she is not really happy and craves his brand of freedom and "adventure". "Down is up, left is right," says the sociopath.

The nice, happy part of the movie is when the dad finally dies, making it easier for the remaining family to gloss over and romanticize the brutal treatment they received as the children and wife of a lazy, booze-addled abuser.

I gave it an 8 out of 10 because it is well acted, convincing, and impeccably made. I just find it to be utterly aimless and warped as a work of storytelling, and it eludes me what people find charming or heartwarming about it.

The Resurrection of Gavin Stone (2017)

Surprisingly sincere, heartfelt and packs a punch.

[8/10 · 22 January 2017]

My favorite films are not Christian films. My top five list would have films like Magnolia and Heat. But this film packs a punch, and pretty unexpectedly. For about the first half of the film, I thought, "Not a lot is happening here. I like the actors, the characters are pretty interesting, there is some genuine chemistry between the leads, but overall this seems very, very understated and low key." Then before I knew it, the movie just sucked me in and had me bawling like a baby. As it turns out, the film had actually made me care about the characters by taking the time to let me walk with them just a little bit. How often in a movie do you find yourself asking, "Why should I care about these people?" This is a very quiet, simple movie that all of a sudden gets very deep and very moving, unexpectedly, and I personally loved it.

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)

Flawed Film But Wildly Entertaining

[7/10 · 3 April 2016]

First, I think this film was made far too early. A second Superman film should have been made focusing on the increasing apprehension and government scrutiny directed at him in the wake of the destruction caused by his battle with Zod. A first Batman film should have been made prior to this film, as well, and there's no reason that Batman's awareness of the danger and destruction presented by Superman couldn't have more slowly built up to this battle. Doomsday and the Death of Superman storyline should have been reserved for a Justice League film. There was simply too much packed into this movie too soon, and it left me wanting a solo Batman film WAY more than a Justice League film.

All of the actors were great except for the Social Network kid, who apparently thought he was playing the Joker instead of Luthor.

The venom directed at this film by fan boys who feel the DC movie universe is too dark is, in my opinion, off base. These films have to be engaging films, not simply lockstep reproductions of the comic books. Marvel has done a very good job of making very fun movies that reflect the colorfulness and tone of many of their comic books. If that's what I want (and I do), I can watch the Marvel films. It is entirely valid for DC to take a completely different approach and create a very dark alternate take that expands what these characters can be.

I loved Man of Steel and thought it was the most HUGE film I had ever seen. It was bigger than life. I personally like the seriousness and almost mythological/religious tone of Dawn of Justice. Why should DC be obligated to do the same thing Marvel does?

I just wish DC would slow down. They took some MAJOR stories from the comics that could have easily represented complete films by themselves, and really shortchanged them by hacking them down to plot points. Batman was ready to actually KILL Superman! That's a giant deal! Then 20 minutes later Superman gets killed anyway by someone else? Too much. WAY too much.

Have some patience, DC.

Assaulted: Civil Rights Under Fire (2013)

Obviously Pro-Gun, But Well Done

[7/10 · 26 February 2016]

For the person who opposes gun ownership on ideological or moral grounds, this film will be an hour of nails on a chalkboard. I felt it was fairly restrained in its assertions and presentation (Ted Nugent's appearance notwithstanding), far more so than Bowling for Columbine.

That the political importance of individual, private gun ownership was not even in question at the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights is easily demonstrable, and any unclarity about the meaning and intent of the Second Amendment can be swept away in short order by reading the writings of the very people who authored both it and the state laws that preceded it.

The Second Amendment provides a balance of power between the people and their government. A portion of our contemporary society may not recognize the practical value in that, but the Founders regarded the disarming of a population as a flatly hostile and despotic act:

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." – George Mason, co-author of the Second Amendment, Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 14, 1778

Assaulted: Civil Rights Under Fire addresses the debate primarily from a more modern vantage point, and for that reason I do not think it will prove to be very persuasive to contemporary anti-gun people.

Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015)

A Successful Recentering of the Series

[9/10 · 21 December 2015]

In my view, SW:TFA is precisely what Star Wars fans were hoping for back when the prequels came out. Unfortunately, George Lucas himself was the obstacle, as he apparently had little understanding of what made the films successful in the first place.

IMO, JJ Abrams understands and accomplishes two critical things simultaneously, and that is why this Episode is dead-on:

1) Abrams understands that the humor that made the original trilogy enjoyable was humor which played almost entirely off of the conflicting personality traits and interplay of clearly defined characters. He brings that back, rather than having a bunch of flat/serious characters surrounded by the clownish "comic relief" characters, cheap gags and slapstick that infested the prequels.

2) Abrams also understands that fans take these characters and their histories completely seriously, and brings depth and soaring melodrama back to the series. The film is a bit darker, a bit heavier, and a bit larger than the others in many ways, without losing the comedy and adventure components. This aspect alone suggests to me that the next film will be heart wrenching in the best possible way.

My only complaint is that the central plot is thoroughly derivative. Obviously that was a deliberate choice, and the film is strong enough that it works. But I do not ever want to see another Star Wars film in which shields need to be discretely disabled around a super weapon, after which pilots must target a minute weak spot to blow it up.

Frazetta: Painting with Fire (2003)

Fan Produced, With Too Little Objectivity

[7/10 · 24 August 2014]

Right up front, I'm a Frazetta fanatic and have been since childhood. I am among those who bought a few too many mediocre Conan paperbacks from Waldenbooks in the early 80s because I had to own the Frazetta covers. Since there is no other documentary on his life and work to choose from, I am extremely grateful for the existence of this film and for the efforts of those who made it.

The film features a lot of well-known fantasy and comic books artists, and various other industry insiders who have a great appreciation for Frazetta's work. They do a good job of explaining what makes his artwork remarkable and inspiring to a certain subculture of geeks and fans (and famous filmmakers), and why the quality of his work transcends the genre in which he attained fame and success.

There's also an undercurrent of defensiveness about the lack of critical acclaim directed toward Frazetta from anyone outside of the sci-fi/fantasy industry, but it is never really addressed. I think the film would have benefited greatly from some critical voices, and that may have provided a more substantive context in which to consider his work. Instead the film is a bit of a fanboy product, and as much as I agree, Frazetta's career deserves more serious consideration than that.

America: Imagine the World Without Her (2014)

Too Unfocused and Too Long

[5/10 · 16 July 2014]

First, this documentary is no more partisan or inaccurate than any of Michael Moore's films. The fact that liberal movie critics uniformly hated it to such an irrational degree is evidence of the fact that it drew at least as much blood from them as "Bowling for Columbine" did with conservatives.

Second, because D'Souza is apparently incapable of focus or restraint, his film will persuade no one.

Had D'Souza made a straightforward documentary providing balancing historical facts to the self-hating American history narrative that has become prevalent in recent decades, that would have been enough.

Instead, when the film already seems a little unfocused and padded with too many romanticized historical reenactments and should be ending, D'Souza starts over with what seems like a second documentary.

It isn't that the additional information is of no importance or interest, but that he essentially destroys any progress he might have made by tacking on a 30 minute Democrat-bashing free-for-all. Any liberal person who is open-minded enough to sit through the first portion is rewarded by being called a criminal, Communist idiot for an additional half an hour.

The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014)

Interesting, But Self-Indulgent

[3/10 · 19 April 2014]

Visually and conceptually, this film is a 10 out of 10. But where Anderson's films usually generate a great deal of empathy and affection for the characters, I felt very removed from this movie. It was funny and beautiful and clever on the surface of the screen, but I never felt involved in it.

That's fine, actually. I don't mind being challenged a bit. Directors make some films for audiences and some films for themselves. I get the impression that Wes Anderson made Grand Budapest for himself. It was not really for me, as much as I love most of his films, but I appear to be in the minority.

Jack Reacher (2012)

Good Atmosphere, Attitude, Action

[8/10 · 9 March 2013]

First, let me say that I am completely unacquainted with the Jack Reacher books, so I am strictly judging this film on its own merits. I found it to be a completely solid action film with great characters and a reasonably smart plot. Action films live or die by their own set of standards, and as long as they make you smile more often than they make you roll your eyes, it's a win. I'd call Jack Reacher an easy success on that scale. Aspects took me back to the days of Bullitt and the Dirty Harry movies, which seem to form this film's pedigree. Cruise's trademark intensity does give you occasional flashbacks to his YouTube testimonials for Scientology these days, but he's strong enough in the role to win you over.

Whatever Works (2009)

Ignorance on Parade

[2/10 · 9 March 2013]

First, a number of Woody Allen's films are among my very favorites, and I've enjoyed some of his most recent work.

But I have to be honest. Imagine Larry David pretending to be Woody Allen, interacting with a cast of characters from The Beverly Hillbillies. That's exactly what this film is. I'm completely serious.

Allen should be ashamed of this travesty, for many reasons. The dialogue was almost uniformly horrendous, with characters implausibly speaking things that should have been shown, like a Three's Company episode. Even Larry David's trademark crankiness, when infused with Allen's bleak, pseudo-intellectual perspective, grows old very quickly because it is presented repetitively, without wit or subtlety. Almost every single scene was a predictable string of clichés that we've seen far too many times already. Several times I knew exactly what was going to happen as soon as the set up was revealed.

Beyond that, the film is simply ignorant and mean. Staggeringly so. I get what Allen was going for, and he flatly failed. It was not funny. It was not engaging. It was not even challenging. Instead, his utter contempt for people outside of his own intellectually incestuous Manhattan sphere, and his complete and total misunderstanding of them, is an embarrassment. If you appreciate artless 90 minute lectures about how stupid, racist, immoral and gullible everyone in the world is, this is your film.

The Grey (2011)

Has Its Moments, But Severely Flawed

[6/10 · 8 March 2013]

The Grey attempts to be three films in one... a straight-up horror movie, an action/adventure movie, and a transcendent examination of faith and the human spirit. The three do not mesh particularly well, and the transitions are occasionally obvious and jarring. It's really a pretty lousy horror movie despite the strength of the setup, and a profoundly unsatisfying action/adventure movie despite the potential of the premise, but it is a genuinely moving film about the value of faith and of endurance. I really wish that the director had thrown marketability and formula out the window and dedicated all his resources to the human interest aspects. When the film is firing on all cylinders in that regard, it's a truly fantastic parable. As it is, I'm sure most people just threw their hands up at the abrupt ending and told their friends that "nothing happened". The film probably would not have benefited much from stronger casting, even though most of the talent can't keep pace with Neeson.