Change Your Image
jeppeaandreasen
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
The Ripper (2020)
Unfocused truecrime - with ideological agenda clumsily tagged on
The series starts off with an interview with one of Sutcliffe's victims son. And it seems the series might try to tell a touching story about the Rippers victims, the people left behind and the Yorkshire area in the 70s and 80s.
All of this is quickly abandoned to focus on the inept policework during the Rippers 5 year reign.
But beyond the unsubstantiated claim, that the investigation failed because it was run be men, the series never explore this aspect of the story either.
What is left then is the Ripper himself, Peter William Sutcliffe. Perhaps we will gain some insight into the man behind the Ripper.
Surprisingly that is not the case either - shockingly the creators manages to come up with a even more baffling explanation for the Rippers horrible attackes, than Sutcliffe's own ramblings about talking headstones and a divine mission back, in the 80s when he tried to escape justice, by serving his time in a psychiatric facility instead of jail.
And so, the only emotional response this 3 hour aimless mess got out of me, was a light chuckle as one of the series talking heads gives her 'in depth analysis' of the killers motivations.
She concludes, that the Sutcliffe's motivation for brutally attacking and killing 13 women - is that it makes him feel like a man. Which apparently has to do with his farther sometimes being violent towards his mother.
This sloppy analysis seems to have been reached without conferring with any health professionals, familymembers or people who know or have interviewed Sutcliffe.
What then, could be the motivation for retelling a 40 year old tragedy ? As most reviewers already pointed out, it seems to be very politically motivated. A bit of neo-liberalism goes down a lot easier when mixed in with a bit of truecrime. What makes this documentary especially insulating to its audience, is that it barely even tries to explain the relation. And what we end up with is a disjointed experience existing of below par truecrime interrupted by the odd preachy ideology segment.
In conclusion, the best parts of this documentary felt unfocused and the worst parts felt like the filmmakers exploited a series of tragic murders to peddle their ideological views.
Da 5 Bloods (2020)
Awkward issues arises when simple Spike Lees simple brand of storytelling is used on a global stage
This is an opinion piece, I realise that some movies and opinions accompanying these - are often judged in the context of American identity politics. As I am uninterested in these matters, i will try to judge this movie on its merits and only refer to political issues when they are included in the movie itself.
Those of you familiar with Spike Lee will know exactly to expect - subtlety, depth and nuance is not part of Lees storytelling arsenal.
Instead he opts for a very simple and effective emotional way of telling his stories. His protagonist are, for the most part, poor oppressed victims while his antagonist are one-dimensional bigoted ignoramuses.
Lees movies aims to tell you what to feel and when to feel, by pitting 2 visually very diffrent groups against each other. Like Camerons Avatar (2009) or most of the formulaic 90s sports movies, the audience are never trusted to do any interpretation on their own and the bad guys are never given any motivation, beyond being evil for the sake of being evil.
I was very excited when I heard that Spike Lee was to make a film set in Vietnam, following a group of American vets and that the film was to be presented to an international audience on a global streaming service.
Would this well established director have a diffrent approach when telling a story set on an international stage presented to an international audience. Or would he stick to his simple brand og good vs bad story-telling. Train-wreck or masterpiece I was in for a uniquely entertaining experience - or so i hoped.
I was excited to see :
1) If Lee would depict an occupation force, who executed, raped and burned the population alive - as the good guys. A tough sell regardless of the pigmentation of your main characters.
2) Would the countless factions involved in the conflict be depicted with any nuance. A tough task for a filmmaker who usually equates physical features with motivation and character traits.
3) Who will the antagonists be - and will they have any motivation beyond loving money and hating the disenfranchised.
4) Would Lee be able to keep his on the nose comments on the current political landscape in America distract on a level where they weren't distracting.
A great scene involving one of the main characters (Paul, brilliantly played by Delroy Lindo) is confronted by a local man and his agressive sales tactic in one of Vietnams floating markets.
As the salesman gets more intrusive, Pauls demeanour changes to the point where gets up and screams a derogatory term used during the war, at the salesman.
The salesman recognise the term and recognise Paul as a G.I. The scene explodes when pinned up rage is released, the scene is incredible well acted, well constructed and thoroughly informed by the characters and the war they are both haunted by.
For the rest of the movie most Vietnamese are depicted as a faceless mob for our protagonists to mow down in a glorious Michael Bay-like glowing CGI-blood carnage.
Later on we are told how that Pauls rage and frustration is caused, not by the atrocities done to the Vietnamese, but by him accidentally shooting a squad-mate during the war. The guilt of this is he's motivation for returning to Vietnam, he seemingly want his fallen friend to have a proper burial back in America.
This motivation changes suddenly and without any explanation. And his motivation aligns with the rest of the main characters. Go back to Vietnam to retrieve a cache of gold for themselves, gold ment to pay the wages of their allied Vietnamese soldiers.
Beyond the faceless Vietnamese mowed down in flashbacks to the wa -r and at the movies climax. The main antagonist is a double-crossing, moustache twirling, Luger-carrying cartoon villain.
Finally a bit about Spike Lees political stuff. As I have no horse in the race, when it comes to American identity politics, I would normally refrain from commenting on this.
But as this is a Spike Lee movie, I find it impossible to review the movie without mentioning it.
To be clear, i much prefer the transparency of Lee´s on the nose commentary to the way soulless marketingteams, try to sell horrible lazy remakes by slapping on some trivial social justice message, after the fact.
But some of the things introduced here is a little jarring. Lee introduces a MAGA-hat early in the movie, anyone wearing the hat is brutally gunned down in a sea of red glowing CGI-blood.
There seems to be no consistant traits or ideology between the men wearing the hat.
The movies big cathartic moment is meant to be when our surviving protagonists smuggels the money out of Vietnam, and make a huge donation to the organisation Black Lives Matter. And what might to be a fictional french-owned minesweeper NGO.
The sequence concludes with a videoclip of Dr. Martin Luther King, and a crawl with information on his murder.
Some people might think that equating Dr. Kings peaceful movement with the BLM organisations activities is poor taste.
My conclusion is this, Spike Lees brand of simple moviemaking does not translate well to more nuanced settings and stories. One or to characters get enough screentime to be interesting - as a result of their strong acting-performances not the writing.
Most of the characters very hard to care about, as they are one-dimensional and have seemingly no motivation for their actions, beyond money.
A few interesting ideas are introduced, but are quickly abandoned.
Introducing a reallife organisation and suggesting that stealing money to fund their activities, feels problematic. Equating BLM with the peaceful work of Dr. Martin Luther King, feels like a misrepresentation of his movement.
Spike Lee still have an original voice, that alone makes this movie more entertaining than most of the sequels, prequels, soft reboots, genderswap reboots and generally bland entertainment released by Hollywood these years.
Strong performances elevate the material. But with its myriad of issues I fear this title will be forgotten as soon as Netflix remove the title from their slider.
Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich (2020)
A missed opportunity
I was excited when Netflix announced this long format exploration of one of the most far-reaching and depraved criminal-cases in modern time. A case that epitomises modern the power created by massive wealth and nepotism.
With a total running time of almost 4 hours spread over 4 episodes - I was looking forward to a deep dive into Epstein´s character, the host of politicians, judges and celebrities implemented in Epstein´s sex trafficking.
After the first episode, the format gets very repetitive. And by the end of the 4th episode we are no closer to understand who Epstein was, any information on his accomplices, what happened to 20 years of blackmail-material.
In fact, with the exception of a fairly tame interview with Alan Dershowitz and a short retread of Newsnights 2019 Prins Andrew programme - the major players of this huge international trafficking scandal are barely mentioned.
I will give Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich, 4 stars for the brave victims and their stories. But if you were looking forward to a new perspective, new information or any assurance that the guilty people will be prosecuted, this series is not for you.
The Witcher (2019)
Low expectations met in this Netflix-version of original slavic fantasy
A clear lack of understanding and passion for the source material shine through, in generic and forgettable take on the Witcher.
The gritty, realistic and cold universe of the books and games, is replaced by a bland and forgettable americanized version.
A version that any fan would be hard pressed to recognize if it wasn't for the inclusion of the games version of Geralt, played by Henry Cavill.
Cavill's performance is great and feels like a window to a version of what this show could have been in the hands of someone with a relationship with the source material.
The efforts of his cast-mates ranges from uninspired to the immersion-breaking.
The shows first season have more than twice the budget of History Channel's first season of Vikings - but looks cheaper. An over-reliance on CGI amplify the cheap feel.
Adding to the near impossible taks of immersion is the Netflix'ification of the cast. Everyone from main characters to extras have been given a racial overhaul.
The original Witcher univers is realistic depiction of european life in the middle ages. The dread and danger of life in the middle ages enhanced by fantasy elements.
Every monster, creature and political action is an integral part of the universe and a deep detailed lore sells the univers. Which makes this a very awkward IP to race-swap in.
Unfortunately thats the approach Netflix have chosen, and it is done without any explanation or additional lore in-universe. Further removing this version from the attention to detail, meticulous universe-building and storytelling of the source material.
2 stars for Cavill's Geralt, and a glimpse of what could have been.
Watchmen (2019)
A new contender for worst Moore adaptation
A mess of unfocused storytelling, uninteresting mysteries for the sake of mysteries - and a total lack of character motivations and development, made up the most disappointing season of television i have watched in a long time.
Anyone hoping for a taste of Moore's unique blend of Ditko, Eisner and Lovecraft, (Or compelling storytelling of any kind) stay far away from this one.
Watch out 2003s 'The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen' there is a new contender for worst Moore adaptation, in town.
Ford v Ferrari (2019)
Talladega v Ferrari
The movie follows the 90s sportsmovie structure to a tee.
It's been a week since i saw the movie and I am already starting to confuse scenes in from the movie with scenes from 2006s 'Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby', in my head.
Josh Lucas hamming it up as the movies corny antagonist - helps to blur the lines further.
The movie sounds great and looks beautiful - but if you are looking for anything beyond that, this one might not be for you.