Billygoat's Reviews

Honor Amongst Men (2018)

1/10

29 December 2022

Looks like the product of a group of children who grabbed a camera and said "Let's make a movie!". Stilted clichéd dialogue, no sense of place (are they in Miami? California? New York? WTF knows); no discernible plot structure (almost like a David Lynch movie but without the cool weirdness); a soundtrack that appears to be an amateurish attempt to copy that of a John Carpenter movie; and terrible acting.

I came across this movie while searching for motorcycle films, and was predisposed to liking it. I also liked Chuck Zito in Oz (where he was a minor character but nevertheless a noticeable presence) as well as in Sons of Anarchy where he appeared in one season- (probably appearing more for the fact that he's a known member of the Hell's Angels than for his acting ability) . Given that he's not a real actor, giving him a lead role was a big mistake.

So bad I couldn't watch more than 30 minutes of this.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Broadchurch (2013–2017)

3/10

Fizzles out in Season II

1 March 2016

Warning: Spoilers

I won't reiterate what many others have praised about Season 1. Great acting, good cinematography, good direction, great sense of atmosphere. I enjoyed Season 1...except for a sense afterwards that I had been swindled. -SPOILER ALERT - That sense comes from the fact that the mystery is solved NOT by the detectives, but by the murderer giving himself up - practically out of frustration at not having been caught yet. All that intensity with the two main investigators, and aside from coming up with gossip and small town melodrama (who's cheating with who?), no results from their efforts.

Nevertheless...the positive aspects were enough for me to be mostly satisfied with Season 1.

I entered Season 2 looking forward to more. I WANTED to like this. And indeed, the great acting continues, as does the cinematography, etc. Tension is built right from the start of the first episode. Unfortunately, the show sabotages itself with so many things that would never occur in reality, that the suspension of disbelief became impossible for me.

-SPOILER ALERT - We have: -A retired Crown attorney who apparently can choose to come out of retirement and take a case whenever she feels like it. She also gets to choose which case she takes. Must be nice.

-Witnesses present in the courtroom listening to the testimony of other witnesses ( a HUGE no-no).

-Experienced police investigators completely taken by surprise that the beating of a suspect by them would be brought up by defence counsel - even after the Crown had told them it would be an issue (as if they needed the Crown to tell them that).

-The lead investigator having a temper tantrum about "this is why the system is screwed up" when the most obvious questions are asked by defence - acting like a total rookie. The system may be screwed up, but 1) not because of the obvious defence questions, and 2) a seasoned officer would have realized the system was screwed within the first several years on the job.

-The complete lack of preparation of the witnesses by the super experienced Crown prosecutor.

-A judge excluding a confession because of a beating when the assault occurred AFTER the confession.

-The detective running his own secret witness protection program.

-The detective working his case by wandering fields in moments of solitary angst.

-A uniformed patrol officer forcing a homicide investigator with rank to apologize to someone who had filed a complaint against said investigator.

Obviously, nobody expects absolute realism in a drama - but some acknowledgement of how things actually work, some nod to real procedures, are not too much to ask for. The Wire excelled at this, even if it wasn't 100% accurate. By the time we get to the third episode of the Second Season of Broadchurch, we may as well have had pigs with wings flying around in the background and melting watches dripping off of tree branches. I couldn't go on with the show.

Such a shame...so much potential, all thrown away by a script so divorced from reality that it may as well have been written by a kid in elementary school.

78 out of 121 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The White Ribbon (2009)

1/10

A journey of tedium

8 October 2010

Warning: Spoilers

"The White Ribbon" certainly has some good qualities: good production values; great acting; excellent photography; great set pieces & costumes - the film certainly succeeds at evoking a sense of time and place that seems so real and yet so foreign to the modern 21st century audience.

However, these qualities are not enough to save this film from the torturous journey of tedium and humourlessness that it takes the viewer on. It really doesn't matter what the subject of a film is - to succeed, it (almost) always needs one thing at least: a story. You know, things like a beginning, a middle and an ending would be sort of nice. The White Ribbon is lacking in this. This is a collection of vignettes - the pace and editing style is similar to a Jim Jarmusch film (along with the black & white imagery, which Jarmusch tends to use). Unfortunately, it has none of the wit and humour of a Jarmusch film.

In "The White Ribbon" these vignettes take us nowhere. There is no explanation of what is going on in the village. We know something is - different individuals get hurt, assaulted, tortured - but we never learn why or by whom - or for what purpose. This is all intentional, of course - the film maker suggests different possibilities, but also throws at us reasons at is as to why it isn't the very person(s) we might have suspected. (For example, the schoolteacher makes a good case for suspecting the pastor's children - but then we recall that they were sleeping when the fire was set. Was the fire unconnected to everything else that was going on? Could be - who the hell knows though, it's all deliberately ambiguous.) Now, a sense of ambiguity can be effective at times. It can force the audience to think and come to a conclusion of sorts (hopefully one that the film maker had in mind). But when it's so pervasive that you're left with absolutely no idea with what the hell is going on, well, it's just unsatisfying. That this film is deliberately ambiguous is clear. A quick perusal of the topics on this discussion board illustrate that very well, as different people offer their theories on what it all means, and even on who did what. But this film goes too far - one has sat through over two hours of dark, oppressive scenes of psycho-sexual repression with absolutely no payoff. It's not enough to throw out the glib "it explains how Germany embraced fascism". That's too facile, and in any case, who cares - I want a good story, and there is none here.

33 out of 85 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Martyrs (2008)

1/10

Now I'm a martyr.

23 August 2010

For a film that starts out with some real promise, this film sure lets you down in a way you never saw coming.

The first half of the film is intriguing enough. It's outside a clearly defined genre...beginning with an almost documentary like feel as we are shown a short film taken by hospital staff of the location that a young girl (Lucy) had been tortured in. The girl had escaped her tormentors and ended up at the hospital. She is clearly traumatized.

Then there are elements of Japanese horror films as Lucy sees and hears things at night while recovering in a clinic / orphanage of some kind.

15 years later and we are in shotgun revenge mode a la Sam Peckinpah as the girl, now grown, believes to have found the people who tortured her. Even here the film is outside normal genre classification because we, the audience, are not sure whether the people she's found really are her former captors. Is she a righteous angel of vengeance, or a violent and deranged lunatic? Even her best friend Anna doesn't know for sure.

The violence here is already astounding and horrifying - and I say this as an adult male in my 40's who has no problem with violence in films. Or so I thought. It's hard to watch people being cut or cutting themselves and it's put on display here in a very realistic way that really makes one cringe.

OK, I sit through this thinking there's got to be a pay off. There isn't. And just when you think things couldn't get worse, it does. And for no discernible reason. That's what helps make it so hard to watch, particularly the last third of the film which involves a young woman being repeatedly tortured over an extended period of time. It's the fact that we don't have any reason for it. And not only are the repeated beatings senseless, but frankly, it gets tedious. I was on the verge of hitting the stop button, but forced myself to keep watching hoping for a payoff at the end.

Again, I don't have a problem with violence in and of itself. I loved Takashi Miike's horror classic "Audition", finding the final torture scene to be brutally shocking - but in a way that worked and made his film a horror classic.

"Martyrs" doesn't achieve that shock horror at all. It's violence becomes a dark hole of tedium, and with absolutely no morally redeeming qualities whatsoever. At the very end of the film we are given an explanation for the bad guys' behaviour. Whether the explanation is one that you can accept even within the context of this film is entirely up to the viewer. I found it to be a silly cop out, a complete let down replete with pretension. At least "Hostel" makes no pretense to be anything other than what it is - juvenile "torture porn" horror. I felt completely ripped off by "Martyrs", which pretended for so long to be something better - but wasn't.

4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Woodsman (2004)

7/10

Gutsy with some flaws

13 October 2005

The most striking thing about this 2004 film is the subject matter. Kevin Bacon plays a pedophile convict out on parole. Not a likely protagonist for an American film. In fact, the subject matter is so controversial that the film demands to be critiqued on two levels: the film's cinematic qualities (plot, character development, acting, photography, etc.); and the subject itself.

As a film, this is a fairly decent piece of work - especially as a first feature film for director Nicole Kassell. This is probably Kevin Bacon's finest work. Playing the lead role of Walter, he certainly projects the appearance of broken goods. He looks like what one would imagine a pedophile to look like, if there is such an archetype. Thin, weathered but still something boyish in his face. He exudes inner conflict; a person struggling with his demons.

Some of the other characters are well cast: Eve is quite believable as the nosy secretary. Kyra Sedgwick is excellent as the woman who befriends Walter - herself a woman who is also clearly 'damaged goods'.

Others are not so well cast: Mos Def as a rumpled police detective who's seen it all is really stretching my credulity. He's just too young for that role.

The film is well directed, shot and edited. There's never a dull moment - it's watchable from start to finish.

But here we get to the second level of assessment: the subject matter. There's no doubt that the thing that grabs our attention the most is the fact that the film is about such a taboo subject: pedophilia. It's the grotesque nature of the subject that we just can't take our eyes off of...much like watching a tarantula crawl around in an aquarium. There's no doubt that it took some balls for the film makers to do this - particularly Kevin Bacon, who's the biggest name attached to this project. In fact he not only stars in it, he helped to finance it.

But that doesn't necessarily make it a good thing. While this film doesn't hold back in showing Walter continue to struggle with his urges, it does finish with the notion that he will succeed in being rehabilitated. My only problem with this is that as far as I understand, pedophilia is incurable. I'd hate to see this film create the false impression that with a bit of understanding and lots of support, most pedophiles won't re-offend. That would certainly be a false notion to spread. Of course, such interpretations depend mostly on the viewer. It's just that your average mindless TV watcher may well think that that's the message.

It must be said that on it's face, this is an interesting film. It does have some moments that are particularly disturbing, especially for those viewers who are parents of small children. Overall, a gutsy if somewhat flawed film that won't be viewed by most people. And that may be a good thing.

1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Cento giorni a Palermo (1984)

7/10

Anti-Hollywood thriller

24 July 2005

This film is interesting for several reasons.

Firstly, it's a decent political thriller. It has none of the flash nor special effects of today's summer blockbusters that are churned out by Hollywood's factories (such as the silly Will Smith "Bad Boys" flicks). No slow motion shots of the hero calmly walking towards the camera while stuff explodes real good behind him. What "Cent jours a Palerme" (French title) has is heart - a gritty, almost documentary feel that makes the violence in the film seem more "real" in a way than anything we've seen in the past several years.

It also features Lino Ventura, one of the greatest actors from the 70's and 80's. Ventura was known for the hardboiled characters he used to play - usually police detectives. (He was a real life tough guy - started out as a wrestler.) The man always has a hard cold look in his eyes that hints at times of a fury hidden within; and other times great sadness. ("Garde a vue" is certainly one of his masterpieces.) In 100 Days in Palermo he plays a retired head of the Italian Federal Police who is sent to Sicily as a Prefect (a political appointed job with power to direct police investigations), for the purpose of taking on the Mafia - following a series of assassinations of judges and prosecutors. He's a man of great integrity and drive, which makes him likable. But he also suffers from some serious flaws, some of which I found maddening. But that also makes him a real person, which added to my appreciation of the character.

Finally, this is one of the last great "anti-Hollywood" flicks with a "realistic" ending. No idiotic happy completion where the good guys win and the bad guys are blown away. In this sense, the film is very much a work from the 70's (even though it was made in the early 80's). Can you imagine a big studio production made nowadays with an ending like the ones in "The Deer Hunter" or "Apocalypse Now"? Not a chance. And this is not to say that this film in any way reaches the heights of the two aforementioned masterpieces - it certainly does not - but I'm simply making a point.

It's not the absolute best of its genre, but nevertheless is well worth viewing, especially if you enjoy the European style political paranoia and pessimism of the 70's.

21 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Jesse Stone: Stone Cold (2005 TV Movie)

8/10

Sellick becomes an actor

9 July 2005

Stone Cold is fun to watch not so much for the story as it is for the performances of the ensemble cast. Everyone is good in this. Mimi Rogers was definitely a lot of fun as the older seductress. But most surprising for me is Tom Sellick's transformation into a real actor.

In the 80's he was always Sellick being Sellick - much like Tom Cruise is always Tom Cruise pretending to be a vampire, a fighter pilot, etc. I first saw Sellick's transformation in "Ike" (or was it "Eisenhower"?). Gone was the high pitched tones at the end of his lines so typical and annoying in Magnum PI and his films from the 80's. In Ike and in Stone Cold it's as if you're watching a different person.

(Coincidentally, Tom Cruise's work in War of the Worlds also struck me as a breakthrough - something about his performance was more polished and less of the hysterical Cruise mannerisms that irritated me in all of his other movies.) I used to avoid Tom Sellick flicks, but after his last couple of performances, including the brooding old school cop in Stone Cold, I'm actually looking forward to seeing more of him.

27 out of 48 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

A Better Tomorrow II (1987)

2/10

Disappointing

23 September 2004

Being a big fan of John Woo's kinetically charged Hong Kong action films, including the first "A Better Tomorrow", this one came as a huge disappointment. In fact, I could barely watch it.

I won't mention Woo's American films, because those are really studio controlled productions and not what I would consider 'true Woo'. (No, I don't like them at all.)

But his Hong Kong films really were the works of the auteur. One had a sense that a significant amount of forethought went into planning many of the shots and fantastic action sequences. There was always a sense, after viewing movies such as "The Killer", "Hardboiled", "Bullet in the Head", etc. that one had just seen an original and creative take on a not so original genre. The slow motion shooting (a touch of Peckinpah) mixed in with fast and furious movement and close quarter gun battles was both stylish and exhilarating in these works.

"A Better Tomorrow II" may be at best adequate for a run of the mill Hong Kong action flick. For a film with John Woo's name on it, it's a big letdown. The action scenes seem rushed and are simply uninspired. The shootout in Ken's New York hotel was generic and boring. Chow Yun Fat's backslide down the stairs while shooting at a bad guy seemed like a bad photocopy of vintage Woo. Maybe it was the bad lighting, I don't know...it just didn't seem to work.

And while these films always indulge in overblown melodrama, often with humour, some of the scenes in ABT II were just painful to watch. Uncle Lung's breakdown in New York City was so overblown and ridiculous that one had the sense of watching a high school play.

What makes this film even more frustrating is that there were small moments of true acting, indicating an unrealized potential. When Uncle Lung (Dean Shek) is at his daughter's grave, he looks up at his friends and for a couple of seconds his face reveals a true, unspoken sadness. It was a flash of brilliance in an otherwise plethora of forgettable performances.

Another big problem with this production is a series of unexplained events and situations. One of the most obvious occurs after Kit has been shot by his big brother. We see his wife and brother at the hospital. A doctor comes out to talk to them. We don't hear what is said, but we see Kit's wife and brother break down and cry. One assumes that Kit has died. But later, without any explanation whatsoever, Kit appears ready for action.

Another oddity is Kit's wife suddenly going into labour at the hospital, without any previous indication whatsoever that she was ever pregnant in the first place.

All of these factors result in a poor work from someone who normally creates masterpieces (USA productions excepted). One has the sense that he allowed the studio to rush him, and as a result, we get this piece of wet cardboard.

This film is only for true WOO fanatics who simply "must" see all of his films.

5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Leader, His Driver, and the Driver's Wife (1991)

10/10

Hilarious documentary on idiots

4 July 2004

I saw this film about 10 years ago, in a theatre in Toronto. As I recall, it was hilarious. Broomfield goes about interviewing Eugene Terreblanche, leader of a white supremacist movement that existed in South Africa just before the end of apartheid. He also interviews various individuals who make up Terreblanche's entourage. We see "the leader's" hatred and racial nationalism exposed in the raw. Unfortunately, as I recall, Broomfield doesn't go as far as he could of in explaining Terreblanche's fears (some of which may have manifested themselves through the post-apartheid's soaring crime rates since the film was made). He's having too much fun making fun of the guy - or rather, letting the man and his friends embarrass themselves each time they open their mouths.

One scene that sticks in my head is of two supremacists trying to tell a racist joke making fun of blacks. They're so stupid that the joke doesn't work at all - instead I was doubled over laughing at them.

Over all, a very entertaining 'expose' of a fool and his friends - though perhaps missing some substance in terms of context. Then again, it's been 10 years.... I wonder what Terreblanche is up to these days?

22 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

EvenHand (2002)

9/10

Best cop movie in the past few years

1 April 2004

This is a slow paced but enjoyable little indie film. It's sort of like watching an episode of "Cops", but you get to see what the officers really talk about between calls.

Having been a police officer for the past eight years, I must also compliment the film makers and screenwriter for a portrayal of uniformed officers that is as realistic as anything I've seen on film. It is clear to me that the screenwriter, and I'm sure the actors, spent some time researching police officers. The small talk between partners ("You don't like women because of their personality, do you?") was both funny and bang on - I'm sure I had the same conversation myself.

There were some flaws that stuck out for me - officer Morning carries both an expandable baton and a straight stick; he brings his mag-light out of the car and puts it on his belt in broad daylight; and he wears his uniform when he goes out drinking at a bar.

Nevertheless, the feel was right. The same calls, the same idiots they have to deal with, the same monotony day and night punctuated by a few moments of adrenaline and danger.

I also found the acting to be good, especially Bill Sage as Officer Morning. He reminded me of a friend of mine I used to partner with.

The soundtrack was also very engaging and appropriate, giving a very bluesy feel like something from Ry Cooder.

Not a perfect film, but definitely the best cop film in the past several years. If you like the police stories on Third Watch, you'll like this.

7 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Buffalo Soldiers (2001)

Entertaining nihilism

11 February 2004

This was well acted and entertaining without any dull or unecessary moments.

While some of the events certainly seemed incredulous (two U.S. Army trucks full of high tech weapons without any armed escort?), overall I have to say that it was not overly ludicrous.

In fact, I know that during the '91 Gulf War, some American soldiers were caught stealing items from their dead fellow U.S. soldiers.

Anyone read "King Rat"? I'm sure that they made a film of it as well...this kind of stuff does happen in the army.

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

American Pimp (1999)

Confirms that pimps are scumbags

21 December 2003

First of all, this documentary is well edited, well photographed, and features a kick-ass soundtrack. The subject in itself is interesting, at least from a sociological and psychological perspective.

Having said that, I agree with a previous review that stated that it was boring. There's only so much "You know what I'm sayin', b*tch" that I can take before I start to yawn.

What they should have done is interview more than just the pimps. They should have interviewed social workers, street workers, police officers, doctors, etc. Then we would have had a greater and more meaningful perspective on the world of pimps and hookers.

I realize that the Hughes bros. wanted to focus only on the pimps themselves, but after 10 minutes, we already know that these are uneducated, manipulative egocentric slimeballs with a maximum vocabulary of maybe 10 words. These are not deep thinkers with lots of interesting observations to make. At the start of the film, we see a one minute vignette of different white people giving their stereotypical view of what pimps are. This film proves them right.

4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Southern Comfort (1981)

9/10

Good guy flick

7 September 2003

I saw it years ago, but as I recall it was a good action flick. Powers Booth was really good in this one as the brooding 'hero'. The photography was excellent, and I liked the imagery of the Louisiana swamps. Cool Ry Cooder soundtrack. I notice that a lot of criticism here complains that guardsmen couldn't be as stupid as they are in the movie. I don't know...I spent 4 years in the reserves, and there were all kinds of people in it. But damn, you could end up with a group of real dummies.

Anyway, I enjoy these 'surviving against the odds in a harsh environment' type flicks. If you liked this one, I would suggest you see a 1980 French movie called Charlie Bravo, about a group of paratroopers in the jungles of Indochina. They get killed one by one....

2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Billygoat

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed