Change Your Image
marco-grix
Reviews
Cats (2019)
The original musical is already atrocious enough, but this is sooo much worse
As a viewer, you have a MORAL duty to never pay a cent for this crime against humanity. Watch free YouTube reviews of this abomination -- watch every last one of them, many are quite hilarious. But don't ever watch the movie itself, not even for free. Yes, it's really THAT offensive.
How anyone in the world thought this hideousness was worth putting investment money into, I'll never comprehend. I hope that empires toppled over such moronic decision-making.
Tom Hooper, James Corden, and Rebel Wilson -- I hope you'll wear the shame of this monstrosity around your necks until the day you die. You are the literal worst!
I'd give it 0/10 if I could.
Schmigadoon! (2021)
Painful in every way
I don't know how anyone can a) watch this show and b) give it a high rating. I really, really don't. How does anyone even make it through the first two episodes without ripping out their ears and eyes? This is one of most cringy and painful things I've ever had the misfortune to play on my device. The story, dear gawd. Just about high-school love drama level, at best. The style, dear gawd. The singing wants me to stab a poker through my eardrums, and it virtually never stops. And the colour palette is what you'd expect from a Barbie store. But then, maybe that's the target audience: pre-teen girls. I really cannot see how anyone else could possibly watch this cringe fest.
Day Shift (2022)
What a turd
Wow, another fine feather in the cap of Jamie Foxx. Is that what he does now? Is this all he can get these days? A total stinker. Full to the rim with badly delivered exposition. Have these idiots heard of "show, don't tell"? The acting: terrible. The costumes and make-up: laughable. The effects: meh. The plot: insulting. The film looks ok at first sight. But twenty minutes in, you know you've made a mistake. I had to skip through numerous sections -- coz it was either that or ram my head into the screen in frustration. This is the kind of movie the army must have used to torture POWs in Abu Ghraib. Do yourself the favour and watch something else. I wish I had!
Love, Death & Robots: Pop Squad (2021)
"1984"...
... is the book of which this fine episode reminds me. One of the very best in this show. If you watch only one film from this series, let this be the one.
Peacemaker (2022)
John Cena...
... has developed some real acting skill, or maybe he had it all along. Is such a joy to see him on screen as goofy Peacemaker. Cluelessness, sarcasm, exasperation, sadness,... -- he brings them across really well, and I'm sure he'll only get better. Everyone else in the cast is very enjoyable too, of course (I'm just especially impressed with JC as he had no formal acting training). Six episodes in, the characters are becoming very relatable, people you actually care for (or at least about). Dunno how outlandish the story will turn out to be, but who cares. Would absolutely recommend :)
Downhill (2020)
Why would Hollywood remake a perfectly fine film? Why?
This film already exist, and it's excellent. Simply look for "Force Majeure (2014)" or "Turist (2014)" -- same film but different title in different countires. It places people in a somewhat unexpected, yet perfectly realistic, situation and shows how their lives gradually implode in the aftermath. It shines a light on ordinary human weaknesses, and how pathetic many of us really are. It forces the viewer to reflect upon their own strengths and weakness: what woud YOU have done? And it does it really well. Why whould anyone see the need to remake this? And with as terrible an actor as Will Ferrell, of all people? Is Hollywood really so desperate, having no original ideas of their own anymore? That's just ridiculous. I'd encourage each and every potential viewer to avoid this pitiful copy and watch the original instead. Boycott is the only way to force Hollywood to stop with this nonsense. No more recycling! Grow a pair and take some chances, make new things!
The Rookie (2018)
Not much there, I'm afraid -- UPDATE: Getting way better
I love Nathan Fillion. Firefly is simply awesome, Castle was pretty enjoyable too. But The Rookie is a disappointment. Three episodes into the first season, I see no depth -- about anything. The police cases are universally shallow, not one of them had any intrigue or surprise. The larger narrative arc (middle-aged man joins police force) simply follows preconceptions and stereotypes. The personal relationships have not added to quality story-telling either. Much of it feels action-crammed and rushed. As of today (14 Nov 2018), the show has a rating of 8.0 -- which either vastly overvalues what I have seen or represents highly optimistic hopes for future potential. At this stage, the show is boring and meh. Someone as talented as Nathan deserves far better material, and so does the audience. Rating it 6/10 is pushing it.
UPDATE 12/2018: Took a while, but as of episode 7 the quality improved considerably. No more shallow rookie hazing, finally some character depth. People you can and want to relate to. But episode 8 really got it rolling. Interesting perspective on what the job does to you, nicely done. I hope the writers keep giving the cast that kind of material, they must love the opportunity to apply their skills and talent. If this quality is permanent, it's a winner. Upping my rating to 8/10.
Cake (2014)
An exploration of pains
Like many others who have commented on this piece before, I was never a fan of Rachel, and that dislike naturally affected my perception and judgment of -- as well as expectations toward -- Aniston and her work. The portrayal of Claire caused some massive adjustments, which makes me really joyous. Aniston's character in Cake is interesting and convincing in so many ways, and it gives food for thought in so many aspects -- it makes you wonder what alternative path(s) as an actress she might have taken in the absence of Friends. But never mind all that. Here's hoping (and now also very much expecting -- yeah, revealing one's talent can be a real curse) that we'll get a lot more of THAT actress in the future.
The development of Claire's character, and thus the film as such, progresses at a good pace. Don't be turned off by claims that the first half is too slow, it absolutely isn't. Portraying the many facets of pain that represent Claire's reality couldn't possibly be done more quickly, it would be entirely inappropriate. In fact, I assume the director had a lot more material in that section which he was forced to cut to appeal to a broader audience (which is a real shame).
Similarly, don't be misled by claims that much of the first part of Cake is a '(self-)pity party'. Whoever spouts such nonsense simply lacks any experience of what chronic pain is like. In a sense, such people are to be admired and congratulated because they seem to have lived rather luckily. On the down-side, lack of personal experience comes with lack of true understanding and empathy, which is unfortunate. If anything, it's rather amazing that Claire manages to operate as well as she does. Many, perhaps most, others in her position wouldn't. That she is snarky and short in her interaction with others cannot possibly surprise, constant pain does that to a person.
I also liked that the full spectrum of pains was not revealed immediately. We slowly learn that chronic bodily misery is not the only part of Claire's hell. Rather, psychological pains -- and here too, not just one kind -- represent key aspects of the character's daily experience of 'life'. Over the course of the film, more and more agony gets packed on, making you wonder how she's even able to manage anything other than a crawl. In this respect, I actually found the weakness of her suicidal tendencies (as portrayed) quite unconvincing. How could anyone not strongly wish to put an end to this kind of suffering?? (Religion certainly didn't seem to play a preventative role.)
One key question that I wish the film would have had time to consider is how relatively lucky Claire is despite her personal hell. Imagine the same fate had affected not Claire -- who's obviously materially well-off -- but rather her housekeeper Silvana. If Claire's life is agony, what would the existence of an immigrant be like?
All in all, much applauded and recommended.
Star Trek: Discovery (2017)
Simply awful
Tons of people have already commented on the attempt to completely recreate (and thus upset) the Star Trek time-line, so I'm not even going to touch on that.
I'll limit myself to the actors, the visual style, and a brief comment on content: simply awful.
We're now three episodes in and not a single interesting and/or likable character has presented itself. Everyone, and I really mean everyone, is either boring, weird (and not in a good way), flat, a jackass (again, not in a good way), and/or simply badly portrayed. So far, I have no interest what happens to any of them. Sonequa Martin-Green: could be good but isn't. Jason Isaacs: boringest, most uninteresting and non-cerebral captain ever, zero charisma. Michelle Yeoh: close second to Isaacs, captain-wise. Doug Jones: laughable; at one point his character (who is First Officer, for Pete's sake) walks around the ship corridor eating blueberries out of a glass bowl -- are you kidding? Rekha Sharma: jackass; she didn't exactly perform well in BSG, and she's worse here. Mary Wiseman: goofy; you see her once and hope she'll die soon, be transferred away, or something. Anthony Rapp: simply bad at portraying whatever his character is supposed to be.
I could go on. How is it that each of the previous ST instalments had so many good actors and engaging characters, and this piece of junk has not even one? I don't expect anyone to be as fantastic as Patrick Stewart, but come on.
As for visual style, firstly, everything indoor seems like it was filmed in a cheap warehouse containing cheap mock-ups. Secondly, the CGI -- on which the series relies a lot (instead of providing actual content) -- is meh. Most sequences fail to be either realistic or awesome (in the literal sense of the term). Thirdly, what's with the darkness? Everything is kept in minimal light. It adds no mystery at all, it's just f-ing annoying. Frankly, it feels like the makers keep everything black because they are too lazy or incompetent to create something worth looking at. Well done.
Finally, a brief note re content: Episode three introduces breath scanners. Anyone -- so probably most who would watch this series to begin with -- familiar with Alien Resurrection (I call it 'the comedy episode') will just burst out laughing. Remember how the goofy General Perez character tries to breathe his way into a security section, over and over and over? Yep, STD uses that very same device. Good choice, guys, good choice.
If I'm supremely bored, I might check back in with STD (such a fitting acronym) in a few months. Frankly, though, there are so many excellent TV productions on air now that the likelihood is tiny.
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales (2017)
Nail in coffin
All in all, the fifth instalment of POTC is a sorry spectacle. The bafflingly high user rating here on IMDb seems to speak to the low standards of today's audience. If this film adds to the quality of someone's life, it must be an awful life to begin with.
Pros: When it comes to filming locations and technology, POTC 5 is as good as its predecessors. Beautiful landscapes and colours. Awesome effects. Without a doubt, Disney has nailed CGI and post- processing.
Cons: 1) The story is part predictable and otherwise boring. The first 50 or so minutes represent a mixture of things that we have seen in previous instalments, pure insult. The rest of the film boils down to yet another oh-so-powerful pirate artefact, but one so uninteresting that one's attention and intellect, already numb from the first half of the movie, simply walk out. 2) The acting is altogether terrible, not a single cast member performs memorably. Johnny Depp has lost all charm and wittiness, Sparrow's lines are painfully flat, goofy, and cringy. Not once did he induce even just a chuckle. Geoffrey Rush equally feels like a mere shadow of his former self. Javier Bardem's character fails to make an impression as well. The two newbies Brenton Thwaites and Kaya Scodelario are OK-ish but not great.
Technological competence cannot compensate for lack of story, lack of direction, and lack of acting. POTC 5 is such a spectacular failure that even a free ticket would not justify the movie's consumption.
Alien: Covenant - Prologue: The Crossing (2017)
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Having watched Alien: Covenant and feeling rather disappointed with it (for various reasons, especially the poor decision-making of the characters), I was glad that a bit of subsequent research revealed this clip on YouTube. I initially agreed with the other reviewers that it should have been part of the movie, but now I'm less sure. The extra effort of looking around for further information resulted in a sweet little reward, and I'm assuming that others have had similar sentiments. Why should a movie experience rely on an effortless spoon-fed supply that is so easily forgotten if being forced to make a bit of an effort results in viewers getting rather more out of it in return? Anyway, The Crossing is beautifully shot and composed, the atmosphere dark and foreboding. The clip provides various bits of information that link Prometheus and Covenant. As in both films, Fassbender is magnificent. The aesthetics of the arrival scene are incredible, and the godlike presence assumed by David could not be better emphasised than the lines from Percy Shelley's Ozymandias. Wish it were longer :)
9/10
War Machine (2017)
Confusing purpose and message, terrible acting
If -- for whatever reason -- you must, you better watch this film on a device that allows you to skip through the countless and prolonged gratuitous sections that do not develop the story (whatever that's supposed to be) one iota. The movie is not a comedy, because it's not funny. It's not a drama, because it has virtually no believably dramatic moments either. Which leaves only a thematic genre: war film. It's a boring, unfunny, non-dramatic film about a simple-minded general who's at war in Afghanistan. The cast is almost universally terrible, Brad Pitt delivers an insulting performance. There's exactly one (!) good scene, with Tilda Swinton being her usual awesome self and War Machine actually making an impression (about 73 minutes in). The rest is pointless, boring, or simply awful.
3/10.
Colossal (2016)
Charmingly offbeat
Quirky story with few plot holes, a well-portrayed main character, and non-silly humour. Having always been on the fence about Anne Hathaway, this movie definitely had a convertive effect on me. From the distance that is typical of real life, most would consider Gloria a failure -- but the intimacy of the movie experience reveals that she fails with so much charm. Hathaway's demeanor and facial expressions are priceless, so many chuckles in the first third/half, before things darken. I'd never noticed Jason Sudeikis before, he portrays eerie Oscar well. The rest of the cast is kinda meh, but never mind. Main complaint: The movements of a human do not directly translate into the movements of a colossus, the laws of physics rule that out. I also would have liked a bit more on the childhood origin part, but there's nothing wrong with leaving it to viewer imagination and speculation. Good finale, in just about every respect. All in all, much recommended.