Change Your Image
fire-child
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Mac and Me (1988)
The Citizen Kane of 'so bad, it's good'
I avoided this for decades, but finally watched it to see if it had the curious cult status it warrants.
Oh man, I wish I had watched this earlier! It is, as other reviewers have said, utter tripe on the one hand - an utterly shameless, ET envying, bargain basement monstrosity, that only young children will look at with any wonder.
I also genuinely feel sorry, for any and all the established actors whose careers were probably finished by it, when just in need of a paycheck. The child disabled actor in particular deserved far better for his career. You can see he puts his heart and soul into trying to make this pile of singing excrement have some feeling.
Now, onto why on earth then it gets 9/10 from me...? Well, on the other hand: it also weirdly succeeds as the most surrealist, dark and bizarre comedy I've seen in many, many years. Although you may want to watch ET before you ever watch this: it'll make it 50 times as funny if you do.
I had huge belly laughs as a 40 something man watching this: more than I have had in a long time. I'll just say vaguely to avoid spoilers: a particular wheelchair journey in nature; the vacuum cleaner; and an end courthouse scene to state a few - had me in absolute stitches. Stand up comics could not do this better, people.
You have to see this at least once, as an adult. Preferably id recommend as part of an adult frat and sorority party, with just enough drinkable and smokeables alongside (legal, of course :). It would make for an unforgettable college bonding, trust me. Kind of like watching Teletubbies did in the same manner at one point back in the 90s, in the same way - only far better.
To sum up: this was, in a way, the last of the film times in the 80s, before CGI and huge scale tent pole filmmaking from the 90s onward made even most knockoffs look ok. It's part of surrealist, unintentional campy comedy gold.
Do not deprive yourself, anybody reading, and just see it. But do this as a social with buddies. If you have a funny bone in you, you'll laugh till you wet yourselves!
Leaving Neverland (2019)
Please see it, and you may want to consider the following as you do
After watching Leaving Neverland repeat times, as well as After Neverland with Oprah, but also Square One, and other sources trying to defend Jackson, have been trying to come to a conclusion.
I'm only one more reviewer. Yet, I've come to some difficult questions in watching this, and some possible conclusions to follow - ones that viewers seeing this today may wish to consider if seeing this documentary for the first time. Some arguments that don't seem widely considered in an avalanche of criticism and hostility that's been had towards Wade Robson, James Safechuck, maker Dan Reed, Oprah and other figures close to the subjects, in other reviews for the documentary here since its release, and across the Internet. Here we go:
- James Safechuck and family, and Wade Robson and family appear to have had sometimes very difficult adult lives (Safechuck has admitted to drug misuse in his 20s, and both have to depression and anxiety periods).
Following this too, if they may struggle at times to recall precisely a few memories at times here and there, from their early childhood and teens following possible serial, repeated abuse incidents is psychologically possible. That does not render their whole accounts invalid, automatically.
I ask all you, reading to consider- how many of all you would perfectly recall all biographical early childhood events if asked over periods of years? And under the pressure of a court, or TV interviewer, or documentary maker on camera: with absolute clarity, a decade or two decades on? Only the likes of a savant could do that, and that is not 99% of humanity.
Even the likes of Prof. Bessel Van der Kolk, an expert on PTSD and childhood trauma, in his The Body Keeps the Score and other works, appears to acknowledge: fragmentation of a few memories and mistaken ones at times in the case of serial childhood and early life abuse does not automatically make the rest untrue.
E.g. Because Safechuck may have misremembered as a child that he was abused in the train station, versus elsewhere : when he had possibly many incidents of abuse, at and across Neverland. Trying to remember the laying out of Neverland and multiple abuse places when the train station wasn't yet built, and if he confused that he was there when not - he's now an automatic perjurer, on everything??!! The rashness in dismissing all other aspects of James's account from this one thing, from Michael J apologists, has been huge - and would not be the case in accusations today of years long serial abuse by a non-famous person, to the same degree.
- Yes, both Robson and Safechuck sued the Jackson estate, and money has been involved. However, as Wade pointed out, the Jackson estate may not have attempted to listen (it hasn't since, either), if this was only for trivial sums they could easily pay off. And we've seen the size of other US lawsuits in other areas being even larger than this.
Wade did not file until at least 2013 we note - that's at least 3 years after Jackson's death, and well after Jackson's will would have been executed. This is not someone who was desperate it seems to cash in, straight after Jackson's death.
Plus: with Wade and James's difficulty possibly with employers present and future (possibly Michael apologists again), they may have been just trying to ensure as well some financial security for their families. For Wade in particular, he's likely been cancelled by elements of the entertainment industry and Hollywood after going public, finishing a number of high profile choreography and directing contracts.
Yes, the families might have had debts as well from what I've heard. However, even after the initial lawsuits have been dismissed and possible financial hardship still after, neither of them has retracted their claims as of mid 2023 I note. When doing so publicly, Lance Armstrong style, might get them a fast buck. Perhaps also large sums might be donated to abuse charities if won? But that obviously remains something that, as of time of writing, we can't be sure on.
- The absolute family pains and anguish of both the Safechucks and the Robsons extended families, from disclosure. You see this in the documentaries from the abuse allegations towards Jackson, and what their families went through (and will have gone through in the years since, and in future still - it's not over for them, either way).
The mothers of both Wade and James have publicly admitted their guilt, shame and embarrassment about leaving Wade and James with Jackson alone (which has not been contested by anyone, even Jackson apologists). Their split feelings with their mothers; the difficulty with their wives we saw on screen - nearing divorce at time is evident from the documentary probably for both at points - and with their siblings; the pain as fathers; the hate from the Jackson supporters at the time, and into the future. Serially lying to every member of your family, risking huge family rifts. Yeah, all that for a pile of cash, would make it automatically right and easy. Really?
- If Wade has stretched certain things in any of his testimony? (possibly more likely than James, according to a number of web accounts towards Wade). Perhaps to consider that if Jackson did abuse Wade, there's an important thing to consider here - it doesn't mean that every person abused as a child turns out to be a saint, on every part of their lives and words. Neither Wade or James claimed that. Did Wade also date, cheat on and mistreat Brandi Jackson for instance? Probably. That doesn't make his claims on Michael right or wrong, in themselves.
That Wade (and/or James too) might be a sadly troubled, angry or reactive and spiteful person at times has been reported in their lives. But yes, victims of abuse can and might be too.
- If Wade lied on the stand, to protect Jackson at Jackson's trial, it may not have been actually just about protecting Jackson personally. It was Jackson who had helped his family out, in getting set up in LA, and loaned them money for a home - would his family lose their home, or in other areas, might have gone through Wade's mind here. Would Jackson's children be left fatherless if he testified? He himself has also asserted this was on his mind heavily in taking the stand. Huge issues.
This is not an easy cut and dried case, as some people have claimed. Exaggerating, neglecting or being suggestive of some elements in a story of course would weaken his, or any, person's claim : I do agree. But again, this can be because also of passage of time, brain stresses and fatigue, not intentional perjury or deception again remember. These are difficult waters - not easy answers.
- Jackson, after his death, we might now look at more objectively. He was a loving and kindly figure at certain times certainly in some arenas and from a number of testimonies, but withdrawal and secretive in others - abusive people can be this too. Jackson was certainly sadly secretive in lying to his own family we now know at the time of his death. His prescriptive drug use reliance; his poor physical health state for launching a tour; and his finances on shambles are all well documented.
Towards Neverland visitors and youth, Jackson had behaved highly suspiciously. Taking young children, and young boys in particular, constantly to his room for months and years, without family supervision and not feeling guilt or worry about their families as absent, as both the LN documentary and other non-documentary sources have both attested, is strange, disturbing and worrying behavior. Nobody seemed to pull Jackson in for this problematic behavior much as an adult man (including his own family, and advisers and even law enforcement it seems). Despite allegations in the 90s and early 2000s, it still happened has again been undisputed from multiple sources.
Jackson we could see from video news reports a regular new young boy companion for a period, before changing periodically (never a young girl, or older children or adults we can note in this way). It was after acute suspicions began, to date and marry an adult female wife (RIP Lisa Marie Presley) - to possibly deflect suspicion?
Macaulay Culkin and Brett Barnes, two of these companions, have denied abuse by Jackson. However, this does not necessarily mean that Jackson may not have targeted them for grooming initially. He may have decided in time that the risks in trying something with these two were two great (assessed they would be likely to expose him after reading them for a while, and/or that they were too close to others to be separated off?).
Note that Jordan Chandler and Gavin Arvizo DID of course also accuse Jackson, whilst Jackson was still living. Whilst Jackson was cleared, the testimonies of Culkin and Robson have been widely suggested as influential in that verdict, and both might have been affected by factors discussed above.
In summary: Jackson was clearly a highly complex man. I don't know if he may have compartmentalised feelings, behaviours, and impulses differently towards different people - to reject certain actions as being abusive, and labelling them 'loving', for instance : as an abuser can? Targeting some only, not others? I'm not here to say Jackson was an abuser. I don't know in the end.
However, this documentary did try to capture the experience of grooming; of separation from family; of making people aware of abuse dynamics to a family; and to the world. It certainly did that, and is well made as it packs a huge emotional punch. Whatever your take on Jackson, it meets its aims in this sense.
I hope Jackson apologists might not be then so quick to rush to defend him blindly. They may wish to consider if there might be elements of truth, in large part, to Safechuck and Robson's stories, from considering the points above.
And, I genuinely hope Michael Jackson can rest in peace. Because, either way, people that lived around him sadly may not be able to still for a long time to come.
My Mad Fat Diary (2013)
Mostly terrific throughout: beautifully sincere, and a huge teaching tool for mental recovery
I haven't yet read the diaries of the real life Rae Earl the series was inspired by, and I guess part based on. But I plan to after this series.
Almost 8 years on, this series still has the power of a battering ram, in understanding and dealing with mental illness - self loathing, attachment and abandonment issues, and how you might begin to heal these when a person is wounded. Sharon Rooney is a revelation in particular in the lead role, and remember, young here - I've seldom seen any actor embody a role better.
She, and all of the main cast (notable for a younger Jodie Comer as well), can make you laugh, cry, and sit stunned at times. As someone who grew up in a similar setting to Rae in the series, and at a similar time period, I related to many of the issues in question. Perhaps it had a double whammy effect on me then, in feeling stunned at how much this reminded me of growing up. But even if you didn't grow up in the same way, it might still well move you.
I also liked Rae, her friends and her family. Because they're sometimes very likeable, sometimes not. Sometimes wise, and insightful; and other times, short sighted, angry, silly, or sad. Just like then many real human beings, as some can do well to remember. Like the people I remember growing up with.
Today: speaking as a mental health professional actually today myself, ironically I wouldn't necessarily agree with all the practical elements of Rae's services care you see here (and most people who've watched will get why I think). But who Rae is, and the characters she encounters in her mental health journey - it's credible in a way those who have never seen mental health up close might ever suspect. And the well meaning heart of the approach to heal Rae...I totally appreciate and agree with it, still today. That this comes through here is crucial.
And a word must go to the last scene of this series... oh my goodness. No spoilers here, but in particular, a brief touching tribute to a fallen friend, is just beautifully poignant, and unforgettable. Rae's message to them, and everyone involved we can sense: the salute to the past that's brought her to where she is - it's one of the best closing scenes to a series I've ever seen.
Finally, and in summary: if you have then someone close that's struggling with the issues Rae's struggling with, you'll learn a lot from this show about how they might go towards being healed. And how often, how therapy and the mental health system may sometimes be necessary, and important: but just how often other people and parts of a person's life everyday are so important as well, with and around that effort.
This is simply put, television at it's finest for me. Channel 4 in the UK made one of the finest series ever, and ended it perfectly.
Avatar: The Way of Water (2022)
Entertaining while it lasts, and a visual feast for the eyes - but yet...
The most highly anticipated sequel of 2022 finally lands in theatres - and you'll need to watch it there, to get Cameron's intent.
On the one hand, this is one of the most stunning visual and sound experiences (especially in IMAX 3D) ever put to film. It's Immersive in a way that very few films could even begin to replicate. That alone makes it worth the trip to see, at least once.
However, you sadly realise after coming out that, while exhilarating often in the moment (the near 3hr 15min runtime rushes by pretty briskly, surprisingly enough) the film sometimes may not add up to more than the sum of its parts at times.
First, the 'revenge and hunt' plot and story, like in the first Avatar, are basic. It services the visuals, rather than the other way around.
Second: speaking of which, sumptuous as those visuals often are, they don't unfortunately stay around long enough for more than a few frames each, before rushing to the next one. Pacing could have been with being relaxed and slower a lot more, to really soak up what's on screen in certain moments. 'Less, but longer exposure, is more' might have been advised.
Third: as other important flaws: I would have rather to be honest they let Quaritch keep the two arrows in his chest and dead forever, and not be a resurrected Avatar. We missed opportunities to see his character grow - even after finding he has a son - as he essentially plays the same character as in the first movie.
Fourth: for new characters, Edie Falco and Jermaine Clement both could be taken out with little repercussions, and Giovanni Ribisi's 'reapperance' likewise. This missed an opportunity to take Avatar in a new direction, away from the 'sky people', and more into Pandora itself, which would possibly have been more interesting.
To come back at the end to a few character pluses though: the links to Sigourney Weaver's character in the first film of a new character here are intriguing, if a little underdeveloped. This is obviously going to be expanded more in futher sequels though, so I'm not going to bulldoze them here. Some tender teen and family moments also appreciated which, if a little sacharrin and stereotypical at times, weren't totally overplayed either.
In all then: while plenty of flaws (that we have to hope that Avatar 3 gets to grips with) - for those of you enjoying pure visual spectacle, this is the best to date you'll see.
I would watch this again, although perhaps not at a premium theatre price for second entry.
Licorice Pizza (2021)
Licorice Pizza is quietly genius, and widely misunderstood: watch right up to the film's end credits, to get this review
It's easy to understand why many have trashed Licorice Pizza as seemingly irrelevant, compared to Paul Thomas Anderson's other works. It seems to come from the same school of films as say George Lucas's American Graffiti, on the surface. Yes, it's funny at times, breezy in it's scriptwriting. It has some punchy and sweet acting moments, the catchy retro period soundtrack, and some glossy Californian landscape cinematography. However, it can seem also trite and lightweight in today's day and age: relevant only around nostalgia, and a fluff teen romance from decades past?
But no. Licorice Pizza is quietly about much more than that, below the surface. Remember: this is a film from Paul Thomas Anderson (PTA) - who brought us works like Boogie Nights, Magnolia, There Will be Blood, and The Master no less. So it's logical he would have much more up his sleeve, and he does. Licorice Pizza is more subtle than those films, but it's no less powerful.
The True, Underlying Theme and Messages of LP:
How so? Well, let's confront the obvious. It might seem distasteful and tacky to many viewers (even paedophilic) that Alana and Gary, our two main characters who dance around attraction to each other for a large part of the film - but more importantly, develop a close, reliant asexual bond too alongside - are portrayed as 28 and 15 respectively in the film. However, this is the whole fulcrum of the story. And make no mistake, this is exactly what sets Licorice Pizza apart. Their ages aren't at all random, as some reviewers have wrongly seemed to assume, or missed. Making the film about two teenagers of around the same age, or only a bit older, was certainly possible. You might even assume they're only a few years apart, until you find out Alana's true age as the film goes on. The whole point is this film EXISTS principally because of that difference.
You realise fully at the end of the film what the major theme of Licorice Pizza has been all about: when a person realizes they need help to develop that can only come from a specific other. However, the catch is that person happens to be either (a) much younger, or much older, than themselves, and (b) the opposite gender. Oh, my goodness.
The idea of a much younger mentor in particular is very difficult sometimes to imagine, for many of us. We usually look most comfortably to either equal or superior age teachers, and often (albeit, not always) to people of the same gender to grow. Not without reason, most of the time. Licorice Pizza, via the character of Alana on the other hand, turns this rule of thumb on its head.
How does it do this...? Well, we find Gary is 15, but in so many ways, he's much more enterprising and confident in his life than Alana. Some viewers may have missed that much of the wacky mishaps that Gary goes into in business, at such a young age, actually come from the biography of a real life former child actor friend of PTA's, Gary Goetzman. This is important to place into the film's context, when it comes to Alana's feelings. Alana we find can't help but be attracted to Gary's confidence. However, PTA tries to also make it clear that any romantic and sexual attraction between these two ultimately is doomed to fail, after it has come up. It will fizzle out: and sadly perhaps, so will their whole relationship. But only once that relationship has served a crucial, needed purpose, for both.
The Key Scenes:
There are a number of scenes that build up to that reveal. However, for the benefit of those that have watched the film but may still be confused, some of the very key scenes here I'll lay out to try to comment on. Especially as some reviewers unfortunately don't seem to have got the deeper meaning of those important scenes:
(a) It's Gary that takes an adult role of the two, when countering and overriding Alana's initial agreement to do any nude scenes, as an aspiring actress. The adult part of him counters her childish naivety to this prospect: perhaps because of his experience already as a young actor, and seeing exploitation happening in the industry, even when young.
(b) Alana, in gratitude and admiration - but albeit also perhaps attraction to him being like an adult here - initially agrees to Gary's request to then seeing her topless, over any other people. However realising that when she is actually topless privately with him, and what his request to then touch her could mean for them both, she slaps him on the face. And walks out. But not without a statement she will see him tomorrow.
Alana here isn't really ashamed at Gary, it's important to realise. She's ashamed at herself, for it getting to this point. Alana is no paedophile here, which so many people have missed. She realizes she went too far in hinting at this to Gary, through her yearning to connect, and cuts off any sexual contact.
Alana then is growing into an adult from here, after both their sexual instincts (perhaps understandably) surface, and she refuses them. She realises she needs a confidant and a reliable stalwart in Gary, not a sexual partner. This actually makes this film more anti-paedophilia, if anything.
Next, let's fast forward to the ending:
(c) Alana by now has spent time with some older men (a wacked out trio of Sean Penn, Tom Waits, and Bradley Cooper, all having a ball; but most notably Benny Safdie's suspect character politician Joel Wachs). They all use and throw her, and others, away: albeit not always in romantic setups. It's only after them though she realizes that it was Gary's young, and perhaps naive, but total belief in her that has made such a difference to her life. She has grown into independence - she's now a state employee, and even an aspiring political mind. But more because of his influence, not theirs. She runs for him in gratitude and longing again, once she realizes how he's been there for her when others haven't. As he does for her, when he notices the void of her absence from his latest business opening.
(d) Now, guys and girls, watch and listen ever more closely, as the movie comes to its close. When they both run towards each other for the last time (and note how this is overcut with scenes of them running to comfort each other, from earlier in the film): they both slip, and take each other down. This slip happens right in front of a movie theater, where the movie playing is "Live and Let Die".
I don't believe that slip, or the movie choice, were coincidence. These were both written by PTA. The hint is coming: the end of their relationship, supportive as it has been, is on the horizon.
(e) The proclamation from Gary in the arcade that Alana is his wife, is called "idiot" by Alana. And yes, it is.
(f) The kiss that Gary then gives Alana in the arcade straight after, that makes her smile for a beautiful moment. It's interspersed with a shaft of light - but light that lasts only a second. Again, not a coincidence from PTA, as it denotes a length of finite time here for both, for only a moment.
(g) Alana states to Gary she loves him as she runs with him from the arcade: but notice that it is here that Taj Mahal's song "Tomorrow May Not be Your Day" starts to play at the same time.
(h) And lastly, post credits, Alana and Gary head into the sunset - not a sunrise - as the Taj Mahal song continues to play.
The Symbolism of It All:
The symbolism of all this couldn't really be then any clearer. Their kiss and love - shining for a moment as they have been - aren't permanent, and can't be. Both Alana and Gary likely know this, and the audience are subtly told many times in different ways, that their relationship is a necessary, finite moment of supportive brightness in their lives. It's absolutely something both, but especially Alana, needed to develop in themselves. This is the tough pill for the audience to try and swallow, and contemplate.
Final summary and thoughts:
That support necessarily can and must come on occasion from a much younger person (who may also harbour other feelings alongside for you, and even you for them), is the master theme that PTA has us reflecting on. If the genders had been reversed in this script? Possibly this difficult, important theme wouldn't tragically even have been allowed to be written about for the screen in 2021. If, and when this ever may happen to us... what might we do? What should we do? That's the intriguing, difficult question this film throws at us. It gives some possible answers, and mistakes along the way, but it tries to at least entertain that difficult possibility. And that's why Licorice Pizza matters.
I claim then PTA's story here is actually much closer here to his other films, with tough themes. Don't mistake the breeziness, humor, and adolescent spark here on the surface for shallowness, or irreverence. Licorice Pizza - and the title itself says this too - is a film about strange contrasts at its heart. Of people.
Hopefully, this film will grow in stature and popular reappraisal in time. I definitely needed time to understand and appreciate it properly. Maybe many of us do, too.
Pretty Woman (1990)
Entertaining - but make sure still not to take it as a fable
Rags to riches story, of a young woman's ascent from the streets, to being the lover of a wealthy handsome businessman.
Julia Roberts, in her breakout role, is charming and funny. Gere will make women and gay guys, alternately swoon and swear. Ok.
Yes, it's a comedy-romance flick mainly, so we're not looking too much for in depth drama analysis on one. But, the film arguably still makes light a bit too much of the dangers and depression often associated with sex work. And frankly, does not set good examples: for assuming male protagonists as either having to always be one of either: a wealthy, smooth lothario; or an obnoxious, grabby creep. For women, they can just instantly expect and be made comfortable by a rescuer overnight, without any graft.
I can't imagine it would then be made today in the same way. But as long as you understand its limitations, it has some good moments here and there. And Roberts' considerable talent shines through still, more than 30 years on.
Brittany Runs a Marathon (2019)
If you're a runner, you'll be especially moved: but might well be even if you're a non runner
This film is not just a film about learning to run: it's a journey about from being closed off, to more authentic. And it's a good one.
Brittany, curiously, isn't always likeable as a main character. But, paradoxically, that's what makes her actually good and authentic to watch - even if it's painful to see her f**k up her life at times.
She likely has mental health issues, which the film steers clear of really talking about sadly, which brings it down a star for me. Yet, she's relatable, and you can understand certainly each time why she behaves as she does, even if you don't agree with it.
Everybody knows a Brittany or her friends at some point, warts and all. As well as someone like her eventual partner: who we discover needs to grow almost as much as she does. She, friends and her partner let go gradually of toxic influences, and it's excellent to see.
Yes, there's a cliché (or three!) at times along the way in her story, which brings it down another star. This film will also, frankly, definitely have you enjoy it and resonate much more if you're a runner than not.
Brittany's journey will definitely speak to you more if you're an aspiring or seasoned runner, and non-athletes may well not get it in the same way. Let's just say - if you've ever felt the pain a few miles into those first steps from home you ever run - and then again, but this time a few miles from the finishing line, on a marathon: months or years later...well, you'll be right there with Brittany emotionally. On that course with her, as the finish line is so near, and yet so far.
In summary: a great effort to give the journey of a struggling personality that grows via tough decisions and risks a good story on screen. It bites at emotional spots, often enough to be memorable. Worth the time.
Short Circuit (1986)
Endearing, and enduring 80s entertainment
While this has the tone of a kid's film for sure at times, and the kids will certainly be entertained, this charming effort has pretty much stood the test of time for adults too.
The plot is fairly simple, but effective enough. The voicing and puppetry of Johnny 5 was jaw dropping at times for the era, and it looks way better than much of the CGI garbage we have today as a result.
Johnny 5's innocence and great heart you would want just about any kid to see, and Ally Sheedy is a perfect foil for Johnny. Her sweetness, humor and wackiness makes her forever watchable - unlike many established actors today, sadly, who I can imagine would scoff at this kind of role, to their loss.
Weaknesses - Steve Guttenberg plays Steve Guttenberg. He's fine, but fairly forgettable, in contrast to Sheedy. Cringy 80s tunes... sorry! Bit of a one dimensional main villain. The unfortunate Fisher Stevens whitewashing casting, and his silly and cringy 'boy talk' at times - which definitely wouldn't happen today.
Still, an entertaining, and family suitable film for the most part. It was at the time, and still will be in 30 years time. Its not John Badham at quite his best, but you could do much worse for a rainy afternoon then this.
Dead Poets Society (1989)
Affecting, if more saccharin at times than warranted
Trying to reflect on this, and in the years after Robin Williams death, is never going to be all that easy. Especially given the similarity of his own death, in many ways, to a character's death in this film. However, it wasn't terminal illness at least in this case that claimed a life, but a wish from the release of young adulthood lived as a lie and a falsehood, via family bullying. Which makes these different topics than Williams' passing.
DPS isn't a perfect film in tackling such topics, but it is heartfelt. Its core message: the dangers of rigid, blind conformity at all levels, and pushing that conformity too hard on innocents, are illustrated unforgettably here - in multiple ways. This means the film does what it set out to do, and the Oscar for Best Screenplay was duly deserved for its skill in doing so.
Although Williams was rightly also nominated for an Oscar as well for his performance, he arguably should have been nominated for Supporting Actor, not Actor. It's the likes of Robert Sean Leonard and Ethan Hawke that are the true protagonists of this film with screentime and with focus. They're the heart of this excellent young cast. The acting is never less than sincere and provoking, from each and every one of the main players.
The important negatives: the film's scope is a bit underdeveloped in my opinion at times. It can follow the 'unorthodox establishment outsider = hero' trope (done several times in cinema before this film) sometimes a bit too closely. As also hinted already, the film's approach can veer towards in moments being a bit too saccharin and maudlin (e.g. A weepy, heart tugging score is gushing like crazy, for that famous ending on the tops of the desks. Triumphant though that ending also simultaneously is, more restraint in the music might have done it far better).
A few of the 'goofy and cringy at moments' side plots go ultimately nowhere in the end as well. (Especially anything involving female love and friendship involvements, introduced periodically). It's sad that they're totally unacknowledged, at the close of the film.
However, these flaws shouldn't be enough to deter seeing what is often a powerful film. Especially in its earlier scenes, and in some unforgettable dialogues, if nothing else, it leaves a mark. DPS likely will leave you at times having a new or renewed determination for life. If a film does that, is it ever without some merit?
For that then, it has to be recommended here. And it is.
Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003)
Better now than in 2003 - and worth seeing for the ending alone
While it's not The Terminator or Terminator 2, it's probably the last of the Terminator films really worth watching. Something I've actually changed my mind over, over the years.
I'm very glad T3 ended up having something to say, as I didn't appreciate by then writers failing to come up with an explanation as to how new Terminators keep appearing, and appearing, and appearing...! (Remember Reese's line in the first film, about what happened right before it was "just him, and me"? It's novel then even as to why T2 happened... viewers of the first film who watched closely will know what I'm talking about here. T2 got away with it, only because it was so good).
That aside, what do we have then, in T3...? Well, some always entertaining, if formulaic at times, action scenes. Some well acted and sincere moments too from and between Arnie, Nick Stahl (no Edward Furlong from T2, but better again than I remembered him back on release), and Claire Danes. She was also better than I remembered. Excellent sets, special effects. And the late, great Stan Winston's excellent makeup efforts again - all top notch.
Some mistakes and missed opps they made though in this film... pretty significant ones too.
First: for the T-X: she was played for sexual appeal and laughs too much in the opening scenes. Arnold is mocked too, especially in the opening scenes. It doesn't set the tone right at all, for starting the film. A real shame, because the film gets more sincere and earnest later on. That initial tone imbalance jars watching the rest, quite a bit.
Second: after T2's heart-breaking, brilliant conclusion, they perhaps should have made the brave move, and ditched Arnold. The writing would have to be exemplary for that (it was ok, but not great for most of the film). But Arnie was definitely beginning to show his age in this one.
It also might have made the scenes with the T-X (if you had to have her), more novel and interesting with, say, Robert Patrick reprising as a T1000 if possible. Arnold appearing just in timely flashbacks/or a cameo may have been very poignant, if they had written it well.
Third: adjusting to the T-1000 as well (Patrick or no Patrick), in contrast to the T-800, would have made for some HUGE possibilities of character exploration and growth in John Connor. Just imagine him navigating an emotional version of what his mother had to go through. Shame - scripted well, it could have been terrific. We could have had finally exploring other narrative possibilities of the two newer Terminators, with opposing motivations, but in the direct shadow and aftermath of Arnold.
However. After these key gripes: what really saves this film and sets it apart from being just pretty average, is the ending. The audiences maybe weren't quite ready for it in 2003, but by golly, does it resonate in the years since.
I hated it back in the day... but now, it asks so many questions to me. I'm really pleased the filmmakers had the guts to do as they did. No spoilers here, but I notice other reviewers have re-appraised the film, just as I did on this. And so, I feel, might you if you're watching it again after a long time.
In summary then: if T3's a new watch to you, don't even bother, before seeing the first two films. Sadly, don't perhaps expect either the same quality throughout as those two masterpieces. However, if you do watch it, and let the ending sit with you, it resonates in unexpected ways: as good films should do.
In an age sadly of renewed real life wars in 2022, the Terminator films' core message sadly has returned once again. This film, and others like it, are needed again, to help consider consequences.
The Boys (2019)
Impressive, entertaining turnaround of superhero cliches
This is a series that seems to take Marvel/DC as a starting point, but then mixes in the heart of Game of Thrones (at that show's height) sly, snarky corruption tropes, and violence. Daring then, but the premise works more often than not.
There's quality acting, writing, satire, emotion, and effects here consistently. It's never less than entertaining, at least going into Season 3 as I write.
Only loses a few points for me with a couple of weird side plot storylines and character niggles (e.g. A certain secondary character's 'church story', in the second season, felt often lightweight, odd and out of place for me); and for perhaps going over the top and outlandish at a few points, as time has gone on.
Yes, we know it's about comic book superheroes, but for me The Boys always works at its best when at gritty, small scale scenarios, rather than trying to ever build up anything to match (and struggle to keep up with) say the MCU's often now boring and redundant, ever expanding, timelines.
If it then maintains the overall quality, and enough small scale centring so far that its excelled on, season 3 is going to be a blast. Along with the Invincible series, Amazon I have to say seems to be leading the way right now with this when it comes to the best superhero themed fare on the screen. They're considerably ahead of the game, compared to Marvel/DC's/Disney's lame, current efforts in comparison.
As We See It (2022)
Hard to watch in moments, hilarious in others... but authentic often enough to hit home
I've worked as a mental health professional long term, and have some background at least with understanding autism, although I won't pretend to be an expert. I haven't seen the original Israeli series either, so can't speak for the remake's authenticity to the original.
From what I know though of autism, although there are some outlandish moments in this show at times, there's also a lot that rings true - and that's been agreed on in other reviews by carers of autistic people here.
This show focuses on a core group of roommates that are moderate - severe on the spectrum, and their aide (depending on each roommate's idiosyncrasies, important to note they can be moderate in some areas, but more severe in a couple of others. Each person is different in their autism, which was great to see). However, it's not necessarily focused then on mild, or very severe (often non-verbal) autism.
It can then feel a bit reductionistic or simplistic occasionally, if you're looking for wide autism coverage scope (which I notice has grated with one or two autistic reviewers already). Maybe that's inevitable however, because of the small scale nature of the show. Autism is quite diverse, and you can't unfortunately represent everybody's personalities in just one small scale comedy-drama series.
Maybe it's not then perfect here, but the writing so often captures well that "verging on chaos, with love" feel that's often present in autism care. Generally the storylines are usually heart felt, tightly acted, and mostly well scripted.
Accusations of this as a "white saviour" tale I've seen in other reviews too? Probably unfair. As you'll see if you stick with it, "saving" sometimes can mean failing, just as much as succeeding. Obstacles are still going to be plenty in future too for everybody, that's clear: whatever certain outcomes are at the end.
The really only significant flaw of this show I found, was perhaps a romance that develops between two of the cast, outside of the core three. It's telegraphed sadly in such an obvious way, and visible a mile before it happens; feeling sadly a bit of a corny, cliched, unnecessary melodrama, when compared to our core three.
It might have been best removed then from the script to be honest - or at least developed gradually over several seasons of the show, rather than crammed into the first. Still, can't make the omelette without breaking a few, as they say - you don't need to be perfect to be good.
In closing then, I think a great effort to start this show on Prime, and I really hope it's renewed for a second season. These characters stay with you, and I really hope we can follow their lives into the future a while yet.
Unpregnant (2020)
Fun, sometimes farce, sometimes serious... but never boring
Watched this on a long haul flight as a random comedy pic, and pleasantly surprised. It's not too often we've had a teen female buddy roadtrip movie, so that's refreshing by itself.
While it sometimes veers a little bit into surreal farce territory, and sometimes the acting and script occasionally is a bit clichéd and OTT, it's still consistently entertaining and has some quality original moments. It's not Juno, but it never claims to be. It's also sometimes brilliantly heartfelt in the right moments.
That's quite something, considering the subject matter has already really polarised people. So if you're in one camp, you'll probably despise it, just for its topic. Others looking for comedy genius I've seen have already trashed it, which is saddening snobbery. Abortion and family life, considering the recent national debate and outcry in some quarters, needs movies to sensitively and at times humorously try to portray both sides of the coin.
Altogether, while it doesn't then for me quite top a previous Hailee Steinfeld movie gem (also coming of age, and also had this film's star), it does touch on a really important subject for the 2020s with bravery. It does it with touches of real verve at times.
And if nothing else, it's a solid film for family watching for older teens - female or male. It could well help broach some tricky subjects if parents find it tough to start.
Watch, learn, and sometimes darn well enjoy.
Homme Less (2014)
A very important documentary, for the Instagram age
Mark Reay is a middle aged, sweet, and kind guy, who tries to live the life of an NY model, actor and photographer. On the surface, he seems to be getting by doing these three things. But beneath the surface, a very different and murky picture, is the truth. One which Mark has tried to hide from the world - and really from himself, until this film.
Mark is clearly a troubled guy underneath his often cheerful and social veneer - something many of us can relate to. This is his story: of trying to uphold an image of oneself to media and friends and family, at all costs. A character trait that sadly has only continued to get worse in many people worldwide since this film was released, thanks to social media.
Some timeless messages about impression management and secrecy here resonate through great pacing and focus by the director, and cinematography and music that capture all the right emotional moments.
If there is any one criticism of the film I can give, it's only that it deserves a follow up coda of Mark's life after the main body of the story, which we haven't seen yet over the years - as well as some comments and reaction by his family and friends.
Otherwise, it's almost perfect. This is compelling viewing, for anyone who considers living the American Dream: what that can do to a person. Sad that this was overlooked at the Oscars, as it would have been a good candidate for a Best Documentary nomination at least.
K-PAX (2001)
A difficult review, for an informative movie about people
Reviewing this film now is a pretty tough exercise. It's likely going to be overlooked by many viewers, after the assault and bullying allegations against Kevin Spacey since its release. I understand those. I definitely can then sympathise if people would find it painful, or impossible / distasteful to watch this as a result.
However, I did so earlier this year for the first time. As I found it so thought provoking and emotional (in a positive way), it felt important to still try and review.
To perhaps point out before the main review then which follows. If any person (actor, writer, whoever) like Spacey turns out to be damaging goods, but their work beforehand at least may still be of value: and if it can be drawn on with respect, what should we do? Bury that history, and just forget it? After all - we likely all live in homes, go to work by car or train, and get food and goods from stores. All of which have been built or staffed partly by people that have been, or are, violent and abusive.
I also would like to say - I gave no direct payment to watch K-PAX. So hopefully I'm not lining Spacey's pocket in any way by residuals. I'm also not sanctioning ANY abuse, to anyone. I'm just suggesting that, with this already out there, we can learn from that work, without profiting now a potential abuser.
Getting then to the film itself.
K-PAX is technically good, with plush cinematography. It has a very moving, underrated score (just imagine the planetarium scene without it - one of the most moving scenes emotionally in all of cinema, in my opinion). There are elegant performances, Spacey's in particular. I haven't seen the South American film 'Man Facing Southeast' that this film was found to base some of itself on - so I can't comment on plagiarism claims yet. But, plagiarising or not, what still makes K-PAX a little unique among many films, is that it's worth watching at least twice. Especially if you're not familiar already with the source novel.
On most of your first viewing, your focus might have been working out - is 'Prot' definitely from the planet K-PAX??? However, you realise by the end of the film, that working this out isn't the true meaning at its heart.
What IS important on your second, is observing more closely just how and why one camp of standard humans around Prot find it so impossible to consider in him: COULD he be an alien from K-PAX, but also a mentally ill man, all in the same body?
Additionally, it's about observing the other camp: how and why this group sadly can't even consider a mentally ill man could also be residing, underneath any alien presence, in the person they see.
To put those two groups then at odds. That is the quiet elegance of the script, and film.
In exploring then these intriguing themes - it's very sad and despairing the allegations now around Spacey. His performance as Prot/Robert Porter is quietly mesmerizing. Prot the character, at least, is mainly gentle and kind. However, he also holds deep convictions, and doubters around him dismiss those convictions all too readily. Prot being committed to a mental hospital in the opening scene, for no reason other than a few words that aren't actually harming anyone, should be noted and taken as a warning by any viewer here. The police doing this in the first scene, sets the tone for the rest of the film.
Unfairly confined then in many respects, in the rest of the movie, Prot nevertheless calmly begins to challenge and change the lives of his fellow patients. Scientists also listen to him, but fear understanding him, it seems. That goes too for his psychiatrist Mark, played by Jeff Bridges - the other film protagonist.
Bridges, while an acting powerhouse in many films, isn't quite the equal of Spacey here, and isn't as well written. But he IS credible at least - trying to understand Prot through the only frame he understands well in his life - contemporary psychiatry. That 'one frame' approach to life is all too relatable in all of us, even if it is frustrating to watch. There is a decent attempt to put on screen that the psychiatrist is damaging his family, by this obsession outside the home with his patients. Prot is the most notable patient, but only the latest, and tries to wake Mark up to this, while there is still time.
Mark's frame then means he has a lot of growth to do. While he succeeds in healing his family, ironically it takes until very late in the film before he truly starts to question enough about what could be Prot's true nature. Too late to talk with Prot candidly more about it, as it turns out.
In contrast then to this (the 'doubter' camp), the film sadly doesn't expand and comment too much on the important contrasting group to this - the 'true believers' . Which is it's first weakness. Why do Prot's fellow patients enthusiastically embrace the Prot character among them so much, when they would risk so much by doing so?
Part of their embrace, yes, is looking for healing hope. That's understandable: they are confined to a psychiatric hospital, after all. It's sad however that they ALL seem to overlook what could be underneath Prot, and what would remain after his stated upcoming departure back to K-PAX. The very ill, and distressed, Robert Porter. A fellow patient, like them.
I imagine that the writing here of the patients' attitudes came out of that now classic story hook: that the 'patients can often know about mental states of each other, better than the psychiatrist'. Yes, that can occasionally be true (not always: and I'm glad Bridges' psychiatrist was not written or portrayed as a fool here). If one or two of the patient characters though HAD acknowledged doubts in the script, and expressed their doubts and anxieties as part of the story, it would have been a stronger film, in some important respects.
Just imagine the scene for example at the end, where all the patients go 'that's not Prot!' where Porter is being wheeled out after Prot departs for K-PAX, with Bess. Just how richer and deeper it could have been, with doubting patients fleshed out earlier, this moment in facing Prot and Bess's departure?
In addition then to the two contrasting major camps, two other major gripes from me. First:
1. No psychiatrist in the world, ever, would be allowed to bring their patient to the psychiatrist's own home and family, as part of treatment! Thankfully, the scene itself feels fairly natural and credibly performed and written at least. Bridges' children in particular react exactly as you'd expect to Prot. That was important, otherwise, this scene could have sunk the whole film.
2. Use of hypnosis to 'get at' Robert Porter's persona underneath Prot's here - ok, it's understandable. It's also faithful to the original novel - if a little hokey.
However, I don't buy well the idea Prot could be unaware, and put to one side, by hypnotism entirely, and have no memory of Robert Porter in the hypnosis.
I suspect this is likely to be some kind of stab at suggesting dissociative identity disorder (DID) in Prot- what used to be called multiple personality disorder - and that we therefore could be seeing a pure mental patient. However, hypnosis is seldom as 'split' as this, as a clinical treatment, and it definitely pushes the credibility envelope.
Prot of 'K-PAX' is a powerful, knowing personal, and even genius level entity entity in this film. It's a big jump then, that Prot would just 'bow aside', and not know about the implications for hypnosis all too well. Conflict/support between the Prot and Porter personas under hypnosis then, if they had to use hypnosis, might have made for richer storytelling.
To conclude overall - while it then has its faults, its a rich and delicate film constantly too. It rewards the patient, and thinking viewer.
Personally, I think there is more than enough cumulative evidence to reliably conclude that the spirit of an alien being, Prot, inhabits a human he saved from death, Robert Porter. Prot stays in Robert's body longer for exploration and engagement in this movie. Also, perhaps, to save Porter further: finding him an institution where Robert will finally be safe. But again, while necessary to realise all this, that isn't the point at the film' core.
K-PAX is a question poser picture. It isn't a fast, kinetic film. It invites philosophical questions about whether we can hold opposing points of view, and new paradigms, towards one individual. Especially if these views make us uncomfortable. It invites us to consider what we may miss, if we can't.
It becomes a poignant study then on prejudice, and human and personal arrogances, and their recension. Humanity: always ready to bury away knowledge of unorthodoxy, just because it is unorthodox, is nothing new. But sadly we repeat it so often. If you can grasp all that, there's much to learn and absorb from K-PAX.
It's sad that, because of the film's initial middling box office, and Spacey's personal conduct, we'll likely never see a sequel to K-PAX. Imperfect though it is, sci-fi and film in 2021 seldom stands still long enough nowadays, for powerful and beautiful storytelling like this.
K-PAX is then definitely worth a look, or re-discovery. The older you get, the more likely you are to appreciate this quiet gem. Tarnished yes with Spacey's conduct, but don't dismiss it, just because of it.
Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021)
Cute nostalgia... but it's not enough for a truly great film
Watching this in the theater (which to get the full effect of the great visual set designs, sound and SFX, I'd recommend to do) was enjoyable enough as an afternoon out. But as for Jason Reitman's attempt to give homage to the originals, as well as be a true original? That fell a bit flat in the end, I have to say.
To start with some more pluses - this film did brilliantly with recruiting and focusing on McKenna Grace. She carries the child actors at the heart of this film, and is endearing and awkwardly believable (mostly) as the uber-nerd descendant of Egon Spengler. Her brother and friends are watchable at least too.
Whilst her mother, and Paul Rudd's teacher sadly don't get too much character development, I was pleasantly surprised actually that Carrie Coon did enough to make the emotional reuniting of her character to her father's silent ghost spirit (Egon Spengler), at the end, a genuinely affecting and emotional send off. And a very touching tribute to Harold Ramis.
Some emotional heartbeats then, this film does at least succeed with. Especially the family orientated scenes. That already puts it leagues ahead of the 2016 remake - that had virtually no genuine emotions at all, save for w*ke based gender bashing (see my review elsewhere on this site for more on that one).
That's though where the pluses sadly end, for Afterlife.
The biggest problem by far, to start: the script is borderline OBSESSED with fan service, and Easter egg tips to the previous films. So much so, it struggles to find its own identity as a film.
Any newbies over the age of 12 will likely be scratching their heads at times, if they haven't seen the original as to what's going on, and why, as a result.
The most notable 'egg' - recycling Zuul and Gozer, was a bad idea. The outcome was pretty predictable. But the music cuts were recycled too much from the original too, as were other parts of the plot and dialogue. So much so, it made you cringe at times.
And unfortunately of this film - let's mention those cameo appearances of the original cast. You were aching to see more of THEIR interactions together, their development over the last 30 years, if this was going to be a nostalgia fest. As well how they integrated with the new characters. However, none of that really happened at any length. The original cast don't get enough time onscreen, for those important themes to even get started.
This approach reminded me, with huge distaste, of the disastrous take the Star Wars Sequels took. 'Just pump up recycled nostalgia to the max, and cameo drop ons: it'll be enough to suck them in!' Yes, sadly it was, and Afterlife repeats that like a slave. The end result becomes a film too afraid to annoy anybody, at the expense of trying something new, original and exciting for the franchise. What a shame.
So, to conclude - better in execution than the awful 2016 film, but still too often an excruciating missed opportunity. It had the potential for greatness, but too often Reitman and Reitman just didn't have the guts to take it.
If there is to be a Ghostbusters 4 (or 5, depending on your perspective) I'd love to see more risk taking, original plot, and new ghosts and villains, than this gave us.
For the price of cinema tickets these days Hollywood, please: you owe us that much.
Ghostbusters (2016)
Five years after release - & yep, as bad as I feared
I wanted to try and give some breathing room to this film, and review it years after the hype (good and bad) had settled down - to try and watch it on its own merits. And especially given that Ghostbusters: Afterlife is delayed because the virus.
Well, conclusion: the trailer for that film is better by some distance than this entire movie. What a crushing disappointment.
I need to stress as well - I don't feel it has anything to do with the gender of the actors either. The likes of Bridesmaids was great comedy at times, by the same director and part-cast. The Ghostbusters script here in contrast is an embarrassing flat mess. It would fail equally with a mixed sex, or all male cast. Boring, stereotyped, clichéd characters, and predictable plotting all the way.
The tone is all wrong as well - too often cartoonist, outlandish and garish. Compared to the classic original's deadpan, stripped down approach, which added just the right amounts of sci-fi and fantasy minimalism when needed - it's a massive misfire in visual look. CGI was overused, and obvious.
And worst of all - no even moderately funny jokes, at all! How did they not pick up in the dailies the jokes were so flat, whilst shooting this film?! The jokes they aim at are clichéd, flat, often childish, and so tired - a world away from the witty, sardonic lines of the original.
To conclude: Paul Feig and crew can moan all they want about sexism, or woke prejudice. (Interestingly, with the treatment of one character in this film - that criticism is, shall we say, the pot calling the kettle black here too). Whilst unfair bias can certainly sometimes exist towards films, that wasn't the case. They realised deep down this was a stinker. Trying to divert away via gender bias and other claims, once they realised this was going to sink at the box office, was part of the damage control effort I fear.
I wait then for Ghostbusters: Afterlife, with the hope it can erase this trash from my memory.
Interesting as an exercise in how NOT to do a remake, or sequel, of a franchise.
Star Trek: Voyager: Tuvix (1996)
Provocative, unsettling, and even disturbing... but unforgettable as well
Who you are will influence greatly what your take on this show's outcome is, but what can't be argued is: you won't be neutral.
When Neelix and Tuvok are combined into one being in a transporter accident, the questions around separating them back bring individual rights versus plural rights, and group cohesion and group needs, into the spotlight in a way which few other episodes of even Trek have ever done. And generally never quite to the same potential heights.
You might argue that Janeway could be seen as violating the Prime Directive in this show. You'd have a point too. Watch and see, and make your own judgement.
The primary complaints I had of this episode is that it is only one episode - exploring more fully ramifications of this could have done with being at least a two parter, not just one. That nobody seems to grieve in Tuvix's 'death' at the end is disturbing really, and might have been part of that second part - along with different crew reactions to Janeway's decision, and the reactions of Tuvok and Neelix themselves.
But... the other is that the character Tuvix could have been such a fine addition to Voyager's crew, with such a wonderful, nuanced performance by Tom Wright indicating he could have played a great part. It would really have been something if two main characters were killed off, to be replaced, and the aftermath of this being explored with Tuvix and others periodically on the rest of the show. It would have been a really brave and original move in Trek and TV history as well - so the wasting of that incredible potential pulls it down as well a few stars.
Could then have been better executed I feel - but still an important thinking episode of Trek, regardless.
American Sniper (2014)
Easy to admire on a technical level, but deeply troubling as a historical account
This film has good cinematography, sound, and a committed performance by Cooper, and other characters. What's wrong is the screenplay. Very, very wrong.
I read Chris Kyle's book, and he was far from a pleasant character, however good he might have been with a rifle. A quasi-sainthood with which this film heaps on Kyle (the closing credits are disturbing to see, in this regard) with PTSD unsurprisingly put as the sole demon that interferes with that sainthood. This does huge disservice to how borderline psychopathic and jingoistic the real Kyle was to the people of the Middle East. Which you can read all about in his own text. You get none of that explored in any depth here. Because that would be 'anti-American' of course.
Eastwood also ought to know better as a director than to just present this Iraqi conflict as a pro American flag waving, us versus them, 'makes up for 9/11' quest. But that's what it is. The only moral questions that we're presented with are Kyle's fears about shooting children, what his work does in taking him away from his family in America, or how he balances his home life on return with helping out other vets. Little else. Nothing on the devastating bloodshed inflicted on the Middle East by the West, at least partly in the names of oil and opium.
You might feel moved by watching this, but you realise soon after that you've been had, if you're politically informed in any way. I don't recommend this film, and I'm glad I never paid money to see it at the cinema, or buying on video at least.
Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (2019)
Oh how the mighty have fallen - the Rise of Tedium
In my previous review of the Force Awakens for IMDB, I stated that I'd likely watch the latter films on TV, rather than the cinema, such was misfire of that film.
I actually broke this in going to see the Last Jedi - maybe the good reviews were right this time? No - just the reviewers again refused to see the wretchedness at the heart of that film as well. After seeing that, there was no way I was going to the theater for the last one.
So this review is from seeing it on TV. Decision rewarded. I hoped beyond hope that somehow, Jar Jar would somehow pull something new out the hat. No.
What an appalling film, and conclusion to the new Trilogy - from somebody who loved the originals, and to some degree, liked even the Prequels.
So many have listed this film's flaws individually here already - I won't do a forensic on it. Summary - it just jumps from one tiresome, bloated, unoriginal battle set piece or Macguffin to another. Just like its immediate predecessors did. No notable writing, or character development beyond cardboard cut out archetypes. Scarcely a scene anywhere to fill one with wonder. Plot holes and recycling of previous films again aplenty.
A film like ROS is an embarrassment to the original Trilogy - in fact, it makes even the Phantom Menace look admirable, and Revenge of the Sith a masterpiece in comparison. That should tell you something.
I'm done then, as far as Star Wars and films go. We have to hope somebody can pull this trainwreck of a franchise in a more modest and thoughtful direction. TV series such as the Mandolorian I hope can help to erase in time the memories of this stinking third Trilogy.
Advice - try and forget that the third Trilogy existed, and go to a fan film like Darth Maul: Apprentice on the Internet. Better story, pacing and tension in less than 20 minutes with amateurs producing, than this film or its predecessors managed with multimillions.
Why did I give three stars, you wonder? Cinematography and music mixing and score are fine. Make up and CGI/special effects functional. Everything else - forget it.
John Wick (2014)
Not profound, not Shakespeare... but kinetic fun
This movie would never win a screenplay Oscar, but that's almost not the point here. This is a B movie, with choreographed fight scenes galore - and if you take it on it's own terms, it's kind of fun.
It actually makes a nice change from Marvel and DC antics, where CGI seems to be always the king or queen. Here, there's old school beat em up, Hong Kong kung fu inspired cinema back on the screen again. It's almost a throw back to 80s and before fight flicks in this way.
A simple revenge theme drives the film, and it suits Keanu's brooding persona well. The movie gets some decent acting chops from Alfie Allen and the late Michael Nyqvist, and a sly Willem Defoe, in fleshing out otherwise simply drawn and thinly written characters. Watch out also for a key character from 'The Wire' in a quietly scene stealing turn, whenever they're on screen.
If you're looking for docu drama, and high realism, then take a pass. if you put the brain on 'get this' mode though for an old school pop corn fight flick, John Wick is definitely an entertaining few hours.
Star Trek: Picard (2020)
7 stars post season 1, 3 stars after 2 - what a royal mess
I'll leave my original review after season 1 at the end of my update (after I watched season 2).
After season 2, which I watched in full: potential totally wasted. They made the show's possible strengths consistently into weaknesses, and tedious melodramas. Plot holes and neglected subplots aplenty. Total disrespect for Trek lore and feel is now the rule.
I really wanted to give this show the benefit of the doubt after season 1. But I'm sorry I did.
The showrunners need to steer this franchise train wreck back into sanity. I then assert: put this show to Ira Steven Behr and Ronald D. Moore if they're at all willing, immediately. They might be able to at least salvage something from the trash heap. Kurtzman is increasingly steering this franchise into disaster.
I give it three stars now after season 2, because of good production values, and special effects. Most of the rest is subpar.
I can only hope season 3 salvages something, but all bets are off at this point, frankly.
Post season 1 review:
Recommencing Star Trek, in the age of Netflix and Marvel dominance, and more modern audiences, was always going to be challenging. I don't agree with people whining this isn't exactly like TNG, Voyager, and DS9 of their memories. TV has changed since then, and it's ok to try new things, rather than just milk nostalgia.
Centering it around though perhaps TNG's greatest asset - Picard - was a smart move. Patrick Stewart is great throughout, and brings gravity and dignity (and smiles, in a few great comedy moments).
Pluses aside from this:
I liked some of the new characters in this new crew, and discovering the scars on their history - it's important they haven't obsessed about pulling in just old characters, but building new ones.
An episode with Riker and Troi was wonderfully done, and seeing again Jeri Ryan as Seven has been a highlight - you'll probably enjoy her character development. The 'return' of Data, curious though the plot around him is, has also given some tender and thoughtful moments at the beginning and end. These moments mark out the series, for anyone who's followed this wonderful android's tale in the Star Trek universe.
The plot didn't go where I would have liked - exploring the extent of the aftermath in the Federation's rebuild after the Dominion War, and Voyager's return from the Delta Quadrant - but choosing Romulan relations after the desruction of their empire, was fair enough as a way to go.
The cons - the writing has been very up and down at times.
The villains in the end though aren't nearly as great, consistent or memorable as in some Star Trek in the end, after a promising beginning. Romulans are a practical and secretive people of course, but not stupid - and their holding to a relic and fantasy of 'all artificial life will doom us!' just felt like it insulted their intelligence, frankly.
A continuing romance happening between two of the leads, after one had just lost her partner in an absolutely horrific way?! - this felt silly and tactless to me.
An elf type character, based clearly on Legolas from Lord of the Rings, was irritating at times, and obvious.
One memorable TNG character being revisited only to be killed off later, with only slight exploration as to his development in the meantime, was annoying.
Some good character driven writing at the start, and midway, went sadly thrown the way of the dodo too towards the last few episodes - some buildups had little payoff.
The climax wasn't as bad at least as some TV - looking at you here, Game of Thrones! However it still reeked of Star Wars and Marvel type influences - having to have a 'huge mega battle' and character turncoats a plenty. Macguffin reliance, and 'it all ended happily ever after' itis slotted in at the end too? Uneccessary, and silly.
Rushed and staggered plotting too at the climax threw off the coda - sad when at times it had built up certain things nicely.
Summary: glimpses of genius at times, but needs to build itself, and think about it's writing and character development more across a series.
Hopefully season 2 will improve, and this does have a lot of potential. In my world, think about bringing the likes of Ira Steven Behr and Ronald D. Moore back on board please, if you're into serialised storytelling. Nobody has marshalled Star Trek better than these two for serial stories, and I'd love to see what they could do with this series.
In the right hands this could be a blinder of a Star Trek show - even the best of them all - but it needs to learn off the first season's many mistakes, and adjust accordingly.
3100: Run and Become (2018)
Essential, if sometimes eerie viewing for running curios
As a 'standard' marathoner and ultramarathoner in the past, I really am inspired by seeing the words, thoughts and feelings of frankly some of the most incredible runners on the planet - the people who dare to take on a foot race longer than the Tour De France (and this race is virtually unknown in comparison to Le Tour).
Watching their growth through their hurt and struggle, and wonderfully, that of other runners in contrast too in this film is staggering - such as a Buddhist monk's long distance quest around a mountain, that seems even more impossible than the main race; and a man running a special ultra to pay homage to his father's heritage and past - is moving and touching, albeit eerie if trying to put yourself into these incredible people's shoes.
However, there's one thread of the film I found in quite bad taste in a way - and that's looking at an indigenous people in Africa that's looking to find a way to continue hunting, and struggling to carry on their way of life with it. This segment actually has little to do with running, and seems slotted in alongside the other segments of the film as the director's personal charity 'focus'.
I don't want to dismiss the struggles of these people and their relationship with their government (important as this is). However the filmmakers conveniently and irritatingly forget to mention that Sri Chimnoy and many of his disciples have been (and are) vegetarian or vegan. Nor is meat consumption and hunting part of many Buddhist sects.
There is a time and a place for exploring their plight for sure, but I didn't feel this was the right place for it. Or entirely respectful, given the Self Transcendence race's roots and ethos.
Still, overall this is well made, and a wonderful window and contribution into this world. Crisp cinematography as well, of some beautiful nature scenery too on the running trails, is a bonus.
St. Vincent (2014)
Middling movie - but magic Murray
On the one hand, this has a pretty run of the mill plot all told, and shares more than a little of its DNA with 2002's brilliant About a Boy.
But Murray pulls this material higher than it's source - largely from him and occasionally some of the supporting cast (Naomi Watts in particular) there are some charming and funny moments this.
There are also some moments after the final credits have rolled that'll perhaps also reasonate about fallen heroes as well, and what we think and feel about them. Watch it, and you'll know what I mean here.
You could do a lot worse than this. Enjoy it if you do watch.
Ocean's Eleven (2001)
A classic for the ages
I watched this film first probably around 2003-4, and nearly 20 years after its initial release, I'm still hugely entertained every time I watch this again (I've rewatched this probably half a dozen times over the years). It's aged tremendously well. Fun, and kinetic like this is rare today.
There's very few green screen, CGI or special effects shots. This is all about good writing, characters, plot, pacing, camera work, score, and set designs. Apart from one characters laughable English accent (and I'm English, people!) there's virtually not a line or scene out of place.
Hollywood today could learn a lot from noting the heartbeats of this film, and the great, great underrated screenplay that drives it. Its perhaps not a surprise that the sequels struggled to live up to it - this is mastery on the first take.