Change Your Image
jtownsle
Reviews
Backtrack (2015)
Good film, requires captions
I enjoyed the film--the story was good, filming and acting were all good. At first I thought it was a little predictable, but it ceased to be so about halfway through, and by the end the threads came together to make for a compelling ghost story.
The problem I had with the film was the director seemed to think it was a good idea to make all of the actors whisper their lines, and frequently just have the lines mumbled. I almost gave up on this film after 10 minutes because I had no idea what the actors were saying, until I remembered that Netflix has subtitles available. I started the film from the beginning with captions turned on, and I could finally enjoy the film.
Adwa (1999)
Meandering, Unsourced, Confusing
Before reviewing, I should qualify that I had a specific purpose for watching this film, which was to find a movie or documentary that I could show to the Africa class that I teach, and one of our textbooks is an ethnography of south Ethiopia. I hoped Adwa would be a good historical introduction to the Ethiopian, Italian war. I was very disappointed, Perhaps my disappointment is related to my expectations for the film, and/or my orientation as a Westerner with a preference for linear, documented historical narratives.
The first 5-minutes of the film is images of drawings and paintings, with music overlaid. I can only presume these are Ethiopian drawings, and Ethiopian music, both of which "seem" to be depicting some kind of battle. The rest of the movie is a mixture of images of drawings, random images of scenery, random interviews with people who are not credited, and narrations that are not contextualized or sourced. The narratives often seem not to match the imagery. For example, narrative of a treaty that happened by a river, while the imagery is of cattle, and a many standing in front of a bunch of children. There is no attempt to connect the images to the narrative. The people interviewed, some sitting in chairs in offices, some standing in villages, could be anybody, from anywhere. We aren't told if they are history professors, former politicians, villagers who survived the war, or just hired actors. None of the historical narratives are sourced. None of the drawings are sourced--they could be from anywhere, from any time, about any battle--we just don't know from what is presented in this film. We don't know if any of the scenes are from Ethiopia, if they are old or new video, etc.
A previous reviewer talked about the film's "poetics." Perhaps if you want 90 minutes of free-form music, imagery and story, then this film might suit your needs. If you want a documentary you can trust to show students, or for a reliable "history" of the Adwa battle, I would look for alternatives to this film.
Nomads (1986)
Awful, slow, confused, terrible choreography
The movie starts out slow and confused. Perhaps I'm simply imposing a 2013 movie-watching experience on a 1986 film. But I've seen plenty of pre-1986 films that were great. This one is awful. You occasionally get glimpses of a plot, but it's rare. Brosnan is a decent actor, but I could barely stand to watch the film because of his farcical French accent. And while he has a nice body, I don't know what the rear and frontal nudity has to do with the movie. In another scene, he defends himself against an interloper (Adam Ant), and while his swings all look like they miss by a good foot, the attacker still goes down, even though for one of the blows there is a lamppost between the Brosnan's arm and Ant. People appear in and out of nowhere and switch bodies--perhaps it's real, perhaps it's part of a transcendent consciousness, or even just a dream--who knows? Certainly not the audience. How could anybody think this was a scary movie? When the movie was made I was 10--perhaps I would have thought it was scary then.
Memory (2006)
Tedious and silly
If I rated films based solely on storyline, this would be a 1, but the competent acting and filming boost the rating. The high-profile cast made me presume the film would have a great story and would be a thrilling ride--who would doubt it, with Zane and Hopper as the male leads (I pictured the Phantom plus Speed, and throw in Helfer from Battlestar Galactica). At worst I assumed the complex intensity of Memento when I read about "flashbacks" and murder-mystery. However, at the halfway mark I had to double-check the film background to make sure it wasn't a Lifetime Channel movie of the week. There were a lot of chatty scenes where the characters make lame jokes and share pointless stories. The neuroscience references are, at the same time, too implausible and too banal to make this a good sci-fi, while the action scenes are too few, brief and dull to make this a good thriller. I hope this isn't a spoiler (since I didn't check the "spoiler" box for this review), but while you spend the first 20 minutes being drawn into a frame of "Alzheimer's researcher" who is "taking care of Alzheimer's loved one," making you think the story will do something with this strongly developed early thread, that thread suddenly disappears and is never mentioned again. Which is what should happen to this film...
Doctor Who: Midnight (2008)
Repetitive, Boring, Uncharacteristic, Inappropriate
**Spoiler Alert** I would give this a "1", except that there was some sporadic, though quite good, acting. 1) Repetitive--as is the alien communication. But whereas the alien's repetition allegedly inspired terror in the characters, it inspired boredom and irritation from me.
2) Boring--I disagree with the previous reviews that this episode was tense. They must only watch sit-coms when a few characters screaming at each other for an hour leads those viewers to become anxious and tense. Further, while previous reviewers are correct that this episode is vastly different from the canon of Doctor Who history, that doesn't automatically mean it should be rated highly for creativity. A tedious script is still tedious, regardless of how different it is from its predecessors. Typically we call that a flop, not a triumph.
3) Uncharacteristic--since when does the Doctor scream at people to stop doing something stupid, and then start doing that exact stupid thing? If copying words makes it learn faster, and they already know it doesn't answer questions, why does the Doctor get in its face and keep asking it questions? And as if we hadn't already had 10 minutes of realizing it knows how to copy at the same time, why does the Doctor get in its face and randomly say things to keep testing it? If I didn't know better, I would think the producer let somebody write an episode who had never seen Doctor Who and knew nothing of his character. I don't mind shows mixing things up a bit, but at least be character-consistent!
4) Inappropriate--My understanding was that Doctor Who wants to remain a family show and retain its appropriateness for kids (thus the contrast with Torchwood). However, I agree with a previous reviewer--I doubt a younger audience would sit through half of this, and I wouldn't want them to. Sure there aren't any bloody limbs flying around or sexual content (I appreciate the producers for retaining this component of the series) but this Hitchcock meets Golding (from the previous reviewer's Lord of the Flies reference) meets Twilight Zone still doesn't seem like "family" viewing.