Jey047 Reviews

The Weight of Chains (2010)

an unfortunately totally dishonest piece of propaganda

[2/10 · 30 April 2016]

I tried to be fair to this "documentary", knowing from reviews I had read that the filmmaker had a blatant bias. The problem isn't just the bias which without any irony interprets and misinterprets historical facts to fit the agenda of the filmmaker, but the fact that the film total jumps over entire years of history of the country it's claiming to support and historical events that totally contradict the filmmaker's self-stated goal of presenting the Serbian people as the sole defenders of the Yugoslav state.

That the film presents the "history of Yugoslavia" solely from the perspective of the Serbs is unapologetically and unabashedly demonstrated from the the first 5 minutes and throughout the entire movie, but this is easily forgiven if the filmmaker was honest about this being the purpose of the film. The filmmaker does not even interview a single non-Serb about the experiences, perceptions and history of Yugoslavia from a non-Serb perspective. In fact, the only non-Serb citizen of the former Yugoslavia or person of an ethnic group/background found in Yugoslavia was Slovene politician Jože Mencinger, who's sole purpose is to share his perspective of the effects of EU membership on Slovenia, never to share his perspective of Slovenia's experiences in a Serb dominated Yugoslavia.

Serbian anti-Yugoslav & anti-egalitarian policies and actions, such as the murder of non-Serb politicians and activists by Serb officials (even in the Yugoslav parliament by Serb politicians), the violent suppression of civil rights for non-Serbs in both the (Serbian) Kingdom of Yugoslavia and SFR Yugoslavia are all totally ignored because they're totally irrelevant to the story of Serbian victimization and martyrdom being told by the filmmaker.

In the end, this isn't really a film about Yugoslavia at all, let alone it's falling apart and the forces the lead to it's demise. This film is entirely about enforcing the Serbian sense of victimization and martyrdom that has been a cultural staple of Serbian identity since their defeat at Kosovo Polje more than 600 years ago and the justification of Serbian crimes against their neighbours during the past hundred years, just as the filmmaker unintentionally outlined in the first 5 minutes of his movie.

This could have been an open and honest examination of the Serbian perspective and experience during the Yugoslav years and the Balkan war years. It should have been. But it's not. A wasted effort.

Saltwater (2012)

Awful

[1/10 · 9 July 2014]

This may be the worst gay-themed movie ever made - which is saying a lot. I usually try to give lgbt movies a little leeway, because they often are small budget affairs. But this movie was unbearable. I gave up just short of 15 minutes in because I couldn't take it any more. The actors are fair, at best, but the characters are terrible, stereotypical and annoying. The writer and/or director didn't take the time to make the characters likable and important to us before they showed us the negative and unlikeable side of the characters. When the two leads started to argue, the dialogue was so bad and the delivery so poor, that I had to bail. the director and writer are so in your face and beating you over the head with their message, that they didn't take any time to develop the characters and build to their point. This is the first time I haven't been able to finish watching a gay-themed movie. sad.

Iron Man Three (2013)

Good Start, but ultimately disappointing

[7/10 · 9 May 2013]

Iron Man 3 started out well. It's a decent action-thriller-comedy, but ultimately disappointing as an Iron Man movie. The main reason for this is that there's very little Iron Man in the movie. For a solid 80% of the movie (at least) we get a lot of Tony Stark running around sans suit and quite a bit of remote suit action mostly controlled by Jarvis, though occasionally by Stark. There's very little of actually Tony-in-the-suit Iron Man time and action. Even during the big fight sequences neither Tony nor Rhodey actually get much action in their suits (Rhodey actually has no action sequences in the suit, unless you call being instantly incapacitated and forced out of the suit action).

A little less Tony and a little more Iron Man would have made a lot of difference. As it is, the movie should have been called "Tony Stark with the Iron Man Suit." Then there's what they did to the Mandarin. He started out well, sort of a Ra's Al Ghul type of mysterious terrorist with unknown motivations. A good way of presenting the character when you don't have several decades and hours of screen time to develop the character's comic book mythos. Unfortunately, half way through the movie they make the Mandarin a joke and a clown, and a potential powerful and intimidating opponent for Iron Man is quickly discarded.

And then there's the cherry on the icing of bad decisions - a guy who breathes fire. The entire audience in the theatre I was at groaned when that happened - an incident only slighted mitigated by Stark remarking: "You breathe fire now?" The rest of the bad guys ultimately fall flat because you never get to find out what their motivations are? Why is Killian doing what he's doing? Why does Hanson do what she does? No one's motivations are explained, leaving them flat and colourless.

The movie ends with a extended sequence that almost seems like a possible farewell to the RDJ-Stark-Iron Man character, and a quick run through of what might have actually been a better story if they had dealt with Stark's alcoholism rather than creating an anxiety disorder for him.

I think people are going to miss the movie this could have been, which would have far surpassed what we ended up getting.

The Secret of the Grain (2007)

A movie in need of help

[1/10 · 6 December 2008]

I went to see this movie with a friend and we were both very interested and excited, but unfortunately, this movie lost it's way very quickly. While the premise had great promise, the great failure of this movie lies with the director and the editor, neither of whom could make the decision of what should be kept and what should be discarded. Just because you film 3 hours of footage, does not necessitate that you use it all.

This movie could have spoken about how difficult it can be to start a business in France (or anywhere in the west), especially if you're an immigrant or outsider, the important bonds of family and their difficulties, and how different people integrate with each other. Instead, this movie speaks about nothing. The characters are all selfish and cruel or just plain pathetic. The scenes go on ad nauseam and the director doesn't know or simply chooses not to edit scenes for brevity, so what should have been a 90 minute movie, turns into a 160 minutes exercise in audience torture. Is it really ever necessary to watch a character carry every single pot from a car to a building? No, of course not! We're intelligent beings, we can make the leap in judgment. Unfortunately, the director doesn't think much of his audience and everything is painfully detailed and examined, while revealing nothing, to the point where it takes 60 minutes to even get to the part of the story where the lead character even decides he wants to open a restaurant - a plot point that is meant to be key to the entire story. Meanwhile, were enlisted to sit through 90 minutes worth of unnecessarily long scenes of mothers shouting at and belittling their children, a woman dancing to distract drunken patrons, and old man running in circles, etc.

Add to that a script where the overall plot was written out, but the dialog was largely improvised and all you have is a disaster.

What did I learn from this movie: white french people all racist, all Arab men cheat on their wives, all Arab women are cruel to each other and anyone who's not a member of their family, all Arabs are unreliable and incompetent in business, and Arabs are probably just as racist as the white people and would love to take advantage of them as they themselves are taken advantage of by the whites, but they're just not very good at it. And everyone's a mean-spirited gossip.

In other words, this movie is a compilation of clichés and stereotypes.

None of the characters are likable, though the lead is by far the most likable, if only because he barely speaks, so he doesn't make as great a fool of himself as the others do (other than literally running in circles to his death).

In the end, making decisions is an important aspect of any work of art, but especially writing and movie-making. I wish those involved with this movie had actually made a decision.

Love in the Time of Cholera (2007)

Not just bad, but painful

[1/10 · 17 November 2007]

If I had to choose between cholera and sitting through this movie again, I'd choose cholera, it's far less painful. While the cinematography is great and the soundtrack beautiful, the rest of the movie is the stellar opposite.

The story fails to be romantic in any way. The lead actress has no chemistry with any of the actors she's supposed to be attracted to, and they don't have much chemistry with her either. There are cameos galore, but with no real purpose, except maybe that the actors wanted their names on the the cast list for what they hoped would be as lauded a movie as was the book on which it was based.

While the lead actress plays the same role throughout the movie, even though she doesn't pass as a teenager, much less as a 72 year old woman, even with extensive make-up, the lead male role is inexplicably split between two actors - the later being Bardem who, because of the excessive make-up and blush applied to him is supposed to pass as a 20 year old, more so than the 29 year old actor who had played the character in his teens. This reveals another major problem of this film, all the actors always have on too much make-up, even when it is not needed, and this is particularly distracting when you see a close-up on the actors on the big screen of a theatre, and all you see is foundation and blush. The actors seem to age at different rates, and with no dates or indication of how much time has passed between scenes, it all becomes very difficult to follow, particularly when other characters, such as Bardem's character's mother, don't age at all, they're just fortunate enough to become senile.

Most of the acting is on par with a bad telenovela, and even in the few cases where the actors give good performances, such as Hector Elizondo, there's no depth to the character. At one point you're lead to believe that his character has died and that Bardem's character has taken over the business, only to have him pop up again half an hour later to announce that he's retiring. Most of the actors muddle through strained accents, none of which match up, and the most hilariously out of place is John Leguizamo, who plays his character as if he's the lovechild of his characters from Moulin Rouge and Spawn, but with a heavy New York accent this time.

There's no sense of love between any of the characters, not even familial love between the uncle and nephew, as the uncle is quick to accuse his nephew of coming to see him only because he wants something. As far as romantic love, the lead actress doesn't seem to love Bardem's character at all, let alone her husband. And Bardem's character just comes off as a strange, disturbing stalker, who so "loves" and is committed to the woman he pursues, that he sleeps with any woman that walks by, including his 16 year old niece (or some other relative). None of the lead characters are in the least bit even likable, so it's difficult to feel any empathy for anything they're supposed to be feeling or going through.

I admit, there are a few laughs in this film, unfortunately, most of them don't seem to be intentional. In the end, they hardly make up for having to sit through more than two hours of characters you don't really care about. I found myself envying the characters that died in the film - at least they didn't have to stay for the end.

Lives of the Saints (2004 TV Movie)

Wow

[9/10 · 3 January 2005]

American mini-series should be half this good. This could easily have been a feature film and would have been nominated for an academy award. Almost all the actors give incredible performances, but the true standouts are Sophia Loren and Fabrizio Filippo, who I've had great expectations for since I first saw him in "Ready or Not", more than ten years ago. His performances in the last several years, including "Waydowntown" & "Queer as Folk" have been standout, but here we finally see the true potential he has to be a true leading man. And Sabrina Ferilli also did an incredible job. It's simply impossible to keep your eyes off of her when she is on the screen, as her face says more than her words and you dare not miss an expression.

Visually, this movie is like a painting brought to life, particularly the scenes in Italy. The use of the horizon and colour reminded me of Claire Denis' "Beau travail" and is almost a character itself, saying as much as any of the actual people.

Jessica Paré's performance was fair, though clearly the weak point in the film. Still, I can't think of another film I've seen on television recently, that comes close to matching this one in scope, beauty, intensity, and pure passion. There's no doubt that this was a work of love for all those involved in the making of this film.

If you have the chance, see this movie. You'll be glad you did.

Gigli (2003)

Poor effort and predictable story

[2/10 · 1 August 2003]

I have to believe that everyone involved with this movie knew it was a mess as they were making it. What I don't understand: why didn't the director have the guts to stop production and send the script back for a rewrite. The biggest problem this movie had was dialogue, or rather, the absence of a writer who knew how to write dialogue. It was obvious that Affleck could barely get his lines out with a straight face. The other major problem was editing. Numerous and seemingly endless scenes of music and no dialogue; while an improvement over the dialogue, did nothing to further the movie's plot, rather, they simply prolonged and slowed the pace of the movie, when just the opposite was necessary.

An hour into the movie I found myself looking at my watch, shocked to find that it had only been an hour. The performances were fair, hardly worth mentioning. Justin Bartha, who played the kidnap victim, gave the strongest performance and one has to wonder why the movie wasn't named for him, as that might have actually made sense.

The cameos ranged from the bizarre and unexplained appearance of Christopher Walken as a police officer, to the humorous, but over-done flirtatious mother, played by Lainie Kazan, to the over the top and scene stealing cameo of Al Pacino as a violent and conscienceless crime boss.

I'm not sure that this movie could have been made much better, other than not having been made at all, but it certainly won't inspire future collaborations between the current it couple, Affleck and Lopez. Affleck's performance was rigid and stunted, while Lopez was charming, but ultimately about as deep as the rest of the plot.

Over all, this movie was painful. Slow, boring, and funny when it didn't intend to be, if only because the dialogue was so bad. Wait for it on cable. Don't even bother with video.