Change Your Image
grimjac100
Reviews
Alita: Battle Angel (2019)
Wow.
Just...wow. A cyborg coming-of-age story that hits it out of the park and possibly out of orbit. Never read the manga or seen the anime and for others lioke me: it's not necessary to know the source material. Everything is contained in the movie, and what differences there are (you can read them in other reviews) are easily overlooked due to the difference in medium.
Stop wasting time on reviews and go see this before it leaves theaters. If this is being read after that sad happening, buy the DVD or streaming service. You'll want it in your collection.
Captain Marvel (2019)
Matt Salinger or Reb Brown as Captain America; Still Better Than This 'Captain Marvel'
I love superhero movies and generally don't care what individual actors (or actresses, if that term is still in usage) do off-screen. They aren't their character, so not a problem for me.
So this review isn't negative because of Brie Larson's politics or personality. I kinda respect her for having the courage of her convictions...not that she needs my approval, but she also doesn't need my opposition.
It's just a bad, bad, horrible Captain Marvel movie. I've been a comic fan a long time so have grudgingly accepted the idea of retconning and rebooting and all those tricks.
But...c'mon. How do you keep a superhero's name, and change everything else about the character? Seriously, that's all that's really recognizable is the names. Carol Danvers...started as Ms Marvel, didn't become Captain Marvel till early this decade. Monica Rambeaux is the first female Captain Marvel, got her name from the media and her powers from extra-dimensional energy. Later ceded the name to the *original* Captain Marvel's son...yeah, Mar Vell was a Kree warrior, a man, and eventually died of cancer in Marvel's first major graphic novel.
That's some serious history to mine. You can make a damn good movie out of that. I bet a fan-made movie (similar to the Deadpool fanfilms) would be worth more than this...whatever it is.
See, the problem is, Marvel or Disney pretty obviously forgot everything they and the world learned about superhero movies since Iron Man took us by surprise. Put simply: you write a good story based heavily on a particular version of your character, and let the story and the characters sell the film. We moviegoers like good stories.
So, obviously the MCU.Disney wanted a strong female-led movie to combat the threat of Wonder Woman. No problem, saw that coming. I suspect they chose Captain Marvel because DC was producing Shazam (the real original Captain Marvel) but that's just my suspicion.
Seriously, you want a strong female-led movie. Okay...gee, not like fans have been *screaming* for a Black Widow movie. Not like Scarlet Witch is arguably, like, the most powerful mortal in the multiverse! (House of M, etc and so forth) Let's be honest: Scarlet Witch wiggles her fingers and Captain Marvel/Carol Danvers *might* have time to widdle her knickers before she's dead.
How about Lady Sif...suspiciously absent in Thor: Ragnorak. Mantis, Moondragon, Nova...the list goes on.
But you settle on Captain Marvel/Carol Danvers...okay, we can promote her from Ms to Captain, not a big thing, easy to accept for simplicity's sake. So where the heck is Carol's actual *origin*? In a comic canon sense. All the other Avengers have origins based on the comics...not all inclusive, but with retcons and fifty years or more of publishing history, you are allowed some leeway.
Some. Not 'everything but the name is different'. Oh, Mar Vell is there...sort of...but he's Annette Bening and therefore an older woman. Still a Kree soldier...I think? Honestly, that's not too clear. Monica Rambeau is a child when this takes place, paving the way for her to be Captain Marvel in any sequel that might be greenlit since...good Lord, Brie Larson is NOT right for the role. Watching her onscreen was uncomfortable. RDJ's Tony Stark was a smarta^^ playboy who learned hard lessons. Chris Evans as Steve Rogers was an idealistic kid dreaming big dreams and grows up as he learned the cost of his ideals. Chris Hemsworth as Thor was a spoiled brat forced to accept the consequences of his actions and learns his position isn't free. Scarlet Johanson as Black Widow is bada** as it gets with a lot of hinted backstory that could easily carry a couple movies. Elizabeth Olsen as Scarlet Witch brings a form of innocence welded to a core of steel, again could easily carry a couple movies.
Brie, Oscar winner or not, brings nothing to this role. You can tell she *wants* so badly to be Taken Seriously. The difference between her and the above is they all play the *character* and in the course of doing so, make that character their own. Brie never does...and that's not surprising considering the character she's supposed to be playing is a Dr Moreau experiment let loose on the world.
It's fairly obvious Marvel/Disney felt the need to 'compete' with the 'surprise' success of Wonder Woman. Serious female heavy hitter leading the movie and so on. Sadly, Wonder Woman *still* did it much better because it told a good *story*, rather than just saying, 'Hey! Female superhero here! You have to love it, right? Story? Canon? Who needs *that*...didn't you see this is a FEMALE superhero?!?'
Here's a hint, Marvel/Disney: for Captain Marvel 2...we all know it's coming, there's too many eggs in this basket for them to scrap the idea...Carol Danvers goes strutting up to Thanos, he snaps her away, and far away on Earth, Monica Rambeau is staring at a picture of her and Carol from the 90s. Pull back, we see her New Orleans police badge, her Lt bars she just pinned on...flash of ight, Monica passes out, wakes up, sees a crisis, transforms into energy to go solve the problem. Oooh...Captain Marvel! the media gushes. Nick Fury can show up to recruit her, give her the 'sad' news about Carol, the new Captain Marvel has her adventure...or two or three or however many movies.
Even Samuel Jackson can't save this movie, though. Not even with the help of a 'young' Agent Coulson. Even the effects...normally excellent in MCU...are substandard. Seriously, the 'climatic' space fight makes me think of Battlestar Galactica...the old one with Lorne Greene and Dirk Benedict!
These are just my thoughts and opinions as a long-time comic fan. Sure, go see it for yourself...but I heavily recommend you wait till it's at the budget theater (give it a month) or streams on Netflix.
The Punisher: The Whirlwind (2019)
Disappointing (Season Review)
All of Season 2 was disappointing compared to Season 1. The finale possibly most of all. Frank the Punisher His Own Self is effectively useless and helpless. Even the fights he wins throughout the season are more through luck than any inherent skill. There's no scene to compare to the basement firefight in S1, or the final fight with Russo in S1's finale.
Even though the Bad Guys in S2 had greater potential than those in S1, which basically only set Russo up as Jigsaw.
Instead, they erred on the side of being 'nice' or 'sensitive' or whatever...things the Punisher isn't known for. There overarching plot is based on rich religious corporate parents protecting their privileged son from the crime, apparently, of being gay. That's kind of offensive, as if in this day and age, that really matters compared to dozens of bodies piled up to hide that inconvenient truth. I mean, do people really think this way? Nobody I know does. Just seems a very bizarre and outdated pebble to start an avalanche of murder. Seriously, is Season 3 going to involve Frank protecting a Lil Woman on account of she's immodest and such-like?
Second, also offensive...all the women are so 'strong and independent' but do such stupid stuff because they're 'emotional'. In S1, Madani was a bit of an uptight B-word, but it made sense and she was a pretty great character. In S2, all that goes away...she's all traumatized and ineffective and can't apparently do anything useful. Seriously, the SAC of DHS taking random crap from a NYPD detective? Yeah, I don't think that's gonna happen in the real world...or even a sensible fictional one. Madani spends the whole season waffling and wallowing; she was a good 3D character in S1, and in S2, she's...I don't even know the terms. Is she supposed to be a role model for strong independent women and girls? Is she supposed to be a hypocritical feminist caricature? Who knows? It doesn't seem like the writers knew, either.
Same with Amy/Rachel...she's the tough streetwise independent street kid? No, she's the whiney paranoid juvenile scam artist? No, she's the plucky take-charge Cool Kid Sidekick? No, she's the stacked blonde in the first scene of any slasher film, Too Dumb To Live? There's little to no consistency to her character, and that gets annoying as it continues through the entire season.
The doctor...I don't even want to get into her. Think Suicide Squad's Harley Quinn a la Margot Robbie but without the micro shorts or personality. I don't know if she was written 'straight' as a kind, overly caring doctor who has no common sense or she's another liberal caricature.
And Curtis...how he survived the entire season leaves reason begging for a scrap of sense Is he Frank's friend? Is he a selfish so-and-so only concerned with himself? Sadly, it's more like, "Crap, we have a black detective after Frank, we need to focus on Frank's black friend to even it out! But crap, we can't have a black guy be an effective hard-charger, that could be construed as us saying blacks are violent! So we have to make him sensitive...but not too much, since we don't want him to seem like we're virtue-signaling his metrosexuality...!"
Yeah, pretty much the entire season is like that. None of the characters are handled consistently or effectively...even Frank. In one episode he's a master marksman making five headshots with a handgun at 20 yards, in another he can't hit a single opponent from ten feet. Seriously, the hotel room shoot-out is a joke. The Punisher prefers to shoot blindly through walls instead of, I don't know...go into the hall? Oh, wait, he did that once, but then spent another five minutes trading an endless fusillade of shots through the wall.
Yes, watch the season, but be aware it falls far short of the first. Sure, the first started slow but it built up a consistent momentum and all the characters developed in a reasonable fashion.
The sole exceptions to this condemnation are for Ben Barnes' Billy Russo/Jigsaw...he is written well consistently throughout the season, and he makes Billy an almost sympathetic villain. Very well done.
The other exception is Josh Stewart's Pilgrim. He's kinda creepy to start and you think he's going to be your standard Christian-killer-hypocrite...but he's not. He's not a *good* guy, but he's kind of a good *bad* guy. It's understandable, and you can see parallels between him and Frank as the season continues on. Granted the final confrontation between him and Frank is lame in the extreme, but that's not the character's fault.
So, overall, I'd rate the season a strong 6, weak 7. Disappointing, but not due to any fault of the actors...they were given weak material. Choppy inconsistent writing, senseless character variations, and no clear sense of a conherent world/season plot.
As usual, your mileage may very
Lucy (2014)
Misleading
You'd think this was going to be an action flick, based on the trailers. It could have been, but it wasn't. This is especially odd since Luc Besson is usually pretty darn good at action flicks.
Instead, we get...something that wants to be a deep philosophical film about the nature of humanity but lacks pretty much everything necessary.
Scarlet Johanson does as well as can be expected given almost nothing to work with. Her work in the first half hour is great, but after that...not much you can do when your only direction is apparently, "You're no longer human, you're a computer. Think The Vision with less personality, that's what we're aiming for!"
Morgan Freeman is Morgan Freeman, used as exposition to give the audience the world-view necessary to make the plot work. It doesn't have to be true or scientific or proven; it's science fiction. The Force hasn't been proven and isn't based on solid science, but the Star Wars series is some pretty awesome sci-fi. Yet that first movie used a few lines of dialogue by Alec Guinness to set the stage; here we get Morgan Freeman pontificating and giving us far less than Obi-wan's explanation of The Force.
The main problem with the movie is it lacks any form of sense or internal cohesion. Okay, using more of our brain gives humans power. Not a bad premise for a sci-fi flick. A flick of her finger knocks a precinct of cops out, but she has to levitate Asian bad guys one by one.
And that's about it as far as action goes. The movie devolves into some sort philosophical art piece about the meaninglessness of being or something. There is literally no point to this movie. There's no plot resolution...or plot at all.
So, final opinion...if you're a Scarlet fan, watch it but don't expect a reprise of Natasha. Just don't expect a plot that makes sense or any sort of meaning for the couple hours you spend staring at the screen.
Chilling Adventures of Sabrina: Chapter One: October Country (2018)
Could Be Worse, Could Be Better...1st Episode Thoughts
Okay, for a first episode, it's not bad. A lot of groundwork to establish, so the characters aren't extremely deep...but it's the first episode, so how can they be?
The overall idea is fairly sound, if more than a little familiar: teenager questioning their place and identity and what the older generation thinks/believes/wants. So, the main character is a Satanic witch and she's questioning whether she wants to sell her soul in exchange for power like everyone in her family (at least on her father's side) has done. A little more extreme than a teen wondering if they want to go to college to study accounting or run off to the Australian Outback...
The acting is decent, though the blurry camera to foster spookiness isn't a favorite technique for me.
There are some red flags, though, which might get solved in future episodes or may be a series failing, though how well you stomach them is a subjective decision.
First, as other reviewers have noted, is the 'political' slant. However, this isn't a new thing; every series ever made has had 'political' messages and slants. The first episode hints that it may be a little too left to make me happy, especially as heavy-handed as it appears to want to be.
Now, don't get me wrong...most of what other reviewers call 'political' aren't what bother me. The anti-bullying thing is fine, and Sabrina's friends hitting all the minority checkmarks is okay, too. Diversity isn't a dirty word and a lot of kids today have a circle of friends that cross pretty much every dividing line...race, religion, sex...almost everything except politics. But that's fine; it's okay to hate someone with different political beliefs...or so we're told.
No, the problem I have is far more basic, and incredibly offensive...and racist, sexist, and almost every other -ist out there. Witches are *not* Satanists and the way they're portrayed in this show is horrific. Sure, sure, gotta be dark, blah blah blah...hey, how about we introduce a devout Muslim character that beats up gays and attacks women for not wearing traditional garb? We want to be dark and edgy and play to stereotypes, right?
On the coat-tails of the offensive Satanic premise, we have extreme stupidity or at the very least, willing ignorance except when the plot armor appears.
Sabrina can, obviously, perform magic even before her 'Dark Baptism', said rite supposedly necessary to get spiffy witchy gifts. And going to a normal high school, and presumably with access to the Internet and other information sources, Sabrina hasn't been exposed to the idea that Satan is a bad guy? She's not acting out, not Goth or emo or embracing her outcast status or any of a dozen other ideas that might reasonably lead her to question her upcoming life plan. Sure, it can be argued that Satan got a bad rap, he's not a bad guy...but the writers didn't go with that slant. Their Satan *is* a bad guy, no doubt in anyone's mind...but Sabrina is cool with it until it might inconvenience her budding love life.
So far...it could have been *so* much better. Sabrina could have been an actually rebellious teen, questioning her family's faith and beliefs, maybe troubled by realistic doubts. She could experience some introspection...hm, why is it okay to mess with my boyfriend's mind? Torture the principal? Is that better or worse than stupid teens bullying another student? Oh, wait, as a Satanic witch, anything *I* want to do is okay...
That may come in future episodes; obviously, the pilot has to introduce a lot of information and deep character development may happen as time goes on. This first episode was decent enough to get me to try at least a couple more.
The Defenders: Fish in the Jailhouse (2017)
Almost To The End
Sadly, none of the characters have gotten any smarter or achieved any sort of development thus far, and there's only one more episode...
And I've put off asking. but...WTH is up with Elektra? All of the characters, actually...their power levels fluctuate so randomly it's pathetic. In one fight, Danny's Iron Fist is amazing as are his martial arts; in another Luke is able to take a full-on face-punch from the Iron Fist...I'm not even sure *what* Jessica's powers are supposed to be since she never appears to use them.
In other episodes, Elektra is fought to a standstill, and in another she takes out the whole team. Danny is stupid and goes against what he just said literally ten seconds back...
Dramatic tension is one thing; this is something way different.
The Defenders: Ashes, Ashes (2017)
Not Gelling
The team...isn't. This is a staple of comics, where the team-ups have to have friction of some sort. This usually lasts for a few arcs, slowly overcoming these obstacles.
So far, this series is following that formula; the only difficulty I have is that what works in comics doesn't necessarily translate well to the screen. This episode highlights the difficulty in translation. The 'sidelining' of Iron Fist is extremely hard to swallow, as it makes no sense in the context of either this series or the characters in their own series.
This series is trying to be less a superhero action romp and more of a character study and holding a mirror up to modern life. This is a tough line to straddle as most superhero fans aren't into deep character studies and those into deep characters aren't into action romps. I suppose it's a lofty goal, but it falls short of the mark. The best episodes...in my opinion...are the more action-oriented ones. The ones trying to be 'more'...like this one...are not as engaging or interesting, and there's little indication whether the 'character development' will carry over to the individual series.
Your mileage may vary, of course...I'm more action-oriented, so keep that in mind.
The Defenders: Worst Behavior (2017)
Not Your Normal Superhero Team
This has the potential to take the best of four separate mostly-successful series and make it something greater than the sum of its parts. Sadly, some of its parts are lacking...
I'm talking Luke Cage and Jessica Jones; two solid series with flawed main characters that really don't work in a larger world...or cast. Within the context of their own shows, their actions, attitudes, and behaviors 'work'.
In *this* show, Jessica comes off as a spoiled, privileged rhymes-with-witch whom nobody would willingly tolerate unless they're working off serious puppy-kicking karma. Her attitude is somewhat off-putting, to say the least; most of us like our heroes flawed but...you know, *heroic*.
Luke...is stupid. Now, this is a staple of comics, so that's okay...when two heroes meet, they have to have some sort of misunderstanding and fight before they can team up. In this case, Luke is 'defending' a poor clueless kid just trying to feed his family...by cleaning up a multiple murder scene. This is not something *anyone* sympathetic does in a civilized society. Yes, there is social injustice, but one does not relieve it by committing more horrors on your particular side. When Luke told Danny he shouldn't be using his Iron Fist on guys just trying to feed their families, Danny should have replied he wasn't, he was using it on criminals.
These two...Luke and Jessica...come off as terribly selfish and self-involved in this series. Definitely not heroes or even decent people. By contrast, Danny is naïve and way too focused. Matt is...well, Matt is kinda awesome as always, as believable as a blind guy whose super-power is being able to effectively 'see' better than an optometrist can be.
All in all, a good idea that's experiencing some 'growing pains', trying to fit four separate and distinct heroes and styles into one ensemble show. Not every attempt is going to enjoy the success 'The Avengers' had...but in that case, every character was a bona-fide hero, so the fit was more comfortable. In this, at least three of the main characters have wildly different goals, which don't really seem to involve saving or helping anyone but themselves or their particular bias.
That said, the first three episodes are decent enough for me to finish out the rest of the series. The acting is a bit better than you might expect, and for all that the different personalities lessen my enjoyment or immersion, I really like that our main characters are not clones; they all have different goals and motivations.
Lucifer: Favorite Son (2016)
Weighing In
Decided to pick this series up again via streaming after thoroughly enjoying the pilot a couple years ago...who knew there'd be so much controversy and argument via reviews?
Sure, Lucifer vacationing from Hell to become a consultant for the LAPD seems like a tragic waste of time and talent; everyone expects Lucifer to be the Bad Guy because...you know, he's *Lucifer*. Lucifer turns that premise on its head, so leaves a lot of people confused.
It's not a simple buddy-cop series. Sure, on the surface you can take it that way, and find it to be quite enjoyable. But when you look at the characters (or Main Character), it's a lot deeper...asks or presents a lot of questions that deserve some consideration. Christian canon and dogma may gloss over the issues, but...God created the angels and they were *not* given free will; it wasn't until He created humans that free will got added into the mix. So how could Lucifer 'rebel' if it wasn't God's Plan? Did God need a Bad Guy and Lucifer, being the 'favored' creation/son, was tasked with it? If God gives you a nasty job with certain instructions, are you a Bad Guy? Or a guy doing a dirty job he has no choice regarding?
In this episode we get a huge clue: Dr Martin asks if Lucifer is evil, or others just see him as evil? Nobody wants to be punished, after all...
Can the guy in charge of punishing others for their sins find redemption? Can he give it up, let someone else do the dirty job? Can he create his own identity free of his family's vision?
That's the deeper questions this show flirts with. So far, I think it does so quite well, but if that's not your thing...it's still a fun buddy-cop series, reminiscent of the early seasons of Castle.
Van Helsing: Help Me (2016)
Worth A Look
Okay, the first episode is a little slow and clunky, feeling a bit like the first half of an episode, rather than being complete in itself. We don't get much backstory or explanation, a sentence or three scattered throughout the episode. Understandable, I suppose; arguably better than an hour's worth of dry exposition.
I've never been a fan of an opening scene set *after* the events of the episode itself. It works on very rare occasion, and sadly, this doesn't qualify. I get that we're supposed to be curious about the sleeping superchick, but to my mind, it would have worked much better to introduce a pack of ferals hunting the refugee party until they reach the hospital. That may be my own bias and since I'm not directing anything other than my appetite, take my opinion for what it's worth.
The acting...acceptable for what the actors are given to work with. The characters...well, they're clichés. It's *immediately* obvious who the episode's Bad Guy is. We have Alex The Dutybound Marine Hero, the Honorable Black Kid, the Wise Older Sidekick, the Paranoid Angry Housewife, the Too Stupid Too Live Husband Whose Wife Was Left Behind, and finally, the Mysterious Superhero(ine). You've seen them in almost every horror movie or action series out there. Nothing new on that front, but if a formula works, I guess New Coke taught folks not to mess with success?
Now...I get this is cheap TV horror fiction. It's not meant to win awards or satisfy our intellectual musings on life, the universe, and everything. That said, is it too much to ask for a *bit* of believability to help us with immersion?
Alex The Dutybound Marine Hero *know* the world is gone. But he's still slavishly devoted to 'guarding' Vanessa The Sleeping Superhero? Especially after she wakes up? Sure, habit, routine...but that's never mentioned. He goes so far as to tell her she *can't* leave. Is she a criminal? Is she a terrorist? His orders were to secure a body and The Doc until relieved. Nothing was said about imprisoning (at least illegally detaining) an American citizen. Nope, he "has" to stop her from leaving.
Next, our Sleeping Superhero Chick. She wakes up as guys are puking blood on her and then violently assaulting her. She kicks their butts, of course, but...her reaction is a very calm, "Who are you?" when the Good Guys arrive. Sure, maybe I could buy shock, but there's a very distinct and incredibly unrealistic lack of engagement. She doesn't demand answers, she doesn't scream, freak out, demand to know where her daughter (who apparently she loves so much but is a really overused and pathetic emotional hook...especially as done here) is. Just...nothing. Sure, lots of people want to know 'what she is' and so on, but nobody explains what happened to the world until Alex (frugally) shares a shower with her, and then....she has no questions. No disbelief, no calling BS, nothing any rational person would respond with. In this first episode, she is a plot point and not a character. I'm willing to bet your left arm if Lynda Carter, Wonder Woman Her Own Self, woke up after three years in a coma, she'd be wanting some answers Right Friggen Now, no matter *how* she had to get them. Vanessa? Her reaction is, "Oh, the world ended? Vampires? Huh. So, yeah, I want to go find my daughter...sure, sure, the world is gone, few survivors, feral vampires hunting the remaining humans like rabbits, but yeah, I'm just gonna catch a cab back to my place, I'm sure she's still there, probably watching TV or something." Yes, I understand mental disconnect, but that didn't come across at all. Instead, Vanessa comes across as the character Too Stupid To Live...but she's the main character?
And except for the Honorable Black Kid and Wise Older Sidekick...I don't see how *any* of the refugees survived for more than three years. Alex doesn't even get a single Thank You For Saving Us from *any* of them. They just move in and think his place is now theirs just because they're there. He should've taken all of them except the two with sense up to the roof, thrown a rope over, said, "Okay, there ya go. Get out. No, no arguments...you don't like the way I do things, so go make your own refuge." Every one of them is worse than the unemployed brother-in-law crashing on your couch 'for now' and complaining you don't have premium cable or stock his favorite brand of beer.
Yes, a lot of negatives in this review, but there's enough intriguing to keep me watching at least the next few episodes. The volcano erupting at the beginning of The Rising might explain the constant overcast, but what caused the vampirism? What's the difference between a Feeder and a Feral? Are they traditional vampires with traditional weaknesses? Is it worldwide, the West half of America? How *will* they explain Vanessa's powers?
It's not the worst way to kill an hour.
Shooter (2016)
Worth The Time
Lot of reviews and as one reviewer noted, seem to fit into two camps, each seizing every opportunity to support their view.
Yes, it is based on a series of books by Stephen Hunter, of which I was a fan of the first few. The later ones lost me as the author altered Bob Lee from a badaxe sniper to a John Grisham-style hero. His character, his story, his choice...I preferred the earlier Bob Lee.
So, any complaints about the transition from print to video automatically fail because in the book, Bob Lee was a *Vietnam* vet, meaning he'd be in his 60s at best. So, most will agree some things must change in order to keep it relevant to today's viewers. If we can accept that change, we should be able to accept other understandable changes from print.
Now, one point that keeps coming up is the pilot's scene between Bob Lee and the hunters, where he disdains the .223 round. Objectively, yes, it is an error...in the context of the scene it makes perfect sense. Bob Lee is insulting the choice of the hunter, essentially calling him clueless and instilling doubt in order to make his next actions easier. How these armchair warriors can mistake this seriously undermines their reviews. Did they not hear the sneering accusation about a Wal-Mart employee hosing the dentist on the purchase? The hunter is so inexperienced he buys his weapon at Wal-Mart...watch the scene again, and see if you think Bob Lee is being serious about the .223 caliber round.
There are factual inconsistencies...talking about the circumference of the human head which has nothing to do with how much target is available. Most are said in passing, easy to attribute to the flow of colloquial conversation. I'm sure *none* of us has ever used the wrong word a just assumed our listener will understand what we meant.
Now, the series isn't perfect; a big issue for me is Bob Lee's varying skill levels. In one fight, he gets his butt kicked and only survives because the Bad Guy decides getting shot by a bystander is too much of a risk. In another, he dominates several skilled assailants. Now, I don't want him to be Superman, but at least keep the skills in the same general vicinity.
The addition of wife and kid...sure, gives some extra avenues for Dramatic Tension, but for me, detracts from the overall story. Extra scenes devoted to them string the story out, give more minutes of run-time. Other than that, they add little to the story. Not to say they aren't interesting or worth watching, adding another layer, but I don't find them all that compelling.
Nadine Memphis...meh. Don't know why they decided to make her a black female, but it doesn't make huge difference in how the story plays out.
So, all in all, if you're a fan of action and intrigue, this series is worth a watch. You may love it, you may hate it, but it should keep you interested. The acting is solid, the writing is much better than the average, and the pacing is done fairly well. Any errors should be easy to overlook if you're not specifically looking for something to get your knickers in a knot about.
NCIS: Naval Criminal Investigative Service: Mother's Day (2010)
Corrupt Hero
So...a woman confesses in a private conversation with the federal officer investigating a murder and is arrested and Mirandized, but that's not legal because...? I understand what they were trying to do with this episode...show a bit more of Gibbs' past, his and Hart's moral ambiguity regarding law vs justice, but the final resolution fell a bit flat with me.
And Gibbs does not fare well in this episode. Would he have done the same if it were anyone else, someone *not* connected to Shannon, who murdered a drug dealer and framed another? With all the forensic evidence, it strains the bounds of even TV-show believability that Joann would walk...especially as she confessed in detail without coercion.
Interesting episode, especially the private interaction between Gibbs and Hart, but Gibbs' character or hero status takes a severe beating, making one begin to understand *why* Hart could conceivably have it out for him...if she's the crusading lawyer she appears, out to keep the cops honest. This episode proves Gibbs...and his team all the way up to the Director...are effectively corrupt. What else would you call covering up a crime and protecting guilty individuals?
Frozen (2013)
Classic Disney But Updated
Frozen is excellent. If you have kids or retain any childlike sense of wonder or humor, this belongs in your collection.
The 'classic' part of my review title is what we've all seen before from Disney: a princess (in this case, two of them), a strong handsome guy as a love interest, an animal or anthromorph as comic relief, catchy songs, and the good guys win in the end. If you like virtually any other Disney animation movie, this will not disappoint on those scores. It hits all the right notes as we'd expect. As I said: classic Disney.
Where Frozen excels, in my opinion, is where it strays from the classic Disney boilerplate. We see the two princesses as children, to start...very rare if not unique. We get an immediate sense of the sister's closeness, upon which the entire movie hinges. There would BE no movie without that bond.
Elsa, a child, makes a 'mistake'...more like involved in an unforeseeable accident...which harms Anna. The parents race to save the situation, and get some 'help' which actually does more harm. This is a fairly mature theme rarely explored in ANY movie, much less a Disney animation. The trolls save Anna (of course), but give some spectacularly bad advice and the parents don't do a lot better with it. Elsa has special abilities which WILL get stronger; teaching her to fear and hate them is not a good path to put her on. Locking her away from the world...and the sister who loves her...is just plain stupid and an accident waiting to happen. Granted without that bad advice...again, no movie.
Elsa, guilty over her powers hurting her beloved sister, being told the only way to stop from hurting anyone is to pretend they don't exist, kept locked away from the world like someone's dirty little secret, made to feel her suffering and loneliness is necessary...
And the parents do the same to Anna. She's stuck in the locked castle, too, without a word of explanation. So on the first day she's let out, she gets a little crazy, 'falls' for the first 'suitable' guy she's ever met. Wants to marry him, asks Elsa (now the Queen) for her blessing. Elsa is smarter than Anna, says, "No, you just met this guy!" Anna pushes back, and eventually Elsa loses the control she's never really had a handle on.
So Elsa leaves...again, trying to protect Anna and the kingdom. Anna seeks her out, Elsa tosses her out since as far as she knows, the only way to keep Anna safe is to keep her far away.
The movie is about the love of two sisters for each other, and shows the stupid things people do to 'protect' those we love. While the 'romance' angle for Anna is a given, there's been a lot of complaints that Elsa doesn't have a love interest. For me, that's a huge selling point, as is the way Anna's is handled.
There is NO way Elsa is ready for any sort of romantic love. She can't even handle sisterly love for the majority of the movie; all her life she's been told she has to keep it locked away, don't feel, stay apart. She's dangerous, will only hurt those she's close to. Yeah, there's lots of wiggle room for a spurious romantic interest there! Anna, as the sister that ISN'T saddled with terrifying powers or the guilt, can have a love interest. And as Kristoff mocks her, "Wait, you got engaged to a guy you JUST MET TODAY?"; it's eventually shown that he and Anna actually grow closer through their mutual adventure, learning about family and friends and habits and so on.
Frozen is ANNA's story. I'm hoping Frozen 2 would be Elsa's. She isn't ready for a love interest in the first installment, without it being some horrible cliché that would ruin one of the better characters Disney has come up with. Anna is fun, but there's a lot more to Elsa, and I sincerely hope she gets a chance to really shine in a future movie.
Final accounting: classic Disney fun, with some deeper themes you can ignore or explore at your own leisure. Honestly, my favorite Disney movie since Aladdin.
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007)
Disappointing
I had such high hopes for this. How could they go wrong? I thought. You have an established win with Johnny Depp's Jack Sparrow; some good plot threads to tie off from #2; and a huge summer budget. They could have stolen the plot of "Cutthroat Island" and had a huge success.
The Good: Johnny Depp has never disappointed me in a role, whether or not I liked the particular movie. One of the better actors of our generation, I would say without reservation. Jack Sparrow is made 'real' in a way few other actors could hope to accomplish.
Still Good: The special effects are, for the most part, awesome and well done. Costuming, sets, CGI...all with an eye to detail. More than a few were unnecessary and done just because they *could* be, I believe, but even so, done very well.
That said...on to the Bad and/or disappointing.
Put simply, the movie had no 'heart'. No single driving plot that carried us through from beginning to end. Visually stunning, occasionally humorous, thrilling every so often, but under the flash and bang, there's no substance.
Opening scene is mass hangings and a song. Okay, that's obviously why the mass hangings were taking place, to get a cheap chorus line going. We assume it's important but it's never explained in the movie. We have to come home and read message boards and bounce ideas and make assumptions. Watching the movie...if there's a serious WTF Moment in the first five minutes and it isn't cleared up by the end...the movie has problems.
Next, we're in Singapore. This would have been a voyage of several months at least...one way. And it appears Caribbean pirates make this trip regularly, because everyone knows everyone else and has long and frequent interactions with them over the span of their mutual history as pirates. But willing suspension of disbelief and all that...I guess the Caribbean isn't exotic or big enough, the script hacks felt they had to go farther afield than Davy Jones' Locker.
Then it's off to World's End...or at least Davy Jones' Locker. This part was awesome and could have been expanded to fill the movie much more satisfyingly than the rest of the drek they felt necessary to inflict upon us.
Then we get some god-awful Calypso storyline that has no point, purpose, resolution, or meaning other than the opportunity to showcase some more spiffy effects and throw in a few more betrayals.
The first movie stands as one of the best, funnest movies to come out in the past ten years. High-seas adventure and hi-jinx had by all, a good rip-roaring adventure tale. The sequel was inevitable, and possibly a trilogy...so #2 (DMC) you sort of expected to have some threads left hanging to open the door to #3.
The actors all did an outstanding job with what they had to work with...but honestly, the producers should have shaved a few of the special effects and spent the extra money on a coherent script. While there's plenty of PotC fans willing to spend money on anything and slavishly sing its praises...this was not at all worthy of being attached with the name of the first movie.
Rumor has it that both Orlando Bloom and Kiera Knightly have stated they won't do a PotC 4. Given their experiences with this one...I don't blame them a bit. Everything that made the first one great was missing in this installment, replaced by special effects and a Bigger Is Better mentality.
My advice: go see it at a matinée, because the effects are worth seeing on the big screen. The story doesn't deserve full-price admission, though.
The Taming of the Shrew (1976)
Best Version of Shakespeare Ever
I saw this originally in my Shakespearean Comedy course. I've always enjoyed Shakespeare for the language, but frankly, a lot of the dialogue loses a lot over the years.
This brought it back, made me see and feel what Shakespeare's target audience did.
*This* is how it looked at the Globe. Forget the modern productions with the elaborate costumes and big-name stars.
Minimal sets, broad...almost vaudevillian...acting, knowing winks at the audience, letting the *acting* and the words carry the entire enterprise.
If you can find a copy of this gem, you'll understand why Shakespeare is known as THE Bard.
Bend It Like Beckham (2002)
You've Seen This Before, But So What?
We've seen this movie at least a dozen times, with just a few character name changes. From 'Dirty Dancing' to 'The Mighty Ducks' to 'Better Off Dead'.
However, that doesn't mean you won't enjoy this telling of the formula. Sure, it's a pretty standard version of "talented kid defying parents' expectations to follow her dream", but nonetheless it's a very charming and enjoyable movie. It's definitely a 'feel-good' movie and you're pretty sure after the opening scene exactly how things are going to turn out, but the journey to the foreseen conclusion is pretty fun.
A lot has been made of the Sikh angle, but I think a lot of people miss the sly parallel woven throughout the story.
The movie focuses on Jes, a talented soccer player, younger daughter of a mostly traditional Sikh family living in England. Throughout the movie, she wrestles with her respect for her culture that opposes her hunger for soccer. Her parents don't think it proper for her to devote energy to a game when she should be focused on education, a proper relationship, eventual marriage and motherhood. Of course, many Western viewers will think, "Hey, that's stupid, she's almost an adult, she can do what she wants, the parents are living in the past!"
Which is why those viewers miss the parallel in her Anglo friend Jules' story. She, too, has a talent for soccer...and is defying her mother's expectations and notions of 'proper' behavior and goals for a young Anglo girl.
That parallel is what elevates "Bend It Like Beckham" from hundreds of other movies of the same formula. It's not an 'English' movie or a 'Sikh' movie or an 'Indian' movie...it's a movie about growing up and finding your own identity. A coming of age film, if you will. With a little thought and reflection, you realize this movie does more to destroy stereotypes and thumb a nose at racism than other, more 'serious' movies.
Cultures and ethnicity may change, but growing up remains the same. And if you can bend it like Beckham, you've got a nice solid foundation to do the growing on.
X2 (2003)
X3?
Okay, I have to admit to being a serious X-geek in my past. Yep, got a complete run of Uncanny 1-300+, complete New Mutants, X-Factor 1-100 or so, Wolverine 1-100+, Exacalibur 1-40 (or so), most of the 4-issue mini-series, graphic novels, etc, from ancient history to early/mid-90s. I have *always* wanted to see my favorite team brought to the big screen, and with the original X-Men, I got my wish. Summation of first movie: the best comics adaptation ever. Sure, a few things were changed, to consolidate 40 years worth of comics into a movie for the new millenium, but the changes were minor and forgivable. Not quite enough action for my tastes, but the director was obviously trying for something a little bit more than the average action fantasy. Over the years I've spent almost every action movie thinking, "Hrm, would So-and-so be a good (X-man name)?" With the first movie, I have to admit, I cannot for the life of me think of another actor or actress I would rather see in that particular role.
So, X-Men fulfilled the majority of an X-geek's expectations.
X2 exceeded them. Seriously, I've been reading the comments here, and wondering if some of these people saw the same movie I did. Gee, the plot wasn't enough for you? Let's see...a mutant attacks the President; you don't think that will initiate a rather violent response? William Stryker just "pops up" with a plan? Now, let's think about this logically. We had a Senator last movie trying to pass legislation to require mutant registration...anyone with a functioning brain cell will realize the mutant problem is obviously well known in this universe, to this government. Obviously, the military is going to have some sort of Mutant Response Team, such as...oh, how about William Stryker?
Thin plot, you say? Perhaps, to those more used to sub-titled art films whose main claim to brilliance is their incomprehensibility. I think that's the definition of "plot" to these people: "If I can understand it, it can't be any good! If I have NO idea what's going on, it must be a great plot!"
Too many characters? Well, you have to understand there's been scores of X-men, and every X-geek has their favorite. Wolverine was the hands-down favorite; he had to be in the movies even though in the comics he didn't show up until the series hit the mid-nineties. I was well pleased with those they included, and focused on...to someone familiar with the comics, it gives a lot of interesting avenues of exploration.
Now, my main complaint. Hugh Jackman as Wolverine is simply awesome. There's nothing I can complain about as far as his portrayal (except his height, but even that is minor).
BUT!!!
C'mon...Wolverine is arguably the most experienced, battle-toughened, kick-ass guy in the WORLD! (Possible exception of Sabertooth, but that's another plot line that can be explored).
So how come in BOTH movies, he gets his butt handed to him by a girl? Seriously...in X1, Mystique basically treats him like a used redheaded stepchild. In `reality' (comics or otherwise), she'd have hit him once and broke every bone in her hand. Adamantium, folks. Try punching a steel girder with all your strength, see what happens. She's a shapechanger; she doesn't take on the powers or characteristics of her `target'.
Then, X2...better fight scene against Deathstrike, but still...once again, the girl kicks his butt and only through luck does he win. That really harshes my mellow.
I mean...is the director/screenwriters going with the easy out? His memory got scrambled so he forgot how to fight? We have to be PC and because Wolvie is so bad-ass, we have to have a girl beat him up?
Never mind there was zero explanation for Deathstrike. Sure, she had the mind-control thing going on, but it wears off. Why, in all the opportunities she had, did she say nothing about her motivation. Not even an aside, saying something to Stryker.
This leads me to my hopes/thoughts for X3. We're obviously going to be seeing Phoenix in the future, as well as (hopefully) more of Colossus. Now, they could run with the Phoenix thing (probably will), but I'd like to see Wolverine exploring his Japanese connection. Perhaps tracing Deathstrike, etc.
And please do something about Rogue. She's about a waste of film right now. Anna Paquin does a great job with what she's given, but if ever there's a character screaming "Damsel In Distress", it's Rogue. She deserves much better. Perhaps in X3 they'll do the Ms. Marvel thing so Rogue actually has some use.
Those are concerns for a future movie. I suspect they'll wind up doing a franchise, rather than a strict trilogy. Wolverine deserves his own movie, as do the New Mutants. There are so many characters to introduce and explore...there's no way we'll truly be satisfied with just 3 movies!