LemonLadyR Reviews

Everything, Everything (2017)

Life is Short, So Go Watch This Movie!

[9/10 · 25 January 2018]

I am over 60, and don't usually like movies with usual plots (although this one had a good, if not original, twist) or 'teen movies'. But I loved this one, even though I knew going in that it was a young love story. And I loved it a little because I related to Maddie's life, a lot because it was done well, and very beautifully.

I think there is something for everyone here, from good character development, acting, editing, and even the great house Maddie lived in (although more of a beautiful jail). Since so much of it took place indoors, the house had to be a character, for the movie to work. I want that house! The Hawaii 'dream' sequences were beautiful and emotional, everything I hoped they would be. Maddie's emotions were conveyed very well.

I loved that there was no nudity. I loved that he loved her the most for being funny and smart, and then beautiful. I loved that people of color were cast mostly, at least it seemed, just because they got the part, although I understand some was done due to the book it was based on.

Constantine (2005)

OK Watch but Mostly Meh

[5/10 · 11 January 2018]

I came into this outside of the comic book it is based on (or any comic books), so I had no expectations. I love the movie The Devil's Advocate, which also stars Keanu Reeves, so thought he might also do this justice, even though his acting skills are somewhat limited. And I love Rachel Weisz, although she has never trumped The Constant Gardener, and has carried that character forward, unfortunately. Here, she really tries on a different acting persona, leaving behind that defiant, earnest young woman thing. But it doesn't work and just seems like she is trying to be Reeves' character. I think she probably is a one note actress. I enjoyed, mostly, the basic movie, effects, and makeup. It kept my interest, but the acting was sometimes laughable and the ending is fairly clunky. All the plot/script holes came together for it and it ruined my opinion of the whole movie. It was really horrid. Without the ending, I would give it 7-8 stars. I don't watch a lot of comic book movies, or read any, but it was better than I thought it would be and not a bad way to spend time. Doubt I will watch it again; doesn't have the depth, on any level. I read that it didn't follow the comic it was based on, Hellblazer, very much, but incorporated plot and characters from other comics, and perhaps that is what allowed it to be the movie it is. Not sure a comic could do much but form the stub for a movie plot. I would consider watching the sequel, when it comes out, after checking the reviews.

Gunpowder (2017)

Monty Python and the Jon Snow Inquisition

[1/10 · 23 December 2017]

I was stunned as Kit Harington coasted through on a tide of blandness, and showed no sign of his vaunted GOT talents, yet he should have had a change of character for this role (duh). Stunningly boring. Even at only 3 episodes, it felt as torturous as what was happening to the Catholics. Nothing remotely like Wolf Hall (which was all this was not). Amateur directing, writing, and acting (Liv Tyler may be a treat, but she sounds like Arwen in LOTR here). Wholly terrible and not even lit well.

The Last Samurai (2003)

Nothing Original, Wooden Cruise

[4/10 · 11 November 2017]

It's a good thing that Lawrence of Arabia and Dances with Wolves ('Lawrence of the plains') had already been done, else the writers would not have had a ready made script for this movie. And thus there is little that is original here. This too is a "white savior movie", with Cruise the savior. But Cruise is just terrible in this movie. He is a one note actor and relies on a few expressions and drama school techniques which all great actors rise above and develop into their own styles, but Cruise never has elevated himself to. He lacks sensitivity and what makes women (and men) fall in love with an actor, so that, in the end, he has no depth, no charisma, no power, and this role demands quiet power. And now, in the 21st century, all I see when I look at him is what he has become, a rabid cult leader (Scientology).

The rest of the cast save this movie from a 1-star debacle. Superb ensemble. Ken Watanabe is a powerful treasure. His amazing transformation from this role to his delicate performance in Memoirs of a Geisha shows an amazing range. I think he is why Cruise's deficits are so apparent here. And I would watch Timothy Spall in anything. He may be a poor man's Philip Seymour Hoffman, but for me, he is all his own. It is hard to imagine this is the same actor who played a rock band's lovable road manager in Rock Star, but he finely crafts each role.

While I am no fan of white savior movies, I don't mind the implied white apology of some of them. And we Americans do have some apologizing to do, for our extreme hubris and various crimes against humanity. Too bad we can't just get up and say it out loud, apologize, and get it over with, without the racial overtones of movies like this (oh my, the natives/foreigners are really nice and even *funny*, wow!). But until then, our conscience is played out in movies like this. Although hopefully, with less pathos and white dominance than The Last Samurai. Will we ever 'get' it?

The Discovery (I) (2017)

A Sleeper in Many Ways But Worth a View

[8/10 · 21 April 2017]

If you are expecting a big sci-fi movie about the afterlife, then you will be disappointed. If you just want a good little movie, then your expectations will be fulfilled or exceeded. This has a real indie feel and while I don't know anything about the movie, behind the scenes, Robert Redford has been such an indie evangelist that it wouldn't surprise me. There is no glossiness here, gorgeous people take a back seat, which is very, very refreshing. Acting is on center stage here. This movie is about real human emotions, although not over the top. It is also refreshing to see a movie that doesn't rely on a ton of sex, action, or violence. While I say that acting is more important than glossy attractiveness here, Redford may be the weakest acting link. He always plays himself. I felt as if I was watching The Way We Were or something. One of the 60's class who never got into The Method. That tends to make the dialogue sound pretentious and weakens the plot. I recommend looking beyond this and just appreciating what the movie is trying to offer. Even if it is not a sci-fi movie, per se, it does give one much food for thought afterwards. A nice premise about the afterlife and one not connected with white lights (except a humorous nod to them in one scene) which is rather strange as white lights are the near death reports that are the most common. At any rate, enjoy this quiet indie movie for what it is, a nice thought experiment.

Sully (2016)

Got to Me

[9/10 · 13 November 2016]

Wow, this movie really hit me on a physical anxiety level, as it is all about anxiety. Anxiety before, during, after the incident. So, for that alone, I have to add on a star. I had this reaction not once but twice during the film. I, too, wondered how much of a movie could be made out of this, esp as I don't remember much controversy over this crash. As other reviews have so well put, the momentum was kept by the editing and non-linear story line. Also the realistic silences and great acting by Hanks. He does anxiety very well! Sure, you have to believe in this movie to let it play out and be patient, but the payoff was wonderful. I don't require movies to be full of action or whatever, every second, so this was an easy decision for me. Esp as Tom Hanks pulled me in, coupled with my visceral physical reaction. I loved the special effects used to create this movie, and esp the great camera work that caused me to admire, once again, the guys who jump into dangerous waters from helicopters, to rescue others, even if it was done by CGI. As a frequent flyer many times in my life, and with only a storm and one severe loss of altitude to show for it, I have to say that commercial pilots and everyone else involved, are an amazing bunch, safely ferrying us, in the crowded skies, thousands of times a day. I am happy to put my life in their hands.

Sunshine (2007)

Oh Come On People...

[1/10 · 27 June 2016]

I thought I would read, in the 15 or so reviews I read, at least one about the unbelievable science in this movie, or lack thereof. And maybe it is out there in the hundreds of reviews I didn't read. Or maybe this stuff is not such common knowledge? The first problem is, if the sun were 'dying', it would be a big surprise as it is only a little over halfway into its lifespan. Theory, sure, but based on pretty sound observations and physics. And if we were wrong about the life of the sun, and if did start to die 4 billion years too soon, it would expand until it engulfed the Earth, which would have been a great story, as Samuel Delaney wrote about so well in his award winning novel, Dhalgren. There is great character material at the end of all things, or the end of all things in this solar system, anyway. Just not in this movie.

Next is the idea that humans, in the relatively near future, can kickstart the sun, ignoring the fact, which, I agree is very hard to grasp, that the size of and reactions within the sun, are so powerful and beyond anything we can truly grasp, or even engineer, that would affect it. Thus the whole premise of this movie is crazy. Think about it. If we can feel it so intensely and even get burned by it (or killed) NINETY-THREE *MILLION* miles away, well, enough said. Imagine then, if you were 93 million miles *closer*! As these guys are. I doubt things would go as they did here. I mean, seriously...

Beyond the bad plot twists at the end, there is really bad science there, too, which I think people have realized, for the most part. Let's just say that anyone 'riding' a bomb into the sun would not be able to tell the story from their POV. That is just comical.

This movie starts out, IF you forget the bad premise, fairly well and interestingly, as life in space, in the future, often does, but degrades completely from there into a confusing and silly film. Something happened, obviously, during production or post-production, to cause such a left turn to be taken. So if you either know nothing about astronomy or can suspend your belief about it, and beyond that, even figure out the left turn it takes and why, then enjoy, I guess. But this movie commits the very worst of sins, which is to hook people with the first few acts, only to dump them into the void, unceremoniously. Bah...grrrrr.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

Oh, PJ, What Have You Done?

[1/10 · 26 May 2016]

I just finished watching Peter Jackson, the director (in case you've been under a rock for 15 yrs), say, in the special features of The Hobbit:AUJ, that he really didn't want to copy, emulate, retread, or even direct this movie (and felt STRONGLY about not directing it (so what are we to expect then?), but due to a Tolkien estate rights problem it took way too long to get green lighted, so that the director that was hired, Guillermo del Toro, had to move on, but I would have oh so loved to have seen his take on it as it couldn't be any worse, certainly).

OK, so know that PJ's heart was not in directing this. Great idea to have someone else direct it and PJ & Co. could still write and produce it. He still could have hired another director, when del Toro had to leave, but pre-production had gotten too far along to bring someone else in. So, there were all these other considerations weighing it down, right off the bat, that LOTR didn't have. There was a nice innocence to LOTR, esp the first one. There was no urgency to make another 'Avatar' back then (which PJ's effects company, Weta Workshop, worked on), and no one knew that LOTR could even be done. Plus a lot of old school techniques were used, and that became an echo in the those films which was appropriate. Tolkien would have never wanted things to diverge so completely into the high tech world of The Hobbit! So of course MGM was pressuring for a repeat and I understand that, to a *certain* degree. PJ seemed to be able to deal with that in LOTR and naturally come out on the other side with 3 very watchable movies (well, the extended versions, anyway; I never really 'got' the success of the theatricals nor did I even see them all, preferring to wait for the extended versions).

As far as this film goes, and by now, all 3 have come out... First, I should say that I have been a rabid Tolkien fan since the 60s when it was required reading in elementary school. So my first thought on hearing there were to be 3 movies made from a small children's book (although we adults certainly read and enjoy it) was that PJ must have been kidding. Right there it took the turn of being all about the money. Let's take this book that 100 million people have read for generations, which is a reference point for so many people, and bloat it up out of all reason. One reviewer said that you could do that for an obscure novel, but this is canonical Tolkien, and I very much agree. Plus, IMO, I don't think The Hobbit, as a novel, stands up well to LOTR, and it was never meant to; it was a doddle of sorts while grading papers, for his kids, and is endearing and adventurous but not of an epic nature, nor a good foundation for a big movie. LOTR and what became The Silmarrion were Tolkien's magnum opus pieces.

Thus, PJ, to make a blockbuster out of it, had to really prostitute himself in this case, and throw the mostly loving care he had for LOTR out and *use* The Hobbit to his and MGM's ends, which is a bit unforgivable. It tries to be an action/fantasy movie, which is a tough balance that he got pretty right on LOTR, but this one strays so far from the book and the whole theme is just 'big, big, big' (the crew even says that is what he told them was the main theme and it is not even a BIG book!). It is also very hard to make people care about 13+ characters (mostly new) in a movie, no matter how long. Esp Dwarfs. I didn't find them esp compelling or attractive, just cartoonish, with all apologies to the actors who were doing the best they could with the material and silly costumes.

Then there is the heavy weight of LOTR, with the same scenes/plots from LOTR, which he said he would NOT do, so it is all the worse knowing that. The pacing is terrible, I think I could do a better job. Sometimes *nothing* is going on. Action sequences are way too long with nothing new going on. This from the director of the 2 epic battles from LOTR, which are hands down the best battle sequences I've ever seen.

I really could not get through these movies, and oh how I tried, but I was just bored and then angry when seeing scenes ripped off 100% from LOTR or gratuitous stuff. There *are* LOTR characters in The Hobbit but PJ got carried away. In trying to make it work as well as LOTR, he got trapped into using that reference way too much and using retread material.

Viggo Mortensen (Aragorn in LOTR) said, re LOTR, that the success was much like The One Ring, which started taking over the project, and the movies became more about awards and the hoopla, thus diminishing the heart of them. And The Hobbit suffers from this many times over. If PJ wanted to depart so much from the book, he should based it on Middle Earth legend/culture and not called it "The Hobbit".

I say all this with as much respect as I can for the actors and crew who worked, obviously, very hard on this movie and put their hearts into it. And I started to give it two or three stars for that, but in the end, the rating is for the film as a whole, so no "A" for effort.

This film and the sequels are a travesty of the highest order. PJ ripped off Tolkien's name and book for this movie, plain and simple. Grrrrrrr.

Clash of the Titans (2010)

Deserves All the "Worst" Award Nominations and Wins

[2/10 · 14 May 2016]

I only gave this piece of garbage 2 stars instead of 1 because of the Medusa fight scene, but one fight scene does not a movie make. I should have known better after the good reviews were mostly from people who could barely write or spell, even passably, and couldn't use the spellcheck provided right HERE in this review window lol. MY excuse is that I was visiting relatives and they didn't have much I wanted to see. This is just a terrible Hollywood blockbuster designed to separate pre-teens, teens, and young adults from their cash. This POS movie had a sinful budget of $125mil with a $65mil opening weekend (US). That is just totally sad and the only redeeming thing about it is that it provided a ton of jobs, esp in places like Ethiopia. I have no respect for the big names in this. If they still have to work at all at this point, well, something is terribly wrong. Needless to say, there is NO real character development, acting phoned in, a totally embarrassing script, and only average CG (saw the DVD on a laptop, so worse on big screen). If you are thinking of watching this, don't. Go watch Thor again, Marvel has it all over Warner's in this dept. Only good thing about this movie was that I was able to sleep through most of it, only going back to skim and see if anything worth watching developed (it didn't); if I had been totally conscious, it would have been turned off after a half hour, at MOST.

Rubicon (2010)

Too Smart for the Masses

[8/10 · 12 May 2016]

One of the best TV series I have seen. It is a mystery to me why AMC, after presenting breakthrough series after series, killed this smart one off after one season. It has much in common and perhaps the writers took inspiration from (and referenced) Three Days of the Condor, a great '70s spy movie. I guess AMC (and most network TV channels) think that a show has to start out with death, high action, or someone yelling "Stat!". This is a quiet, thoughtful show, which fits the characterizations and near docudrama script perfectly. I loved it and I miss not seeing more, after watching the one and only season. The main thing here is character development, in and out of the office, although the bulk of the story is all about the spying. It did start to take a slower turn in the middle episodes, perhaps a change in some key production area, and it broke the flow a bit. Even so, that is the very worst I can say about it, and that only lasted 2-3 episodes and I was so invested by then it didn't matter. Even though just one season, there are 13 45min episodes that are very worth watching and the story arc is as complete as it can be while leaving room for more in case it was renewed, so it is worth watching as a 13 episode mini-series.

Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles (1994)

Did Not Age Well

[5/10 · 9 May 2016]

This film was listed on the IMDb 25 best horror films list, which is what made me think of watching it again. Money well lost. I first saw this when it was released and it was kind of a revelation, in its presentation and storyline. Vampires had rarely been depicted in such a 'normal' manner. They had only escaped the serious/campy vampire identity via farcical vampire films. But, for the most part, I felt like I was watching "Pretty Hair of the Pretty Vampires", or yet another farce. Brad Pitt was pretty then, though, have to admit. But the mistakes, horrid makeup, and strange editing (like they had something to hide in the sets/effects) had me turning it off halfway. Not to mention all the gore, which I didn't remember, and much of it is gratuitous, but I guess the true horror fans will love that. Granted, I am more picky than in 1994, but no reason this movie should be this bad. Even the script (adapted by Anne Rice from her novel) had a lot of sad moments (perhaps the reason I never got through the book). Oh, and don't get me started on Tom Cruise's accent and acting flaws. Brad Pitt is actually out-acting him, which I did not think possible. Of course they were kids then, but still...

The Walk (II) (2015)

Standard Fare Hollywood 'Walk'

[4/10 · 5 December 2015]

There are only two good things about this movie. 1. It is a nice, if somewhat precious (and sometimes creepy), love letter to the WTC, and 2. I really was on the edge of my seat, heart racing, during the walk, and the outcome is no secret! I thought I remembered he had some trouble, so maybe that played into my anxiety. At any rate, that is a feat not all directors can pull off (with help from the fx guys of course). Those 2 items are where my 4 points come from. Otherwise it would be a rating of 0. The surrounding fluff is just horrid and without the 'walk', it would be even worse. But how cruel of Zemeckis to make us sit through all that just to get to the meat. I have to think there was more to the planning of the stunt, etc, than the movie shows, almost as if he is saying we are too stupid to understand the technical issues, or that his awful drama is better fare, but the technical things are probably already addressed in Man on Wire, so how to add value to a story that has already been told? Add content surrounding the walk, which in this case failed miserably, with laughable French accents and bad dubbing on occasion. I thought I was watching Commedia dell'Arte at times, esp re language and his 'coup' of minions, and this is a drama. Also, 'Phillipe' standing on top of the Statue of Liberty (irony not lost, as France gave it to the US) was just awful blue screen. I never believed it for a minute (no wind up there, eh?). If it was supposed to look hyper-real or surreal (no wind), well, it failed and just looked hyper-awful, and was distracting throughout the film. I think the best jaw-dropping fx were the background shots/matte paintings of NYC. Oh, another booboo: all of the pop music used was not of the time. It was on the radio at least 8-10 yrs earlier. I also find it very irritating that they keep reminding us in every introduction of a new character why they are French but speaking English. "Speak English please!" That got REAL old and repetitious; Zemeckis should know way better than that; it was a point that was of no importance. Oh, and Ben Kingsley, not one of his best performances, by a mile. In conclusion, and I hate to say it, but this movie was directed as if a grade schooler was at the helm. Save your time. Off to watch the Man on Wire doc...

The Martian (2015)

Apollo 13, Anyone?

[8/10 · 29 October 2015]

The best thing about this movie was that I felt that I was watching a real life movie, ala Apollo 13 (but not as good). And maybe that is all it had to be. But a movie about unreal (or now, near real) stuff should be more. Esp one with a cast like this and as vast as this. It was suspenseful, but at some point you begin to realize, out of all the possible endings, how it is going to end, how it has to end, as more and more is revealed. And the actual very, very end is very poor. Fade to black would have been better. The only character really developed was Matt Damon, as he got to talk to himself a lot. But sadly, the others did not get to show their stuff. Sean Bean, a great actor, was like the Tin Man. Jeff Daniels has more range than this, although his role wasn't the most exciting; much could have been done with it. And I agree with another reviewer; the disco thing was WAY run into the ground. Subtle is always best... Of course the production values were all good, with a few exceptions, which is why i felt like I was watching a real life story, and it seemed, whether or not it is really true, like NASA was actually on their game here, although anyone to do with NASA is probably laughing their arses off at the errors. It is far less a sci-fi movie than a suspense, castaway, or rescue movie. I was hoping for a great sci-fi movie but it wasn't one, by any stretch, except for being set on Mars, which was no biggie as it was done so well and we've seen so many moon clips. The best sci-fi movies have heart, like Interstellar, 2001, Cloud Atlas, and The Fountain, (and The Martian cannot even be put in the same league as those; not even close) but this had little heart, beyond the task of trying to rescue the stranded guy. Would they, after spending SO much to get to Mars and put up a habitat, have risked so much and spent all that money to try, esp with the many obstacles? It did keep me in my seat and I did so very much want to see the outcome. So that is a big plus, but a lot of movies have that and a great movie it doesn't make. I know I am complaining about a lack of tried and true Hollywood plot devices, but sometimes there is a need for them (never thought I'd say that!). Even Castaway worked on so many better levels than this. I kept hoping there would be some of that here, but it was The Right Stuff on fast forward, without the characters. That movie really is the gold standard for movies like this (also Apollo 13) and this one just didn't quite make it, alas.

Eragon (2006)

Struck Out

[5/10 · 6 October 2015]

My rating (5) is the age this movie would appeal to, which was probably not the only target audience, but I don't think I would have liked this film at that age. Eragon, which is based on a children's book series (but the movie is clearly aimed at fantasy loving adults, also), is a huge disappointment. Just another Hollywood Lord of the Rings ripoff, hoping to cash in on all those billions. But nope, didn't even come close to anything achieved by LOTR. As a Tolkien fan, I was rather annoyed by the frequent line for line and scene for scene copying from LOTR, badly done. It is also mostly a waste of good actors who weren't cast well, utilized to their full potential, or given enough screen time (Djimon Hounsou). I would listen to Jeremy Irons read the phone book, but he is SO miscast here as a mentor/father substitute, which is just not hot how Irons is interesting, esp in this sort of movie. Ditto for Rachel Weitz, a nice voice for the dragon, and she is a great actor; but doing a dragon voice-over with this bad script did her no favors.

Production values are not the best (NO excuse with a $100mil budget), with bad choices everywhere. It is a claustrophobic movie, which usually speaks of low budget, esp in a fantasy which relies heavily on effects. We are rarely allowed to see any more in the frame than we possibly have to, except for the beautiful panning shots of Europe and the Canadian Rockies, again, almost frame for frame copying LOTR's same of New Zealand. The dragon is very cheap CGI, which is crazy with this budget. Eragon was made in 2005-06, and this dragon was not up to Jurassic Park's dinos, created 13 yrs earlier. So it just doesn't work, as kids are pretty sophisticated about this stuff now. Not to mention interested adults. The dragon is also very cartoony, which distracts mightily from the story (uh, what story?). Sure, you may say, but they didn't want to scare the kiddies. That is not the point and they would have had to go a long way to do that, esp with Weisz's soothing voice. I just to see a reasonable depiction of a pleasant dragon.

There are clear (wishful thinking?), uh, advertisements in the end and under the credits that almost embarrassingly (ka-ching!) scream Eragon 2, but I found the best reasons why there won't be one on Yahoo Answers. To paraphrase, it didn't do well enough on the financial end, so any sequel is not possible, plus very important plot lines were left out that speak to the second book, so that this movie would have to be remade first. Goodness!

Cosmopolis (2012)

Sell Those Rats Short! or Here's How it Is....

[8/10 · 30 September 2015]

Boy, this is a real love/hate film and mostly hate, but people want to be entertained and this film is not gonna do that very much during our look into one man's day of decision/change. But it will move you in odd ways, make you think, and do what art is supposed to do: react strongly. So, even knowing all this, it is still a difficult movie to get one's head around, but after some digging, I finally did, although I did realize fairly soon that it was something completely different, even for an Indie film. But I think what people are not getting is that it is not a typical 'romantic' film, with all its production values geared towards the slick (although it IS highly stylized), beautiful lighting, emotions, and a film with warm characterizations and bonds between viewer and character (although I did relate to Packer, but it's a specific, not universal thing).

I think it hearkens back to the New Wave in cinema of the late 50s/60s (and more than just French, for it is very Fellini-esque). I love Robert Pattinson as Eric Packer. Cronenberg tried this style of abstraction in Crash, but how can you view James Spader or Holly Hunter without emotion? They are too well known for it, it didn't fit, and in the end, could not pull it off due to their strong personalities (esp Holly Hunter). Here, Cronenberg finishes what he started there with this disembodied style. Thus Pattinson is the exact right casting, even in appearance. As Cronenberg himself says, which encapsulates most of the zeitgeist of the movie, which is that high intensity computer trading is abstracted from production, products, commerce, from anything. Thus Packer is reflecting that as a completely abstract person who has no idea of the world and how to be human, so he sounds and appears as an alien dropped into real life on Earth (on the day he finally realizes all this).

Character IS valued in films, and I value it, and judge them on it, but here the lack of it works since it goes along with the whole abstraction concept. The complete silence in the limo, when the windows are up, creates a dreamlike tone that pervades the movie, even though it is not realistic, it is not meant to be. Limo as uterus, coffin, tomb, video game, spaceship, sex toy, and on and on. The movie really is not about a financial crisis, but of Packer's stubbornness and attempt to destroy himself by going against his advisers and becoming his own worst enemy. His problems are limited to *his* life; the world has not been affected by his issues, although of course he thinks it has, as a 1%er.

The protesters represent the Occupy Wall Street movement, according to Cronenberg, and I thought the "rats" as commodities thing hilarious, but the more serious metaphor is that you can abstract anything and trade it and Pattinson drinks far too much from that cup, even as his primary relationship reflects it. So I think Pattinson is abstracting life and trading it and his relationships as commodities.

If you don't care for really arty, stylized films or massively metaphoric films, you will not like this one, but I think if it is thought of as Pattinson's journey from isolation to gritty attempts to join real life then it will go down better. It is as if he is living in the digital world along with his commodities, then has an epiphany during which he realizes there is more outside his tiny world (represented by the limo), both physically and emotionally. So he stumbles his way out of it, creating havoc for himself in an unconsciously suicidal way as he tries to get back to his roots, although it doesn't seem like he quite knows what they are. The guy is so abstract and above it all, from his billionaire throne, that he commits immoral acts without a thought, so desperate is he to get 'home'. He truly needs a pair of ruby slippers to click to go home, and when he finds the next closest thing (people from his past or a chance to right himself) he blows it.

Of course there are all the obvious things we hate about the rich, the extreme self-centerdness, the narcissism, the arrogance, and the social commentary (although Cronenberg seems to be less about that here; it is obvious anyway to anyone who is not living under a rock today).

The other actors must, for the film to work, at least Packer's advisors, wear the same mask of abstraction and speak in the same disembodied way. I love Samantha Morton, who can do anything, chewing up the scenery. She is right in there with him, as are the other actors for whom it is appropriate. His wife is just a reflection of his narcissism, since narcissists find relationships that mirror themselves. Her skin doesn't even look real, more like an avatar's in a virtual world. She is farther gone than he is, but is more resigned to it and aware of it.

All in all, I grew to really like the film and appreciate its perfections. Again, this is Crash done right, in many ways. This film is much less about entertainment than anything else; so fair warning. However I was entertained in a strange way and enthralled by most of the aspects of it. It has wonderful production values that add to the theme perfectly and the other things that make a film deserve a rating of 8/10. I recommend watching at least twice and finding some Cronenberg interviews/commentary. Yes, there is some work to this film, but that is another thing that makes it great art and a viewer that is not spoon fed will be a more well rounded fan of cinema.

Coming Home (2014)

Back to Simple Pleasures for Zhang Yimou

[10/10 · 29 September 2015]

By 'simple pleasures', I don't mean that in any way to reference the Chinese Cultural Revolution, but his return to simple films, about simple people, beautifully crafted, acted, and very revealing about everyday Chinese life (as much as he is able).

Zhang Yimou (Chinese names put the surname first, IMDb doesn't, alas) is arguably one of the best directors of the 20th and early 21st centuries (best known in the West for House of Flying Daggers). He always evokes a magical feeling in me, and I love his technique and precision; almost every frame is a painting. He chose to remain in mainland China and has walked a very thin tightrope in making the kinds of films he has, as he does not shy away from the political situation in China, at least as part of everyday people's lives, which it is, of course. His films are just not primarily about Chinese politics (although his simple, but great early film, The Story of Qiu Ju, is about Chinese bureaucracy, and was indeed banned for a time. The fact that Gong Li, in this film, screams to the prison officials that have come to capture her husband, "What did you do to him to make him want to escape?", turning the blame for his prison escape back onto them, illustrates what their intl fame allows them to get away with.

Gong Li, Zhang Yimou's ex-wife, is, I believe, the premiere female actress in China (and now known worldwide, since the wonderful film, Raise the Red Lantern, was nominated for an Oscar in 1990), with good reason, and an actress of incredible breadth and depth. Even though she has been on many 'most beautiful people' lists, (she is very made up here (or down!)), her craft is everything and I cannot watch her enough. She is lately known here for Memoirs of a Geisha, as the evil Hatsumomo.

I was very, very glad to see Zhang Yimou and Gong Li reunite, professionally, for 2 recent films. They seem to push each other upward and she makes a perfect muse for him.

Ah, the film...(I love telling people about them!). Coming Home is about a couple dealing with and trying to reunite after Gong Li's husband is imprisoned for a couple of decades during the Cultural Revolution in China. She grows progressively ill, which adds to their difficulties, thus the meat of the movie is about their reuniting difficulties. Definitely without a stock Hollywood ending! I was struck by one very incredible scene... It is just a walk across the kitchen by Gong Li, when her husband is knocking at her door. She has been warned severely by the police. This walk seems to take several hours as she haltingly walks across the floor, with all the ramifications, both political and personal, flashing across her face and obviously in her mind. It is one of the most astonishing 20 seconds of film I think I have ever seen, and done without dialog, melodrama or Hollywood artifice.

Zhang Yimou has crafted a fine film here. It is slow, but in a good way, which builds a lot of emotional suspense. Someone said it only covers the last 20-30 pages of the book upon which it is based. As usual, every aspect of the film is top notch and it walks on the edge of the dramatic sword in a perfectly balanced manner. It will go down as another of my favorite Zhang Yimou movies. Be patient, although the tension he creates will keep you pinned, if not a bit frustrated, but that is also the beauty of it, and enjoy! And check out some of his other films!

The Hunt (2012)

Brilliant Movie from Vinterberg

[10/10 · 28 September 2015]

I have to start by saying that I am a big fan of Vinterberg and Zentropa films in general; however, even if I didn't know who directed this movie, I would have the same opinion. The subject matter has certainly been covered before, or related matters, as in the pivotal 1961 film, The Children's Hour. However, in my opinion, this film hit the best pitch in emotion and the precision with which it deals with the delicate circumstances and devastations involved. I was spellbound by Mads Mikkelsen's performance. Just when I thought he would do something drastic or the film would lapse into melodrama, it all stayed the course. It is a film about forgiveness, all kinds of forgiveness, forgiveness for the self and for others. But lest we forget, and the film artfully doesn't let us, forgiveness doesn't always occur and is one of the hardest tasks we have in life, or that is what I took from it; others will take something else. I was very moved and held in deep emotional suspense by this film, which is what the best films do. Just brilliant, on all levels, by all involved. This film was nominated for or won almost 100 awards and I am so glad it got the recognition it deserves, esp in light of the subject matter.

Alien Outpost (2014)

Good Indie Sci-Fi Flick

[8/10 · 28 September 2015]

I am so glad I watched this in spite of the low rating. I almost never watch anything below a 6 but there were so many good reviews that I took a chance. I think the reason for the low rating is that the bad reviewers did not even watch the whole movie, skipping through much of it. They missed many essential plot points, like the reason the locals were hostile. Or they judge a film primarily by how much of a Hollywood blockbuster it is, or demand state of the art special effects. I judge a film by character development, story, what is done with the budget they do have, acting, etc. And I like Indie films and sci-fi, and high end sci-fi at that. I don't think this was a "B movie" as many have called it; don't get that. The story is very plausible, scientifically, since we have sent out greetings to the universe as if every advanced civilization will be a better version than we are (granted, at this point, it would be a long shot if anyone found our greetings or spacecraft yet, but I think it will happen sometime in the far future). I love documentary style movies, which this is, and although I have never been in the military, from what I know, it seemed pretty accurate to me (as accurate as any movie is about anything). They did a good job on the sfx, dealing with the low budget well, and possibly causing the time period to be after the invasion, rather than during, which required less sfx. Many reviewers have criticized it for lack of more modern military hardware by 2033, but that is only 18 yrs hence, which is like comparing 1998 to 2015, so not like the distant future or anything. It would be very difficult to make great leaps in weapons while the whole world and its infrastructure/economy is being attacked, and any movement in that area would be specific to just a few vital efforts, as the movie shows. Plus I think lessons have been learned, like 2001 was not like the movie, by any stretch of the imagination (and esp the movie 2010), nor was 1984 anything like the book (thank goodness) and they were set at least twice as far in the future as this movie. You have to be careful when imagining the future. An opening for a sequel might have been there (or just part of the ending, which was good), and I hope there is one, we need more good sci-fi, IMO. This is obviously a talented director who did a very commendable job with few resources, and good casting using the huge pool of good non-stars out there. Very good cinematography also. It is a good watch if you care more about an overall good movie than essentially watching a video game with big budget sfx with big name not-so-great actors.

Vikings (2013–2020)

The History Channel Strikes Out Again

[5/10 · 28 September 2015]

Not with a series, but with history! So if you compare this series to ones like Mad Men, Breaking Bad, the Battlestar Gallactica reboot, Rome, The Tudors, or Game of Thrones, it does not belong in that group. I was drawn to watch it (I was wary, due to the History's Channel history) because the people who did The Tudors created it and were heavily involved. Even if the Tudors was a miss on history, it was well done, with great characterizations, script, sumptuous sets and costumes (plus very entertaining). The only thing they brought from The Tudors were decent characterizations. And after the first season, which was extremely iffy, I finally began to be drawn into some of them. That being said, there were still plenty of really bad lines and deliveries, to the point of being embarrassing. Travis Fimmel was very good, and very original, in his starring portrayal of Viking leader Ragnar. Another standout was Gustaf Skarsgård as Floki, the very complex ship and arms builder. Without those two, and a few others, there would have been few good characterization here. The series gives the viewer a possible day in the life of the Vikings, when they began their 'seeding' of almost every Euro and Middle Eastern country there is, and it was often creative, just not quite enough, often enough. We don't watch movies/series for history, but they interest us into delving further into the actual histories. But the History Channel should know better than to deliver a less than historically accurate series; it is their stock in trade, after all, or should be. But their accuracy is usually less than their name would suggest (esp with so many conspiracy theories given airtime). After I stuck with the pretty awful first season, to see if it righted itself, I was somewhat rewarded in seasons 2 and 3; in fact, it really picks up dramatically by the last two episodes of season 1. But then it suffered from 'series repetition disorder' where the same plot is used over and over again. For that reason, I think it said all it has to say to me and I won't be tuning in for season 4. Another boring battle with too few extras and bad matte paintings will be one too many for me. I'd rather just delve into their actual history on my own. The writers/directors could not seem to get a handle on the religious issues; for sure not near as well as The Tudors. Some good points were made, esp about our relationships to our gods, whoever and how many they may be, only to be thrown away soon after with inexplicable 'miracles' popping up (to keep controversy down?). Another major problem were too many plot lines or extraneous characters that were left hanging or dropped and left the viewer shaking their heads. Or at least this viewer. It just wasn't snappy, sparse and elegant in its presentation.

At least we can be thankful that there were no horns on the helmets... It is just too bad that the series missed many chances to illustrate the lesser known and better cultural aspects of these influential people.

Surrogates (2009)

Potentiallly a Good Film But Rating is All Too Telling

[6/10 · 28 September 2015]

This could have been a really good movie, but it was doomed by fractured characterizations and a terrible script. What the viewer was left with was a below par Bruce Willis action movie plus a great sci-fi premise. The 'world' that was created was very well done, undoubtedly the best part of the film. Anyone familiar with our current virtual worlds and avatars would have felt chills seeing a world that is currently safely inside their computers suddenly brought into real life. Thus this is a very plausible situation. People NOW, in real life, currently sit for hours on end, 'living' in these virtual worlds, 'being' their avatar. Anyone unfamiliar with virtual worlds would be shocked at how close this scenario could be for us in the near future. Besides that, the movie was difficult to get through and I almost gave up many times. And I was never really vested in the characters and bad script. The good news is that real sci-fi is becoming more and more common in movies, which is a great thing for sci-fi fans, for it is a genre which has mostly been ignored or 'pulped', ridiculously, over the entire lifetime of film. Sure, not all films with good sci-fi premises will be good, but at least the genre is opening up. Unless you are a die hard (pun intended) Bruce Willis fan, the only reason to watch this movie is for Ving Rhames (who has way too little screen time) and to check out the world that was created here, which is the only reason I gave it a 6 rating. Without all that, and if this had been a present day cop movie, it would be have been better to turn on the TV and just watch CSI (maybe the best idea, anyway). Oh, and did I mention the ending was completely expected and cliché, and rather truncated? It left me with a rather empty stomach.

Everest (2015)

How Many Everest 1996 Tragedy Movies Do We Really Need?

[2/10 · 21 September 2015]

Is anything in this movie a spoiler? haha. I will try not to put spoilers, just as in any review I write, but I wanted to be safe, for those born after '96 and who missed it on the news, etc.

I can't even count how many ways this was a horrid movie. Even the photography seemed very claustrophobic much of the time (most probably those were the studio scenes depicting the mountain). That style may have been intended to give some intimacy to the huge IMAX format but it just made it worse. To be fair, the real mtn shots were wonderful, but not near as good as David Breashears' IMAX footage during this same tragedy (but Breashears is a multi-decade mountaineering filmmaker), and shown in *his* movie about 1996 (and his others). I have seen 5-6 movies/docs about this, read 3 books, and have seen tons of media about this, so was this movie really necessary, considering ALL the stuff that is out there for people to source? At least one reviewer was right, that it was just another attempt to make money from this tragedy. What about the 2015 tragedy due to the earthquake? 19 people died this year on Everest, which is *more* than in 1996. I would have rather watched a movie about that.

At first, I thought this was Rob Hall's version of the story, or at least cobbled together from his teammates and clients. And I was very interested in that, at first, but it was vapid and at a the cost of barely any information or character development of the other major players. SO much was left out as to make this more fiction or "based on", rather than a real docudrama. It is a such recent history that "based on" isn't appropriate yet. Things like Sandy Hill Pitman's need to be carried up and down the mountain by Sherpas who had other vital jobs was omitted. Many priorities got mixed up on that tragic day, and this film omits many. I guess this is the jolly IMAX version rather than an honest accounting and tribute to the deceased. Beck Weathers never has sounded like an "Ugly Texan", so his lines and bravado about Texas were silly and offensive, esp as I was born in Texas. His character here, besides being largely a generalization, is an outdated one and any truth that is in it has largely passed into history by now. Weathers has always come across as a quiet, considered guy. The mtn may have sobered up his "Himalayan Mtn High", but he was hardly a brash young man, even then. His incredible story is almost completely fiction here, yet it became solid history within a couple months after the event. David Breashears was hardly anywhere to be found, the director of the IMAX film that was shooting during this expedition, which he stopped in the middle of, on peak filming days, to help with the rescue. This resulted in a financial loss and a truncated movie for him (but far better than this one), but he did the right thing. There are many interesting and suspenseful side stories, all of which came together to cause the tragedy, like the oxygen canister mix-up, but where were they.

All in all, even the TV movie, based on Jon Krakauer's wonderful book, "Into Thin Air", was much better than this, and they didn't climb up Everest to film it, you can be sure! Krakauer's and Breashears' (who has summited 5 times now)great mtn films and books just made this look silly. I have not read Anatoli Boukreev's book, who was also pivotal in the rescue, and no doubt has a different outlook than the Americans, but he also was basically ignored here, except for a couple nebulous mentions. Even the love story of Rob Hall and his wife was mostly left on the cutting room floor. What about Scott Fischer? All of these guys, besides Rob Hall, were barely mentioned. And the Sherpas got no credit, which is a crime, as without them, no white man (or any other color) would have likely summited Everest to this day (one co-summited the first summit), and they held the records for most summits until Breashears matched it with his 5th summit, last time I checked. Yes, I am irritated, as the build-up was so big, although I wasn't sure what more could be told. I should have taken my suspicions more to heart! My advice, if not completely obvious by now, is to watch and read the other material about this story and skip this awful movie. And if you liked it, all the more reason to delve into those.

Cake (II) (2014)

An Anniston Flick I Actually Liked

[8/10 · 21 September 2015]

And a lot. She was also the exec producer. Unlike many reviewers, I thought the story and dialogue were very good and didn't give it all away. If they had, it would have been just another movie like all the other movies of this type. I'm glad certain things were not explicitly explained. Part of me wishes they were but in the end, it is not hard to put 2 and 2 together and the details are not important anyway. The complete destruction of someone's life is. Anniston gets a 9 on the chronic pain scale; would have been 10 but some things were not realistic for her level of pain. Anyway, she did a great job in this film. I always knew she was a good actress, she just got pigeonholed into her cutesy image. Cutesy went away at 40 and it has done her a world of good. Her early youth set her up to be able to do whatever she wants and I'm all for her doing these kinds of movies and stretching her wings as producer and maybe someday, director. One thing I really loved about this was that her co-star, Adriana Barraza, as her housekeeper and watchdog, played your average Mexican in that position and it was nice to see a movie that didn't treat them as the non-entities others often see them as. She had the biggest part, besides Anniston and did a tremendous and heartwarming job. Nice to see a 'servant' who wasn't English or English or English. I didn't even recognize Sam Worthington! He has changed since Avatar; older of course, and also had a light beard. And it says good things that I didn't recognize his persona; he was acting instead of just being Sam Worthington. Very impressed as other than Avatar, I am not that familiar with him. William H. Macy has a cameo, albeit the emotional climax, but alas, his screen time is about 60 seconds or less. Not sure about he reading of that scene, seems a bit puny but everyone here is very emotionally damaged so hard to figure. Hey, it is just a good movie, esp for the art house set, and they do keep you wondering, and thus, watching! But it turned out not to be a dirty trick, after all. I haven't given a movie an '8' in a long time, which was a pleasure as well as a pleasure to watch. Check out this quiet movie, underneath an 'even strain', and you'll find a multi-layered Cake as good and homemade as they come.

Bitter Moon (1992)

A Classic Polanski Film

[8/10 · 19 September 2015]

A flawed but classic adaptation of the novel, "Lunes de Fiel", by Pascal Bruckner. Screenplay by Polanski and several others. The flaws are Peter Coyote's acting, which almost sinks the movie (sorry for the pun, as it takes place on an ocean voyage). He is just so wrong, as the star of this movie. He barely has any normal speaking inflection, and is not present, as an actor, as he is not acting here; not sure what he is doing, actually. I am surprised Polanski put up with him. No doubt there is more to that story. His performance is all the more obvious and sad, esp when playing against the very capable and professional Hugh Grant and Kristen Scott Thomas. I am sorry to say that Mrs. Polanski (Emmanuelle Seigner) does not come off well, either, at least in her very emotional scenes, although the lack of depth there does fit her young character. I have seen much better performances from her, to be fair. Great set dressing, makeup, and fashion (Scott Thomas' gown in the last act is brilliant; I want!), well suited for the period (late 70s). The music, composed and directed by Vangelis, is subtle but fitting, and the popular songs are well chosen for the period. This is a meaty psychological story about infatuation, love, sex, and obsession. And being careful what you pray for. Some quite nice dialogue and a return to the creative and gritty screen writing of earlier cinema (with very modern dialog, so watch before your kids). It is also a captivating film, spare, nothing wasted, wonderfully edited. It will grab you from start to finish (if you can stand Coyote), and the finish has a clever twist. Although the final scenes will be anticipated by some viewers. If you are a Polanski fan or just into film or film history, this is a must see and a fine example of film-making.

Cul-de-sac (1966)

Raw Eggs & Lots of Chickens Do Not a Movie Make

[2/10 · 19 September 2015]

I am a big Polanski fan and finally got around to watching this early movie of his. It appears to be low budget, but nicely shot, nonetheless. I love the environments he creates, and this wonderful castle used for the location is the most alive thing in the movie (if it hadn't been used for some slapstick comedy and thus falling apart). Some of the acting is reasonable (Jacqueline Bisset in an early, but non-speaking role, alas, is the most interesting thing, really; wish there was more of her or she had lines). Even with the few good things I listed, the movie misses on almost all cylinders, even though Polanski attempts, and almost succeeds, in making an old plot into something new, and into a black comedy as well (although it really is a rather 'gray' black comedy). It is a character study but they are all so distasteful that that fails. A very irritating movie, overall, due to the characters. I guess Polanski is a human director, after all! It could not be further from his other movies. The tragic murder of his wife, Sharon Tate, plus his later legal problems, have not happened by this release, so no obvious excuse for this self-indulgent film.

Inherent Vice (2014)

Paul Thomas Anderson is Human

[6/10 · 13 September 2015]

Whew, glad I wasn't the only one who didn't follow the plot! Was worried. Tried to watch it again, with some success in understanding, but in the end, wasn't worth making it to the end, although I might revisit to see if I 'get' it and it might be brilliant? But as of now... Although I gave it a low rating, it's not a total miss, and has some clever scenes/lines, but it is just a mish-mash of... I am not sure what. It had great potential and it did make me want to read the book; could Pynchon have started this possible debacle? Accurate if not over the top depiction of the early '70s, probably because Pynchon was actually there, and yeah, cops were almost that bad, or worse, but in real life ways, and I knew people who smoked pot 24/7 then, and it was accepted in some circles. Over the top in the stoner movie attempt/addition to the mish-mash. I mean, what are you trying to be, a stoner movie, a mystery movie, a noir, comedy, what??? Focus, PTA!

I generally really like Joaquin Phoenix but he was too old for this role and I can't be too hard on him with this material to work with. Plus his makeup was really hard to look at (pot doesn't do that to you; either you have hygiene or not). The detective and the other men were pretty good, if not really over the top (I keep saying that, which shows how much it was over). Females were '70s chicks, and lots of them, and yeah, it was like that. Blonde, long, lithe, esp in Calif. But not much depth shown here, as in real life, then, alas. Thus, not much to say about their performances.

There was a big disservice done to the music, with the exception of Neil Young's contributions. I didn't feel I was in 1970, music-wise, and that is a big part of an era, the screwing up of which really hurt this movie further. Some slimming down of the plot line, a more concise genre, and PTA would have had a great satire on the end of the '60s.