Change Your Image
fmilder-533-34251
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Argylle (2024)
Disappointing
Argylle isn't terrible by any means. I think it's fair to say that many of the negative reviews are really saying, "With this much money, and all these excellent actors, and the basic premise that you came up with, THIS is what you produced?"
It's hard to write an appropriate review without getting into all the twists and turns, because they are so important to the movie. But distractions like Cavill's truly bizarre hair, the believability of the casting of one of the lead characters, the over-the-top acting of another, the way over-long and overly-silly action pieces, and most important, the resemblance that this movie has to other (better) movies, all relegate Argylle to looking like a 2-hour version of derivative television from the 1960s, like "The Girl from UNCLE." (Which is, of course, derivative of the Man from UNCLE, which is derivative of James Bond. That's how lazy and underproduced this feels),
That's not to say that this isn't a real movie, and fans of Sam Rockwell will enjoy his part, while fans of Henry Cavill and John Cena will wonder "Why did they bother?"
In the end, this movie looks like decent (nothing better than that) television from at least 50 years ago, with more recognizable actors, and more elaborate (note that I don't say better) special effects. If you go in with that expectation (and you tell your brain to stop thinking about other very similar movies), you'll be entertained. And if you miss Argylle, it won't be any worse than missing a TV show that you only occasionally watched anyway.
The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel: The Testi-Roastial (2023)
Wonderfu television
The Testi-Roastial is truly great television. The roast is a perfect way for them to tell many stories about "how we got here," and Alex Borstein is at the top of her game. Expect her to score another Emmy on account of her performance in this episode.
If you've been wondering "How did that happen?" when watching previous episodes, there's a decent chance you'll get your answer in this episode. And they do a great job of adding hooks to real-life period characters.
Finally, for those who are wondering where you saw him before, you are most likely remembering Roast master Sean Gunn from Gilmore Girls...
Night Sky (2022)
Despite Simmons and Spacek, this is way too long and inconsistent
Simmons and Spacek are positively captivating.
And the good stuff ends there. I'm truly amazed by all the 9s and 10s. Yes, Simmons and Spacek could read the phone book, and I'd watch a few episodes hoping it would work out. But the writing of Night Sky, which never resolves ANY of its threads, and the pacing, which is SO slow that snails are speeding by as we watch, made this feel like 8 hours that could have been done in 3.
At least a couple of times an episode, you find yourself thinking "He/she wouldn't have done that!" And all too often you're certain that there must be a hidden motivation for a character's actions, but you NEVER find out what that motivation is. After 8 episodes, we don't know what's driving any of the show's characters, or even the groups that they belong to. There are a few complete holes in every episode, and yet the show never uses its hours and hours of screen time to help us understand why people are doing what they are doing.
It's not a lack of action; it's a lack of believability and consistency. By the 2nd or 3rd episode, you think you're being tested as to whether you would watch a show that is this disappointingly written and directed, just so you could follow the two brilliant leads. By the 8th episode, you're thinking, "is ANYTHING going to be resolved?"
So, watch a couple of episodes, just to enjoy the fantastic Simmons and Spacek. But, in my humble opinion, it isn't worth 8 hours.
You Don't Know Me (2021)
Adewunmi has a terrific voice
This is a way, way too long crime drama, burdened by the preposterous notion that the court would allow a defendant to present a closing argument that is an extended story having little to do with the evidence.
This kind of story doesn't have to end with a guilty or innocent verdict. It doesn't have to be "Will the jury believe his story?" There are lots of alternatives -- consider Primal Fear or the Usual Suspects or Shutter Island or Memento -- all of which had a twist that fooled EVERYONE.
Alas, "You Don't Know Me" abandons any of these finishes -- no jury verdict and no clever twist that justifies watching 4 episodes. It's like watching Twilight Zone and having Rod Serling come out and say "We decided to stop this episode before it's over; why don't you just imagine it ended in a way that you would find satisfying?"
There's one (and only one) thing that gets you to stick with it and leads to any scores over 5 -- the amazing voice of Samuel Adewunmi. I'd love to hear him with a credible script.
Bullet Train (2022)
Loved it from start to finish
There's more than a bit of Guy Ritchie meets Quentin Tarantino meets Die Hard in this movie. Zany characters, rapid-fire scene changes, goofy conversations, and a lead protagonist who is very good at what he does, but can't believe that he's been surrounded by this many crazed killers.
It was amazing how it all comes together. Every so often, something like "35 minutes ago" appears on the screen, and a flashback shows how the thing you just saw came together. The near absence of loose ends in such a grand, comic action film is extraordinary, and leaves you awestruck that someone had such a grand vision to bring it all together.
Henry and Taylor-Johnson are spectacular; they are reminiscent of Kidd and Wint in Diamonds are Forever, if Tarantino had written their lines. You were just waiting for them to talk about "Royales with cheese." Ditto for Joey King who does wonders with a multi-layered role.
Finally, I loved Brad Pitt; he's a bit of a Southern Californian John McClane (who happens to be an assassin).
We saw Bullet Train in a theater with (I think) 4 others. Only our second movie in a theater in the past couple of years. Seeing it on a big screen may have added to me giving the movie a 10.
But I really did have a great time!
Endeavour: Pylon (2019)
What a great episode
The first show of season 6 shows several of the characters moving on -- different jobs, different locations, different looks. Two things distinguish this episode -- First, showing just how heavily incidents in their lives, both work and personal, weigh on Morse and Thursday, and second, watching the brilliance of Morse solving cases almost in his spare time against the backdrop of the designated police barely making any progress at all. "Pylon" is everything that can be great and terrible about being a policeman.
This is very superior television.
Encanto (2021)
Colorful animation and great Miranda songs
Watching Encanto, I couldn't help but wonder, "Where is this, really?"
There's a bit of "Brigadoon' - happy villagers love to sing and celebrate their "specialness," but seem amazingly detached from the rest of the world given the magic going on in their town.
And it's also the anti-Marvel universe - here, people with magical powers have no greater aspiration than to help the local farmer round up his goats or watch their magical house set the dinner table.
Of course, it is a Disney cartoon, and like many cartoons (and even many of the most popular movies) you should just "suspend your disbelief," and go with it.
And Encanto does shine in a Broadway musical kind of way. Lin Manuel Miranda's songs are wonderful, and there's enough (just enough!) story to power through to the end. I'm still not clear what Mirabel brought to the table to make up for her not having her family's magical talents. And I also don't know what the overall message is (perhaps "Love of family conquers all"? Or "It takes a village"?)
Regardless, this is a very easy, very colorful hour-and-a-half with some beautiful musical numbers, and many cute Disney effects. Hence my 7, which is probably a slight rounding up from mid-6s.
Forever (2018)
This is a joke, right?
It is widely reported that the brilliant John Lennon wrote "I am the Walrus" just to screw around with all the people who analyze Beatles music.
It's hard not to imagine that a lot of people associated with Forever were doing the same thing. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but if you watch 3 episodes of Forever (sorry; that was all I could take!) and then read the reviews that give the show a 9 or 10 and talk about how it's got "gentle" pacing, or that they loved the music, you have to think that some of these reviewers are in on a carefully planned joke - "Let's see if we can make a nonsensical show that moves along at the pace of ice melting, get our friends and colleagues to write reviews about how wonderful it is, and leave some kind of a "mark" on the Internet Movie Database." Here's a test - one review really did write how much they loved the music. I watched three episodes; was there even ANY music?
Yes, there is the occasional review that compares this to Dante's inferno, or something similar. Those are the people who didn't get John Lennon's joke either. But all the rest of the 9s and 10s HAVE to be friends of somebody in the production. Even if there is a message here, would it really take THIS LONG to get to some kind of point? In the first three episodes alone, there is time after time when someone does something 6 or 8 times just to illustrate repetition.
I just can't believe that there are serious people who think this is great television.
The Tender Bar (2021)
Disappointing
The Tender Bar is a series of disconnected vignettes, first involving young JR, and then college-and-a-few-years-after JR. There's little continuity and an unexpected (and odd) jump between the two ages. In so many ways, this plays like the real JR wanting to tell you ten scenes from his life, with little regard for whether this would make an interesting, or even watchable, movie. It left me wondering who paired the book down to the movie.
And that's before we get to all the mediocre production choices - Long Islanders bowling candlepins, which don't exist in Long Island, young JR and older JR don't look much like each other, JR cursing out his father without so much as attending to the person who inspired the cursing, sound editing that loses the end of the sentence every five minutes or so, and the random scene choices and ending that seems no better place to stop than many other moments in JR's life.
There are lots of movies that disappoint me, but I nonetheless think were worth watching. The Tender Bar is just a waste of time. Ben Affleck doing a decent job in a supporting role, and a cute kid reminiscent of The Wonder Years, do not make a good movie.
No Time to Die (2021)
A decent movie, and that's a disappointment
The Good -
- The pre-credits sequence (the current one; not the flashback) was great, especially the scene at the cemetery, and Bond (finally) deciding to take advantage of the capabilities of the Aston-Martin.
- Ana De Armas looks terrific, and the "fun" she seems to be having as a (very talented) rookie agent is the high point. The Cuba scene is the only one in the entire movie that looks like a traditional Bond movie.
- Many clever references to Bond and Bond movies, especially "On her Majesty's Secret Service," Bond turning to shoot from the end of a circular tunnel (like the opening credits), Bond having to identify himself to the front desk at MI6.
- There's no denying that no one does gritty like Daniel Craig. And no matter what you think of the ending, it's hard not to be moved by how he handles the ending.
- If you go back and watch the preview after seeing the movie, it gives you a quick 90 second reminder of how the movie can rate a 7, despite all its failings, as I describe below.
The Not so Good -
- They make a movie that is 2:43, and they can't give us a bit of a reminder about the romance between Bond and Madeleine? I'm sorry; it was 6 years ago that the two of them rode off together. Pardon me if I'm just supposed to "know" that they are madly in love.
- Killing off so many lead characters. Why bother having Christoph Waltz (Blofeld) at all if you're not going to give him something cool to do?
- Bond has completely lost his subtlety, replaced by (A) Bond just kills everyone, often with a machine gun, and (B) the bad guys can't hit Bond with any kind of weapon, even from 3 feet away. Hell, they can't catch him when they surround him with cars and bikes. That scene had so much potential - Bond beats off three cars, and you breathe a sigh of relief, only to find that this was the "tip of the iceberg." No matter; Bond eludes all the other guys too. This is bit like John Maclain in the later DieHard movies.
- What did the opening scene with Madeline and her mother have to do with anything? They TOLD us that Spectre had killed Safin's family. So, we had his motivation. What did Madeline as a young girl have to do with the rest of the movie?
- And speaking of Safin, where did he get his organization from? When he nearly kills Madeline, he seems a lone, disaffected assassin, by the middle of the movie, he's commanding an effort that can overwhelm Spectre, and he has a lair and a full compliment of military. And, finally, having wiped out Spectre, why, exactly, does he still need, and use, the super-weapon?
- Do Bond's cars have some sort of levitation device? Every time the bad guys' cars cars come near him, he veers in their direction, and they flip into destruction. Do it once, it's cool; do it several times, and we wonder if you ran out of ideas. And, as far as technology goes, how does the watch blow up Primo's eye, but not the gizmo in Bond's ear?
- What, exactly, was Safin's beef with James Bond such that Safin felt he had to kill Bond? And what did I miss that Bond doesn't die just-about-instantly, like everyone else exposed to the nanobots? Letting Bond die really undermines the movie. Not because that wasn't a moving, close-to-tears ending, but because you don't come to a movie like this to have an ending like that. Moreover, the ending didn't have to have the 9-minute deadline they settled on. They could have made sure that Bond had opened the doors and gotten away (or at least gotten to a point of safety) before blowing up the island. Compare the very similar ending of The Rock (with Nick Cage and Sean Connery).
- Who was directing all the supporting characters? M was played like it was all he could do to grunt his dialogue. The new 007 seemed to be unsure of whether she was jealous or over-confident or what. (And what was the significance of her asking that Bond get back the 007 designation? Did that affect anything?).
The bottom line is that this was a watchable movie, it held my interest, and Daniel Craig can carry a movie like this regardless of everything going on around him. But it's filled with illogic, red herrings, and characters with terribly unclear motivation. And the ending, as moving as it was, seemed contrived to produce the wrong conclusion.
Cinderella (2021)
Watchable, but disappointing
There's a decent idea in here, and it is certainly watchable. But you can't help wonder what could have been.
- I am fine with Camila Cabello as Cinderella. On the other hand, I don't know whether the voice we hear is her "usual" or if she was autotuned (as many have alleged), but I found her songs positively grating and annoying to listen to.
- I am fine with big production numbers, and I'll readily acknowledge that the "Rhythm Nation" number that starts the movie is not unlike the Sunrise number that starts "In the Heights." The (big) difference is that the latter number fits the movie. Here's the first few lines of Rhythm Nation": "With music by our side/To break the color lines/Let's work together/To improve our way of life". Maybe they could have had this at the END of the movie! Throughout most of Cinderella, women have no rights, and the King can order absolutely anything he wants. Plainly, this tune would have matched the end of the movie far better.
- The Idina Menzel numbers, and the Billy Porter Godmother sequence were highlights. I don't mind the backstory for the wicked stepmother, and I don't mind the flamboyant, cross-gender Godmother. The numbers worked, and show that famous Broadway performers are famous for a reason. On the other hand, we could have freed up a few minutes for more useful film-making by dropping any scenes with James Corden and the mice-turned-footmen. They had completely disposable one-liners that weren't funny and didn't advance the story even a little.
- In order to beat us over the head with one-liners about women not having rights, the film doesn't devote enough attention to the "real" story. Why is the prince so head over heels in love that he would abdicate? Why does the king suddenly decide that everyone should have rights (especially the queen and the princess)? Why is the stepmother only occasionally evil (she's a bit of a split personality!). Couldn't they have moderated the basic theme just a bit to give us a genuine story?
- Did Cinderella have to be suffering SOLELY because, in this kingdom, women can't own businesses? That could be ONE of the reasons, but there wasn't enough of a backstory for her or some real "meat" to make us like/feel for her. Cinderella could have been a "full daughter" in this movie, and the bit about the dress business would have been the same. And, about that dress business, what was going on with her designs? Did the budget run out of money for someone to draw a few sketches that looked like dresses? Cinderella's designs looked like crayon drawings. I had a similar reaction to her aborted efforts to design a new dress after the Prince buys her first creation. We see her POUND pencils/crayons on the paper a couple of times and then crumple up the effort. There's no way that she had started to draw a dress design!
So, there's enough in here to watch, but not as a "movie." More as a series of skits, some of which work. They could have kept a lot=t of the premise, and made a far, far better movie.
Pieces of a Woman (2020)
Vignettes of a woman
Let's get the obligatory spoiler alert out of the way here, recognizing that this movie's entire advertising campaign is a spoiler alert.
Indeed, one enormous complaint about this movie is that whether you found it realistic or not, and whether it gave you insight into this women's pain or not, the opening 30 minutes is the simple anticipation of a coming car wreck in slow motion. You watch what looks to be within the range of normal childbirths (if only we could understand what motivated this woman, living in a city with several of the world's greatest hospitals, to have her baby at home), and you wait, and you wait, and you wait. You know (there's that ad campaign, remember?) that her baby isn't going to make it, and you're just waiting for how and when.
That's part of what I don't get about this movie. Do we get any insight into why they are having a home childbirth? Do we get any insight into what might have been done better? What mistake might have been made? I don't think so. This was just a home childbirth that didn't turn out well. Indeed, Mom and Dad literally go the extra length of meeting with the coroner who tells them that. (And, don't you know, this gives Dad a chance to scream at the coroner.)
So, why are people giving this stars for the great opening 30 minutes? Perhaps because Ms. Kirby hasn't had a child herself, but she was able to act as if she was? Or perhaps because, after 26 minutes of something that looks like uh, a childbirth, the baby, which had a terrific heartbeat just a few minutes earlier, suddenly doesn't make it? I'll note that we don't see anything actually go wrong, and we don't see "heroic measures." We don't get any explanation at all of what went wrong. Frankly, this plays as if we are being taught a lesson: "You don't have to know what went wrong; all you need to know is that you're a dolt if you decide to play the odds and have a home birth." I hadn't gone into this expecting a screed about home births, but that seems a rather obvious conclusion from what little we are told.
From there, we find out that "pieces of a woman" doesn't mean that Martha has lost pieces of herself with her unfortunate newborn. No, the word "pieces" seems to just mean "vignettes." It's as if we're in acting class - Scene! In this one, you encounter a young child, and it makes you lactate. Scene! In this one you come back to work and everyone stares at you. Scene! In this one, your mother yells at you for having a home childbirth, and you storm off! There's nothing tying these together. I felt like I was watching one-tenth of a far, far better movie, and that the editor chose to keep the plot scenes but leave out the ones that told me why I cared.
And then there's the odd laziness/sloppiness of so many plot points - the one EMT truck that says Boston on its side, but not a single other scene recognizable as Boston (yes, I know the movie was largely made in Canada, but then maybe they shouldn't have identified ANY city.). The one, fleeting observation of gravestones with Hebrew on them, and not one other reference, in any way, to any of these characters being Jewish. The prosecutor who is grateful that Mom will testify, but who seemingly never undertakes any witness preparation at all. The judge who lets Mom address the court without so much as a sidebar with the lawyers. And lest we forget - the prosecutor who is both Mom's cousin (!) and having an affair with Dad (!!). Was there a shortage of actors at the Netflix store? The utterly bizarre scene of Mom's mother having an Alzheimer's moment near the end of the movie. The Hallmark-y finish showing mom with a blonde tree-climbing child at the end. Was it hers? Is the child adopted? Is Mom remarried? (For that matter, was Mom married in the first place? I was surprised by the courtroom scenes in which Dad was referred to as her "partner," but maybe I wasn't paying close enough attention in the introductions.)
Finally, there are so many other small, but distracting errors - the photo store that lets Mom come into the darkroom, and pull her developing photo out of the chemicals. The judge referring to the case as "the State versus ...." When in Massachusetts, that would be "the Commonwealth versus ...".
Yes, I'm probably piling on at this point, but I really, truly, don't get it. There's a great basic premise here that could have been made into a great movie. But this sure isn't it.
Barry: Chapter Seven: Loud, Fast, and Keep Going (2018)
One of the best half hours of TV you will ever see
Absolutely amazing. This episode starts with the cliff hanger of the previous one, and then goes completely through the roof. Hader makes you feel absolute sympathy for an assassin.
Nomadland (2020)
The Great McDormand in an otherwise bland movie
Let's get the obvious point out of the way first: Frances McDormand is a national treasure. She may well be the ranking American actress, and she conveys an "everywoman" aura that is almost hypnotic. The lines on her face, a limitation for many actresses, are an outstanding feature for her.
Now, as for the movie: As many have observed, there's scarcely a beginning, middle, or end. We're told how Fay got to be on the road, we see a handful of interactions with others, we get some gorgeous cinematography, and repeat; and repeat again. Life isn't half-bad for Fay and the people she encounters; as bad as it gets is a flat tire or a "helpful" friend inadvertently breaking a beloved piece of china. Somehow, there's money to pay for more serious problems. Other reviews have summarized dozens of ways that the life hinted at here is actually far more harsh than we see.
In many ways, this plays as the first episode of a limited TV series about being on the road. In my humble opinion, despite the gorgeous sunsets, such a pilot would not have been picked up.
One final thing, and perhaps my biggest problem - it's sometimes referred to as the "observer effect." In a movie filled with dozens of "real" people, the interior of a real Amazon, and so on, I found myself constantly wondering about the crew hovering on the edge of the screen with lights and cameras and a director. It really took me out of the movie. Apparently, it worked for the amateur cast; there's a story on the Internet about one of the amateur leads being really moved by hearing a sad story from Fay; once the scene ended, he was stunned when McDormand reminded him that she was acting, and everyone described in the story was actually alive and well. I guess it's great that Ms. McDormand is such a great actress that these real people believed her in real time. But for me, I wondered how real people could melt into being characters in a movie.
The Midnight Sky (2020)
A lot of style, not do much story
"The Midnight Sky" is 2 hours of very artistic scenes, maybe 40% in the Arctic and 60% in outer space, with about a half hour of actual story. It's watchable because there's so much "style," but (1) the science (both on earth and in space) is weak enough to trouble people who care about the "that wouldn't really happen!" problem,, and (2) the lack of a true plot somewhat undermines the movie.
A bit reminiscent of Rod Serling saying that he preferred half hour twilight zones to one hour ones because he didn't know what to do with the extra time. We gave it a 7 because we were willing to overlook all that's wrong with the movie, but I can see a lot of people who wouldn't be so forgiving.
Foyle's War: They Fought in the Fields (2004)
A Special Episode
I've watched several episodes of Foyle's War now, and I've gotten the hang of some of the misdirection and subsidiary plot lines that they like. I often find I can predict a decent portion of the plotline and who the villain is.
They Fought in the Fields breaks the mold. I was surprised at many turns; why the crime was committed, and by who, and I loved the really great back story and motivation of some of the characters.
Most of all, Michael Kitchen really brings his A-game. The way he handles insults, sadness and the need for comfort, and urgency are just wonderful.
I won't go into laying out the plot or who all the characters are. Just watch it.
Foyle's War: The White Feather (2002)
What a moving episode!
This is truly superior television. We are all used to watching crime dramas in which the dogged investigator has to solve a complex crime with multiple suspects. Now imagine particularly excellent writing and acting, and add all the context of Germany breathing down the neck of England at Dunkirk, Nazi sympathizers in England, and English anti-semitism. The White Feather is a great whodunnit and an early 1940s/World War 2 history lesson at the same time. And, let's not forget Michael Kitchen's ability to convey so much with a raising of his eyebrows or the roll of his eyes. I'm only 2 episodes into this series, but I'm already relishing having more than two dozen episodes in the pipeline!
The Good Liar (2019)
Disappointing
I'm with the 95% who think that Mirren and McKellen are truly great actors who can carry most anything. Unfortunately, the movie plays like a short story waiting for the big reveal. Half an hour into it, you know what you need to know about the characters, and then you have to wait a long time to see the resolution, which, as many have noted, is pretty jarring, so much so that it feels like you've wandered into another movie.
Space Force (2020)
Don't think "Office". Think "MASH."
You can't help but go into a Steve Carrell venture and not expect a laugh out loud comedy.
That's not what Space Force is. Probably, it's closest relative is MASH. It's got the same underlying seriousness played with a similarly-styled cast that ranges from serious (John Malkovich as the lead scientist) to buffoonish (the general's aide, who seems to let everyone into his office, even if the general isn't there). And, it's got a seriously satirical view of the military that pervades every decision, with a decent amount of attention to how the writers think the government and military run in the Trump era.
But it's not a LMAO barrel of yokes, not at all. And that means it's hard to know what you're going to get. As an example, and trying my best to not have a spoiler, the General is faced with a multi-billion dollar decision in the second episode, and EVERYONE tells him what to do. When he finally makes his decision, you watch, waiting for the big laugh, and there isn't one. Indeed, the GENERAL EXPLAINS HIS DECISION to his chief scientist, and when he's through, it actually seems profound. Almost like Harry Morgan as the commander in MASH.
There are still some stereotypes that confuse, like the Russian attache with free range of the base. He feels like something out of a 1950s Cold War comedy. And some of the odd stuff that goes on in outer space is not your typical sci-fi, which again leaves you wondering where the drama ends and the comedy begins.
I've only watched 2 episodes so far, but I'm prepared to give it a few more shots.
I See You (2019)
Stay With It
I See You starts out with some strange camera angles, a bit overly dramatic score and a creepily-too-thin Helen Hunt. For a few minutes you feel like you're being a bit too manipulated, between sharp cuts and overtly scary music.
But then you start trying to guess just what is going on. That goes on for a few minutes.
And then you just watch.
You will be well rewarded.
Avenue 5 (2020)
Needs far better writing and direction
We've watched 4 episodes, and the show plays like a repeating skit on Saturday Night Live. There's the feuding couple, and the annoying founder of the company, and the annoying right hand woman, and the annoying tourist-activist, and the beyond-belief annoying client-services representative. And that's before we get to the criminally wasted Hugh Laurie. Yes, all of us were amazed the first time we saw Dr. House on a late night talk show speaking with an English accent. But who thought it would be funny to hear him bounce back and forth, in and out of accent, three times an episode? Yet another bit that plays like something that would recur on SNL.
There's the serious engineer trying to do her best, and the woman who heads up ground control; they'd be nice foils for people in space who were comically in over their heads. But that's not what we have here. The people in over their heads are unlikable a-holes, except for Hugh Laurie, who is simply wildly mis-directed.
I'm not troubled in the least by the sci-fi. The bits about gravity, and how missing Titan could greatly extend the journey work just fine. And the set looks impressive (if a bit unimaginable for this barely into the future).
But we desperately need to have actual STUFF HAPPEN, and fresh stories and humor. This is REALLY LAZY writing. On SNL, it would be the "cheeseburger, cheeseburger" bit for 5 minutes I every week, and we'd all laugh, BUT THEN WE WOULD MOVE ON to the next bit of comedy.
Here, it's the fighting husband and wife (enough already! I truly know why neighboring hotel rooms are complaining!), and the beyond-inane company founder, and his passive-aggressive sidekick (with the latter playing into some truly awful Asian stereotype), and the activist tourist who keeps getting a microphone and magically being in the right place to hear every last bit of bad news. And Hugh Laurie pulls off the captain thing, and then someone directs him to play the part like he's a moron. Can't he just be a smart guy with a problem that is just about insolvable? Wouldn't that be funny enough? And then the show ends, because at 30 minutes, it is VERY short, and then, the following week, it repeats.
EPISODE after ANNOYING EPISODE.
In the end, I'm with the people who keep thinking that with these production values (very cool sets, people!) and Hugh Laurie, sooner or later, this has to get better. But I'm starting to lose patience!
Hummingbird (2013)
Well worth your time
Redemption (Hummingbird) has all the feel of a novel that has been made into a movie (it isn't). An emotionally scarred veteran of the UK war in Afghanistan now lives on the streets in London, when a mix of circumstances provide him with a second chance. He's hardly pure however, and the movie includes a fair amount of questionable decisions and violence, as well as much temptation for a nun. The movie easily holds your interest, and it is thoroughly watchable. The drawbacks? It has a bit of a "Haven't I seen this before?" to it, especially when Statham serves as a driver, or flexes his muscles against multiple opponents. And there are times when you say to yourself, "Gee. Would that character really have done THAT?" But these are actually modest quibbles. The decisions faced by both Statham, and Agata Buzek, as the nun, are genuinely interesting, and writer/director Steven Knight more often than not chooses a unexpected resolution to the problems faced by the characters. I'd give this a 7.5, which I rounded up to 8 for IMDb scoring purposes.
Black Mirror: Nosedive (2016)
Great concept and production values; bloated result
Imagine a future world where everyone is subject to continuous evaluation, a la Trip Adviser or Yelp. Like so many of the Black Mirror episodes, a brilliant concept, and great execution. Concepts like having to smile continuously to keep your score up, or the problems of driving a battery-powered car, show how much thought went into the script.
Rod Serling observed that he loved the old 30-minute episodes of Twilight Zone, and hated when he was forced to produce a 60-minute version. He felt that he could say everything that he wanted to say in 30 minutes and the longer time just made the show feel bloated.
And so it was with Nosedive. There's 30 minutes of brilliance in here, and another 30 minutes of enough already. That's too bad; it would be great if someone could pare this back to its essence, and lose all the excesses in the later scenes, each of which goes on for 2-3 times as long as appropriate to make the point.
Million Dollar Arm (2014)
Surprised by the reasonably high score
I am surprised by the pretty high score that "The Million Dollar Arm" has gotten.
Yes, I know that it's based on a true story, but that doesn't mean that it has to be so bland and disconnected. Setting aside that Jon Hamm's character (the agent) was so remarkably unlikable, the movie, AS A MOVIE, is a big disappointment.
After a cute scene of the kids encountering their first elevator, there are almost no scenes where we see someone actually doing something -- we just get oral summaries of the latest incident from one of the characters, e.g., the agent's tenant, or his secretary, etc. This is story-telling as a bunch of news- clippings, not as a MOVIE.
About the only acting pizazz comes from the tenant, who keeps reminding the agent to show some humanity, and from Alan Arkin, but he wanders in and out of the movie like a sort of fairy godmother, come to occasionally refocus the agent on the job at hand.
This could have been a FAR better movie. As it stands, it played like a dry newspaper story. Truth is, I learned more about the two kids from their respective Wikipedia articles.