I have to ask, where is the U. S. Military? The premise of this movie is weak. While it makes for an intriguing plot, an American Civil War today would be over in weeks if not days. This is not Bosnia. If the military stayed loyal to the government, with their firepower, they would devastate any militias. If they turned on the government, the government wouldn't last any longer. If half the military went rogue and half stayed loyal, the country would be devastated in days with the likelihood of tactical nuclear weapons being used. Do the writers not understand modern military firepower? And who, pray tell,are our brave journalist providing their coverage for? Taking still photos like it's 1968 in Vietnam. Uh huh. With A. I. who would believe any photo journalism without live video to back it up in this era. And hey, let's throw in a teenage sidekick like it's a Hollywood propaganda film from 1943. Alas, it does have some entertainment value, if you can park your logic at the door. LoL.
Reviews
11 Reviews
Elvis
(2022)
Elvis For Idiots
16 July 2022
Basically, a two hour and forty minute MTV video for the attention deficit. It's so bad there's no need to go into detail, but I will a couple of high (low) points. Historical accuracy, well, they got the names right, otherwise maybe 30% true with skewed timelines. The dumbest part may be saying that Elvis was forced to join the army to avoid going to jail for gyrating. C'mon, take five minutes and read your history. He was 23 in an era when military service was universal for unmarried men. How he avoided the draft that long is the only mystery.
How bout the frail little guy who impersonates Elvis? Well, guess I just said it. To their credit, the first hour, which is basically a fantasy montage of the fifties, is entertaining, if ludicrous, after that it's a grind to get through. The biggest thing that bothers me about this movie and so much of what Hollywood is cranking out these days is that the younger generation will take it for history. While it's always been true that if you're getting your history from the movies you're a damned fool, but these days it's gone from exaggeration to the fantastic, American history presented as science fiction. Nuff said.
How bout the frail little guy who impersonates Elvis? Well, guess I just said it. To their credit, the first hour, which is basically a fantasy montage of the fifties, is entertaining, if ludicrous, after that it's a grind to get through. The biggest thing that bothers me about this movie and so much of what Hollywood is cranking out these days is that the younger generation will take it for history. While it's always been true that if you're getting your history from the movies you're a damned fool, but these days it's gone from exaggeration to the fantastic, American history presented as science fiction. Nuff said.
Dark Winds
(2022– )
Insulting to Tony Hillerma's Brilliant Novels & the Earlier Movies
14 July 2022
The films from the early 2000s that starred Wes Studi and Adam Beach as Leaphorn and Chee were absolutely brilliant and true in spirit and form to Tony Hillerman's original novels. The only thing this series has in common with the novels and earlier films is the names of the lead characters. Otherwise, there is nothing here of the eloquence of Hillerman's books. Though the series is set in the 1970s, it's 2020s in terms of everyone being adversarial with each other and nasty. There's a latent sense of meanness to the whole thing. My recommendation is ignore this series, read the original novels and content yourself with Studi and Beach as the image of Leaphorn and Chee. This is the way all American film making and TV has gone, make it mean, make it edgy. Maybe I'm just an old man griping, but I don't like it.
1883
(2021–2022)
Neo-Western - Pointless, Violent and Boring
20 December 2021
Warning: Spoilers
This is how Hollywood makes Westerns these days. Grim and violent with absolutely no sense of humor or hope. Sam Elliot, who has been brilliant throughout his long career, is way, way, waaaay too old to be believable at this point in an action role and his acting come off as flat.
The story starts out with a bloody attack by Natives on a wagon train which is actually a scene from somewhere much later in the story so we're left hanging as to how it resolves. The next scene is Sam grieving for his dead family, next scene he considers suicide and fourth scene Tim McGraw in a ludicrous chase with moronic outlaws who for some inexplicable reason can't catch up to him while he's driving a lumbering wagon but he does manage to kill all five of them. Wow, it's like watching Bruce Willis kill terrorists in Die Hard.
The first two episodes are unnecessarily brutal, ugly, humorless and unrealistically violent. The sexuality is linked chiefly to threats of violence which is typical for Hollywood. The most prevalent trope is that violence, preferably murder, is the only solution to a problem. This is liberal Hollywood? Someone ought to point out that Hollywood is chiefly responsible for the rise of the gun culture with its endless violent films.
Only Lamonica Garret and Isabel May acquit themselves well in this overripe piece of trash. Hopefully both will go on to better things.
The story starts out with a bloody attack by Natives on a wagon train which is actually a scene from somewhere much later in the story so we're left hanging as to how it resolves. The next scene is Sam grieving for his dead family, next scene he considers suicide and fourth scene Tim McGraw in a ludicrous chase with moronic outlaws who for some inexplicable reason can't catch up to him while he's driving a lumbering wagon but he does manage to kill all five of them. Wow, it's like watching Bruce Willis kill terrorists in Die Hard.
The first two episodes are unnecessarily brutal, ugly, humorless and unrealistically violent. The sexuality is linked chiefly to threats of violence which is typical for Hollywood. The most prevalent trope is that violence, preferably murder, is the only solution to a problem. This is liberal Hollywood? Someone ought to point out that Hollywood is chiefly responsible for the rise of the gun culture with its endless violent films.
Only Lamonica Garret and Isabel May acquit themselves well in this overripe piece of trash. Hopefully both will go on to better things.
Lost in Space
(2018–2021)
Mediocre retelling of a classic series
31 December 2019
This series and the failed 1998 movie share a lot in common. Both attempted to movie Lost In Space into the hard science realm of Star Trek and 2001, but let's face it, LIS is a fantasy and no matter how you try to rework it, it's still a silly premise so the best approach is the one taken by Irwin Allen 50 years ago, play it for pure adventure and humor aimed at a family audience.
The greatest failing of the new series is the writing. Both seasons one and two start out strong enough the first three or four episodes but then the imagination rapidly runs out. In both seasons the series starts out with the Robinsons on their own facing hostile environments much as in the original series, but at mid-season each year they are reunited with the obnoxious members of the other Jupiter crews who are also lost in space and this is when the series goes wrong both times.
With their autonomy lost, the Robinsons are now at the mercy of the command of the expedition who treat them like dirt. Makes you really appreciate the original series characters being truly lost among the stars and away from humanity.
Season two goes off the rail completely when the command crew attempts to kill off or abandon most of the Robinsons and the other families. It turns out everything about the expedition is determined by secret government conspiracies. At this point I wanted to throw the TV out the window. The cynicism is more than I could take and the fast forward button was pressed to the end of the season.
Nothing is ever resolved and the Robot's origin is never explained at the end of two seasons. Welcome to Lost (on a desert island) from the 2000s. Let's entice the audience along for years by dribbling out the story crumbs at a time. I really began to miss the old LIS formula of BEM (Bug Eyed Monster) of the week. It was truly more science fiction oriented than this jumble of government conspiracies and political correctness.
While I can accept the mother, Maureen being in charge of the expedition, I can't buy the husband John. He's an ex-Navy Seal who seems neutered, a real milquetoast. Very unlikely. After Haskins tried to kill his family he does nothing in retaliation. Really? I'm no Seal but I would have gone after that so and so and made sure he never tried it again.
Bottom line, I like the casting, even Parker Posey, but the writing is at fault. I get the feeling the writers have little experience with science fiction. The series plays more like a survivalist fantasy. It's not good sci-fi, it's not even mediocre sci-fi. Think of it as Starlost on a big budget.
Playboy After Dark
(1969–1970)
Bizarre Time Capsule From the 1960s
22 December 2019
Unsteady camera work, deteriorating videotape, uneasy dialog, the original reality TV. Watch in astonishment as Hugh wanders about the set asking timely questions to his hip friends who pontificate and reply with gravitas. The musical guests are the best, most, but not all perform live. The ones that do perform live are worth wading through this nonsense for. Included are the Byrds, the Dillards and many others. Basically, it's Hugh's home movies, the ones where everyone keeps their clothes on. Unfortunately this show is very hard to come across. A best of featuring the musical guests would be welcome.
Obscure, Brilliant Film
27 November 2019
Fantastic Fantasy Restoring Sharon Tate As A Human Being
5 August 2019
Warning: Spoilers
All in all, I loved this movie as it's about my era, the Sixties. I'll let other people go over the detail. What struck me was that in fantasizing the ending and letting Sharon Tate live while doing in her murderers, not only is Tarantino giving us a wonderful fantasy to live out, but in the process he restores this lovely young woman. Think about it, what does the name Sharon Tate conjure? Torture and murder. Tarantino attempts to rescue her from that fate and give us back us a decent young woman, who although not a brilliant actress, deserves to be remembered as more than a victim. Over the course of the last 50 years her murderers have taken on mythic proportions while Sharon has been reduced to Poor Sharon. Tarantino instead gives us a more accurate portrait of a squalid band of murdering psychopaths, who in this version of history, get what they so richly deserved, while Sharon goes on to a real life. Although I've disliked most of Tarantino's movies, he does much to redeem himself with this wonderful homage to Sixties Hollywood. Thank you Quentin.
Poldark the Bad Sequel
17 July 2019
I was a great fan of the novels and the original series in the 70s. Several instances of bad miscasting in the new series, most obviously Warleggan who is an aristocratic fop, not the grandson of a blacksmith. Elizabeth was a dizzy dame, not the shrewd, manipulative woman of the novels. I could go on and on. But now this, Poldark the rehash. Winston Graham was a brilliant writer, to disregard him is arrogant and stupid. Go to the last set of novels you fools. Anyway, as usual I wanted to hold Aidan Turner down and force someone to comb his hair and give him a shave. No self respecting gentleman of his era would have gone about looking like a refugee from a Fabio Romance novel cover. Lord how I miss Robin Ellis and Angarhad Rees, though I do give credit to this version's Demelza, Eleanor May Tomlinson. She is quite good. Too bad there's nothing for her to work with here.
Rolling Thunder Revue
(2019)
Fake News As Documentary
18 June 2019
In Scorsese's own words, he had intended to do a straight documentary but the end product was "just another doc" so he decided to spice it up. I wasn't aware of this when I tuned in and felt like I had been Trumped when I found out that virtually all of the contemporary interviews are mockumentary. Sorry Marty, you're no Chris Guest when it comes to to this. It was mildly entertaining as a doc and lame as a mock. The live footage is great, but is mostly only snapshots of songs. Trying to do a send up of Rolling Thunder is a disservice to the great musicians involved forty years ago. Insulting and stupid. Bob released a 14 cd set with the doc so the bottom line may be as a promotional tool for that. Very disappointing. It writes out Sara Dylan who there throughout, which is the typical rock star-movie star approach to ex-wives. Tells you nothing about the actual tour. Just an ego trip for Marty and Bob. Look for a bootleg of Renaldo and Clara for a better look.
Steve Jobs
(2015)
A Thumbnail Sketch Of An Iconic Man For The Attention Deficit
27 December 2015
Basically another of Aaron Sorkin's Walk and Talk bits extended into a feature film. It felt exhausting listening to Sorkin's Steve Jobs caricature argue with Wozniak, his ex-girl and Scully for two hours. What a bore, what a waste of time. The only thing you take away from this is what a jackass Jobs was, which is accurate only in the context of this film, which brings us back to the sad truth that if you're getting your history/biography from the movies, you might as well be watching Fox News.
The movies are famous for their distortions of life and never more so than in this narrow little bio-pic of Jobs. Certainly Jobs was not a nice man. No one who ascends to his level of success is. It's not possible, but he was not served well or accurately with this ugly portrayal of a nasty individual. The focus is on his fractious relationship with Wozniak, Scully, his ex-girlfriend and his daughter.
I read the excellent book by Walter Isaacson that this movie is purportedly based on and this film captures about 1/10 of 1% of it. The biggest problem is that despite Jobs's fame, his life is not the stuff that makes for a feature film. Maybe a movie of the week, but let's face it folks, there's no real drama here, which is why Sorkin concentrated on the negative aspects of Jobs's life, his relationship with the aforementioned people. It's a distortion and a damned disappointing one.
The film moves along at a brisk pace due to Sorkin's trademark nonstop Walk and Talk which he perfected in The West Wing, but at the end of the movie you're left feeling like you wasted your time. My recommendation; read the book.
The movies are famous for their distortions of life and never more so than in this narrow little bio-pic of Jobs. Certainly Jobs was not a nice man. No one who ascends to his level of success is. It's not possible, but he was not served well or accurately with this ugly portrayal of a nasty individual. The focus is on his fractious relationship with Wozniak, Scully, his ex-girlfriend and his daughter.
I read the excellent book by Walter Isaacson that this movie is purportedly based on and this film captures about 1/10 of 1% of it. The biggest problem is that despite Jobs's fame, his life is not the stuff that makes for a feature film. Maybe a movie of the week, but let's face it folks, there's no real drama here, which is why Sorkin concentrated on the negative aspects of Jobs's life, his relationship with the aforementioned people. It's a distortion and a damned disappointing one.
The film moves along at a brisk pace due to Sorkin's trademark nonstop Walk and Talk which he perfected in The West Wing, but at the end of the movie you're left feeling like you wasted your time. My recommendation; read the book.
Tell Your Friends