Change Your Image
MeadeIndeed
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Ancient Apocalypse (2022)
A Charlatan's Fever Dream
I frankly do not know where to begin with this, the fact that Netflix debased themselves to the point of letting this man have a platform to spread his pseudoscience and hatred for academia or that the works of Hancock make baseless claims rooted in nazism and scientific racism.
First time I stumbled upon Hancock was on YouTube, through a "lecture" he held at some event or other. It was about the pyramids at Giza and how they, according to him, line up with certain stars and so on. The man was charming and the topic engaging enough for me to be drawn in... but unlike most, when the "reveal" comes along and he began to talk about an "early globe-spanning civilization" and then in his next breath says "Atlantis" - all of my red flags went up at once.
Next thing I did was to research Graham's background, finding out that he isn't an academic, that his books are based on nothing and his theories harken back to the nazi idea of a "master race" that "uplifted" all the coloured people that seemed to have developed grand civilizations or monuments.
I can't be the only person who has noticed how neither the Greeks, Romans or any other western culture had to be "uplifted" by Atlanteans. Not to mention that the "cataclysm" he and others speak about, that "big meteor" that "struck Earth 13,000 yrs ago" is nowhere to be found. There isn't a single crater on the planet from that time period big enough to have the impact they describe.
Obviously, there is no love lost between me and this man. I am someone who values reason, evidence-based science, history, archaeology and the scientific method and what Graham Hancock does for a living, spits in the face of the entire scientific community.
This "documentary" is a sham, built on unfounded misinfomation and deliberate lies by a charlatan who wants nothing more than for you to go out and buy his books to make him richer.
Unlike the academics this man hates so much, none of them do it for profit, unlike Hancock. That alone should be a huge red flag.
I also do not subscribe to the idea that it's "just entertainment" because obviously, people BELIEVE the things he says and he's doing actual damage to mankind by spewing this nonsense. So, no, I do not at all agree with anyone who thinks that this somehow absolves this man and Netflix from criticism.
It deserves nothing more than a 1/10, I'd give it 0 if it was an option.
Shame on Hancock and Netflix for putting out this garbage.
Midway (2019)
When You Can't Decide - Pick Everything
I saw this movie for the first time recently... and in terms of being historically accurate, it's quite all right. Especially if you consider that it was made by the hack Roland Emmerich.
That being said - there are quite a few things I rolled my eyes at, like how the pilots and rear-gunners are supposedly able to talk/shout to one another with the canopy open while in a dive, taking off their oxygen masks to talk, the whole thing when they dive at the Hiryu and go "this is for Pearl", dropping a bomb at the front of the ship and flying so low that they're barely two feet off of the Hiryu's flightdeck.
However, the largest flub in this movie is that they decide to not only focus on Midway but they do Pearl Harbour, brief bit about the Battle of the Coral Sea, what Nimitz was up to, the Doolittle raid, the japanese war games, the bits about the code breaking, the home life of the US pilots... it's TOO MUCH.
This film might be historically accurate but it's scatter-brained, feels sloppily glued together, jumping so fast between scenes, dates, battles and people that it gives the audience a severe case of brain-whiplash.
There are also way too many instances of characters just stating the obvious, leaving nothing to the imagination or interpretation. Like how a japanese sailor in one scene turns around below deck and goes "oh my, this is like a powder keg down here! I hope no bombs come raining down on us.". Instead of just showing the bombs and torpedoes then panning to his nervous expression he also has to state the obvious, out loud, because the audience is assumed to be absolute morons. These types of scenes are peppered all through the movie.
There is clearly far too much to cover in 2 hrs, making the entire experience feel shallow which in turn also makes it boring. You're unable to really connect with any of the characters because there are so many of them and they keep jumping around. All the way to the end of the film I knew the pilots as "moustache guy", "cowardly guy" and "bad acting guy" for example.
It's also hard, even for me as an absolute history nerd, to keep up with what is going on. Again, because there was so many jumps but also because the backdrops never really change. Sure, put a "this place at this time" down in the corner but if it all looks the same things tend to blend together.
This movie would've been far better had they actually focused on the Battle of Midway. Accurate in terms of the history being covered? Sure. But also boring, uninvested, shallow and dull.
In the end, I've gotta say that I've watched plenty of rigid historical documentaries that were more interesting and engaging than this supposed "historical epic action battle pew pew"-movie.
Also, what's up with Emmerich honoring the japanese at the end? It'd be like making a film about the Blitz and then honor the german Luftwaffe in the end credits. I mean... seriously?
Free Guy (2021)
I feel robbed.
Not counting Ryan Reynolds, this film was dull, flaccid, predictable and full of cringe, deserves a 5 at most. -.-
Also, it feels very much like a copy/paste job of the far superior movie "They Live". I mean... they lifted the sunglasses idea straight from it.
If you want to watch a film with this type of theme, go see "They Live" instead. At least you won't feel like you've wasted your life afterwards and you'll walk away with a far superior experience. :I.
Megan Is Missing (2011)
Horrid and Factually Incorrect
To begin with, I want to point out that this film is built on scaremongering. Not only that but the "facts" this is built on are incorrect.
Michael Goi tries to make it seem as if thousands of children are abducted each and every day in the USA but this is simply not the case. Yes, around two-thousand children are reported missing on a daily basis but only 115 a YEAR are actually abducted by people who do not know the child.
To put this in perspective (which the director didn't do) that means out of the roughly 800,000 children reported missing every year in the US about 0,014% are actually abducted by strangers.
So, if you put this misinformation and scaremongering on top of the fact that this movie is absolutely awful when it comes to editing, cinematography, script and acting... it makes for one TERRIBLE movie.
Don't watch this junk.
Oldboy (2013)
This'll Be Short
Frankly, there is no need for long, elaborately written reviews when it comes to this... thing (not sure if I should call it a movie or a rape tape).
The original movie from 2003 is a FANTASTIC film and I don't say that lightly, I am quite the cynic when it comes to movies, always have been (more so now than before), and it takes a lot to impress me.
Either way, the original was and still is a wonder of cinema which did NOT have to be re-made or "reimagined" as Spike Lee enjoyed saying so often during interviews.
The production company, the writers, the director and anyone else who thought this was a good idea should be absolutely ashamed for taking such a massive fecal evacuation on top of a modern masterpiece.
Watch the original, not this garbage fire.
Gettysburg (2011)
Poorly Made, Hardly Accurate
I'm not going to claim that I am an expert on the American Civil War, however I am a lover of history and as such I've studied it quite closely. Before watching this "documentary" I read up on the battle of Gettysburg and watched videos made by the tour guides who work there.
It made me very interested to learn more and then found this "documentary". Figured it couldn't hurt to see it. Right? What met me was a disjointed, uninteresting, muddled portrayal of the events that took place at Gettysburg. You have Rebel soldiers dressed in rags, not uniforms. You've got people running all over the place pretty much never staying in any kind of formation. Not to mention all the things they get wrong both big and small in terms of history.
The cinematography is sub-par to say the least, the camera is constantly shaking, it's cut up to all hell, using slow-motion as well as extreme close-up shots WAY too much.
Even with them trying to focus on specific soldiers to portray whatever story they were trying to tell the whole thing is hidden by a 20 inch layer of vaseline.
I have no idea what they were going for with this. It's boring, disjointed and impossible to follow from start to finish. Whoever says that this is a good or great film/documentary clearly have no point of reference because this is EASILY the worst historical portrayal of any kind I've EVER seen.
Then again, what else should I have expected from a History Channel production?
Radio (2003)
It Deserves Better
This'll be my first review written here, previously I've reviewed games both on my own website as well as writing freelance articles. Though seeing as how it's 8 AM and I haven't gone to bed yet (plus me being Swedish) expect some possible spelling errors and so forth.
Either way, in all honesty this movie deserves a far better rating than what it has received here on IMDb. Not to mention that some of the reviews that have been written here giving "Radio" a low score are outright hateful for no good reason. There is literally someone who basically says "this is for those who said I only give 10/10 ratings". So, by saying that, you mean that you only rated this movie poorly to "prove a point"? (Worth mentioning that the same person gave the absolutely shittastic movie "Hulk" from 2003 a 10/10)
Whatever, moving on from the negativity! Really unsure of where to start with this film. It might not be this inspiring "we shall overcome!" movie, it might not be "Forrest Gump" but honestly it isn't that type of story and that's what I like about this movie.
I love "Forrest Gump" don't get me wrong, but the reason they're able to do a lot of the things that they do in it is because it isn't based or in any way grounded in reality. Where as "Radio" tells the actual story, of an actual person who at the time of the release was still alive and kicking.
To be completely frank I am very glad that this film doesn't even try to be like "Forrest Gump" because if they did it'd be so much worse. Imitation movies usually are (those that try to surf on the success of another film).
This story is about a mentally challenged individual, living in a small town in a semi-rural area of the United States during the 70's. It doesn't involve a whole town or say the world accepting this person or like... "oh he taught us to accept handicapped people" revelation. There is no need for it since more than anything the movie simply addresses that those who suffer from whatever handicap are people like anyone else and should be treated as such.
They don't make it into this HUGE thing, it's a slow process, I mean even towards the end of the film some people are still not accepting of this mentally challenged individual.
What I am trying to say is that it's grounded in reality and it works in its favor. The acting is very well done for the most part (gotta love Ed Harris, he makes almost any movie watchable), the soundtrack is good, the cinematography is rather great and believe it or not the comedy that's in this movie hits home for me. It's subtle, but it's there.
Again, this isn't a movie where a town or something dislikes this handicapped person and then this one other person is nice to him and then at the end they're all super happy and hug and go "I can't believe I didn't accept you before but I totally do now". Once again, it works completely in its favor.
It's a small town, one person finally doing the right thing in little steps, not everyone suddenly accepts the main character in the story and it isn't sappy.
Even being a "strong burly man" I can admit to having cried to this movie all three times that I've seen it and I highly recommend it.
In the words of Roger Ebert: "There is no cynicism in Radio, no angle or edge. It's about what it's about, with an open, warm and fond nature. Every once in a while human nature expresses itself in a way we can feel good about, and this is one of those times."