Change Your Image
spookyrat1
Reviews
1 (2022)
Just Dreadful!
This cringeworthy Australian so - called sci - fi movie is just plain embarrassing to all connected with it. It must be, judging by the little information you can actually find about it, even on its IMDB page.
A loser who spends his time either drinking, or driving his muscle car (but never working), happens to hook up with a barmaid with a heart of gold, who works at his local watering hole. Boy meets girl. Boy doesn't realise what he's got, until he hasn't got it any more. Boy heads off hiking around various Queensland locales, supposedly seeking some sort of redemption..
Somewhere along the particularly weak narrative, there is apparently an alien invasion that we never see, or find out much about at all. There is a radio broadcast heard at one stage, that appears to borrow heavily from the old Orson Welles radio broadcast of War of the Worlds. The actual storyline is made even more difficult to follow, because, you guessed it, the movie is set out in a series of flashbacks. Why? Because, you know, that's the trendy way to tell these stories with virtually nil content, don't cha know?
It was so tempting to award this non - event of a film a score of 1 (get it). But the most positive aspect is seeing the various Queensland locations, especially the Sunshine Coast and parts of its hinterland. So 1 ends getting a very well - deserved 2.
Star Trek: Discovery (2017)
Star Trek: Discovery - Seasons 1 - 4
I thought the first season brought a great new impetus to the franchise. The first really adult spin - off; more violent, earthier language, a little more female - focussed, whilst still having some tenuous links to the original series.
Season 2 was even better, with Anson Mount just owning many of the episodes, with his wonderful interpretation of Cpt. Christopher Pike. Good seeing a young Spock too, even though there were difficulties in reconciling the Spock - Burnham relationship to the existing Star Trek canon. And what made these 2 seasons stand out, was the non - captain, central protagonist who also happened to be female.
Season 3 was OK. The concept of heading into the future and finding out about The Burn was imaginative, but did we really need the insert of the Tal/Gray relationship, which just felt forced and cheesy and better suited to some other show. Discovery already had plenty of diversified characters. I'd rather find out more about existing crew members such as Detmar the pilot, without introducing rather sappy new ones.
Season 4 is a definite comedown as many others have already cited on this forum. It's kind of like the Discovery TV version of the failed 1979 Star Trek: The Motion Picture reboot. You know what I mean. Starship crew facing overwhelming odds against a universal threat, talk, talk and talk some more. The series seems to be losing that edge it displayed in the first couple of seasons. We're served up an absolute minimum of action and a maximum of speeches. It didn't help that the "villains" were given almost too many redeeming features and that Burnham back as a captain was both a bit too derivative and bland.
I really hope the series can resurrect itself somewhat with Season 5 and I find myself happy in knowing that it is wrapping up at its end. Season 4 was ultimately quite disappointing.
The Darkside (2013)
What Were They Thinking?
Look if your idea of cinematic engagement is to watch some actors sit on seats and tell yarns, then this may well be the movie for you. Me ... seriously you have to be kidding. Intriguing concept perhaps, but I was already over it, during the first story when after 5 minutes we were still facing the one expressionistic type portrait of some bloke sitting in a corner, while the female narrator, who eventually appeared, droned on. Twelve more similarly delivered stories followed, most with some sort of indigenous theme. This sort of thing would have stronger impact and audience involvement performed in a theatre or perhaps at some sort of book or writers' festival. But as a successful cinematic piece of work, it makes for a wonderful soporific.
King Richard (2021)
St Richard Might Be a More Appropriate Title!
Superficially, King Richard, a much lauded biographical sports film directed by Reinaldo Marcus Green and written by Zach Baylin is a very competent piece of film - making. It purports to tell the story behind the rise of the Williams sisters (Venus and Serena) in women's tennis, through the lens of their father and (certainly initial) coach, Richard Williams, as played by Will Smith in what turned out to be a Best Actor Oscar winning performance. But scratch the surface (and you really don't have to dig too deeply) and this rather overt hagiography (The Williams sisters and one of their step sisters are executive producers.) asks far more questions of its titular character, than it delivers answers.
Granted, the Williams sisters accomplishments in tennis are titanic in scale, but the movie appears to infer that most of this is all due to the obsessive planning and tough love fathering of their dad and to a lesser extent, their mother Brandy who, as depicted by Aunjanue Ellis, played a more traditional maternal role, whilst also being involved in coaching aspects of the girls. The concept of natural ability is never explored though it is mentioned once that both parents were "athletes". With this constant thread running through King Richard about the girls working to this life plan developed by their father from gestation period (???), I found this story of their upbringing in this overlong movie (Two and a half hour feels like three hours plus) to be too idealised and saintly, with Dad doing every thing and giving everything for the kids, including constant sage - like, life hacks.
I'm sure Mr Williams has some great qualities. But, barely touched upon is his obvious narcissism. And the elephant in the room which is blithely airbrushed away, is, whilst he was spending all this life - enhancing time with Venus and Serena and their 3 step sisters, what sort of involvement did he have with his other 6 children to other women?
Technically the film is extremely competently made and the acting is of a high calibre. However I would question the casting of Venus (Saniyya Sidney) and Serena (Demi Singleton) in much of the film's content, not because of any acting deficiencies on their respective parts. But it is only half way through the film, that you realise through spoken dialogue, that these very much teenage adolescent actresses are supposed to be playing young children below 12 and 10 respectively. It just doesn't ring true until the third act time jump, where it does seem more realistic. Little wonder then there are no date specifications in what is generally meant to be viewed as an authentic part telling of several life stories.
Sollers Point (2017)
A Day in the Life!
Sollers Point is another episode of writer/director Matthew. Porterfield's independent features about working class life in and around his hometown of Baltimore, Maryland in the USA. His well - regarded critical reputation rests on his fairly limited portfolio of work, in which all of his projects seem to lie under the same melancholic atmosphere that blankets Sollers Point. To say he casts a cynical eye on the established institutions and social mores underpinning his society is probably an understatement.
I agree with much of what other scribes have written on this forum. If you're looking for a typical 3 - act storyline with this movie, you're unlikely to be satisfied at its conclusion. Porterfield writes and directs in a semi - documentary style and based on what we see here, building a strong narrative arc is not his strong suit. The film focuses on presenting us with a day in the life of recently released ex - con Keith, who is ostensibly trying to re - adjust back into the lower working class mainstream of his local community, which appears to be suffering from the effects of a terminal economic downturn. This directly and indirectly creates multiple road blocks for him.
It's a well acted movie and I agree with others who note that lead, McCaul Lombardi, who I've never seen before, does have a certain charisma and star quality. (He looks very much like a younger, blue - eyed Jeremy Renner.) And it was kind of nice seeing Jim Belushi again, playing Keith's father Carol, in a very much non - comedic, support role.
But I can also understand why lots of punters are expressing frustration with Sollers Point. We get the taste of a few half - way decent storylines with the movie, but Porterfield isn't interested in following things up. Keith just moves endlessly on throughout the day, interacting with an over - extended range of characters, some quite interesting, but with nothing much ever being resolved. It does become quite repetitive. Confusingly too, he seems to have an endless supply of different cars to drive, whilst not owning one himself. The propensity of characters at times to mumble their lines (under direction one feels) doesn't always help with clarification of what and why are motivating characters' actions.
Sollers Point is a film that feels too long, too random and inconsequential for it to have a lasting impact on audiences. I think it needed stronger editing decisions to pare down a film over - crowded with characters and allow time to create a more consequential and compelling story.
Everything Everywhere All at Once (2022)
I Was Really Hoping To Like It. But ... !
EEAAO is likely to be the most overhyped movie I've encountered in a lifetime of watching movies. That this overlong, over imaginative, over indulgent, pastiche of a film managed to inveigle the Academy of Motion Picture Science into awarding it 7, yes 7, of the major Oscars is just beyond my comprehension.
Everyone (pun intended) seems to want to do multi - verse/ multi - dimensional films these days. Fine! But at least attempt to make them coherent enough to tell a story. The various Star Trek franchises have been doing this generally successfully for many years. The Matrix quadrilogy began with some genuinely original ideas on the concept, then later overcooked them. Marvel hopped on the bandwagon and don't look like jumping off for quite awhile. But at least the aforementioned generally had some sort of reasonably clear narrative, with which to tag along.
EEAAO has none of these attributes. Its multiverses exist as a means to an end, which believe you me, at 139 minutes is a very long time coming and indeed seemed much longer to this disappointed punter. The whole film seems like one great cinematic contradiction. It does have frenetic pace, but no suspense. It's marketed as a comedy. Yet, I found it best, as amusing in parts. It's full of dialogue, which is constantly repetitive and lacks any form of wit or cleverness. There are plenty of martial arts scenes which look almost deliberately over - choreographed, unrealistic and illusory. It does have a predictably (surprisingly brief in the context of the whole film) happy ending. It's just that it's irritatingly baffling, how we all get to it.
I've been a huge Michelle Yeo fan for many, many years. But to think that her albeit, zany, quirky, performance here, was considered superior to that of Cate Blanchett, who delivers one of the GREAT cinematic performances in Tar. Well to say I'm flabbergasted, is very much an understatement. Similarly, whilst Jamie Lee Curtis is a much admired actress, all she really does here is wear drab clothes, various wigs, prosthetics and shout a lot. This is deserving of an Oscar? Go figure.
EEAAO is a mediocre fantasy film with little grounding in actual reality. (Don't even get me started on bagels.) Its greatest attributes as far as I can see are that it looks, production wise, to be a bigger budgeted movie than it really is and its quick fire editing serves to disguise, one can only assume, its numerous deficiencies from its host of fawning admirers.
Dark Places (2015)
Ultimately Disappointing Adaption!
You can understand why Dark Places is frequently compared and contrasted with Gone Girl. Both films were adaptions of Gillian Flynn best sellers, both were released pretty much within a year of one another and both feature plenty of flashbacks. But that's where the similarities end. Gone Girl had David Fincher directing and Dark Places has Gilles Paquet-Brenner directing ... and that's the big difference between the films. Fincher is a master director, whereas Paquet-Brenner is mainly known for his French TV work.
The first act of Dark Places drags too long. It's no surprise that Charlize Theron's Libby Day will begin investigating the murder of her mother, two sisters and the subsequent imprisonment of her brother Ben. But why does it take so long to get started? And meanwhile, Libby presents as such an unlikeable character, that we don't really care anyway. It's almost seems that Paquet - Brenner realises too late, that he's made Libby too unsympathetic. Towards the latter half of the picture, he seems to scrub her up better, but by that time, it's almost too late.
The narrative itself though is quite compelling and does gradually tend to pull you in. This storyline is enhanced by some very good performances. Christine Hendricks is fantastic as the ill - fated, mother Patty, as is Corey Stoll as the adult jailbird brother Ben. And though he's only in barely 3 scenes, Sean Bridgers, playing divorced father Runner Day, succeeds in creating a truly evil character.
Then just when we think perhaps Paquet - Brenner has redeemed himself, leading us to a taut third act where all will be revealed, we get served up the opposite. A confusing, darkened mish - mash of poorly.edited, differing time periods causing the audience to have to guess at what just happened. It's like the film is fatally uncertain of its identity, as it withdraws into an almost TV film of the week mode, played out with an unneeded extended coda.
With Gone Girl, David Fincher was able to take a similar neo-noir narrative and give it a slick, stylistic work up. But ultimately Paquet - Brenner just never seems to have full confidence in his story - telling abilities. The overall elements never come together in any meaningful way. There's potential there to be sure, but while it goes through the motions, that's all it ever does.
Walker (2021)
Why, Oh Why?
Very similar to the Kung Fu remake, in that this remake /reimagining has virtually nothing to do with the original Walker: Texas Ranger, apart from the name and the fact that the lead is a Texas Ranger. Look, I wasn't a great fan of the original. I do admit to a soft spot for Chuck Norris and watched the show periodically, but it was pretty formulaic. Eventually I tired of it, but this reboot is something else.
It's morphed in to some sort of weirded out family drama, which bears absolutely no relation to the original series. Kung fu did exactly the same thing, with the same horrible results. Both series are simply too boring and lack any tenuous links to what made the original shows even arguably memorable.
I gave Walker my best shot, but after 14 episodes I'm "chucking" in the towel. I can't stand the continual teen angst story angles highlighting Stella. Walker himself doesn't strike me as the sharpest tool in the Walker family shed. The action and crime quotient is dialled down extremely low. And I have to agree with many other scribes on this forum that the most interesting character is. Micki Ramirez played by Lindsay Morgan. I think TV shows are in trouble when a support character is so very more interesting than the aw shucks type lead. It also says something about the show's quality when the above stated Morgan, chose to bail early on in the second season and exit the show. I think she made a good implicit statement and move. Walker is a crock and not worth the time of day.
Blueback (2022)
Lacks a Spine!
Celebrated Australian novelist Tim Winton is one of those literary figures whose work just never quite seems to translate wholly successfully from the page to the screen. Arguably Simon Baker's 2017 adaption of Breath, may be the exception. But Robert Connolly's Blueback, follows Gregor Jordan's 2020 adaption of Dirt Music, in being a terrific film to look at, whilst simultaneously lacking dramatic heft. And this is despite Winton himself being given a co - screenwriting credit along with director Connolly, whose last film, The Dry, I loved.
The cinematography both above and under the water is exceptional. The acting is competent without anyone particularly standing out. Ostensible lead Mia Wasikowska as the adult Abby Jackson is rarely ever challenged to get out of first gear, as is Eric Bana, in very much a support role as Mad Macka. Radha Mitchell perhaps contributes most obviously in her energetic portrayal of activist mum of Abby, Dora, in her younger years. I personally found the largely classically - inspired musical soundtrack too reminiscent of countless mid twentieth century Disney wildlife documentaries. But the big weakness was rather ironically perhaps considering the screenwriters, the storyline. With just a few exceptions, this is a film in which not a great deal happens during its 100 minute running time, despite constant time shifts and flash backs.
Whereas the mother / daughter* relationship is way overplayed (*In the book Abby is Able ... a boy.) Erik Thomson's "villain" Costello, is so lightly treated and gets so little screen time, we never fully understand the enmity between the Jacksons and him. BTW Abby only seems to have been made female in order to experience an interracial teenage romance, which again, doesn't seem to go anywhere in terms of the general narrative. It just serves as filler content, which didn't appear in the literary source.
It's only fair to add that the film, despite the changes mentioned, does stick very closely to its source material's welcome environmental and domestic relationship themes. Thankfully too, it does manage to coalesce into a genuinely moving climax. It's just that Blueback's storyline unwinds at such a languid pace, there are precious few thrills and unexpected excitements in getting there.
Blueback is a frequently charming and completely inoffensive and wholesome family film. (I have no idea why its Australian Classification is M - mature audiences.) But for this punter, its lack of a genuinely engaging screenplay, made for an overall underwhelming cinematic experience.
Kung Fu (2021)
Such a Disappointment!
Back in the day, the original Kung Fu was a unique piece of original television. The reboot or reimagining (Call it what you will.) appears to have gone all out to create the blandest, most boring recreation of the original possible. It is excruciating watching. Everything that was good about the 70's show, has been tossed out in favour of this weird hybrid of Crazy Rich Asians and Happy Days, laced with a smattering of poorly choreographed martial arts scenes. It's truly dire.
In the original Kung Fu the focus was on David Carradine's Kwai Chang Caine, a Shaolin monk exiled to America's Wild West and looking for his extended family members. His training and sense of social justice repeatedly draw him into situations, he'd prefer to avoid, but force him to protect the underdog. After each such encounter he moves on to new situations and environments. The show's scripts were strongly influenced by the Tao Te Ching, a book of ancient Taoist philosophy. It was always interesting.
In the new version Nicky Shen appears as just a vehicle to introduce a host of quite banal support characters. I'm simply not interested in the elder sister invariably portrayed as some sort of shopaholic. Likewise with the parents who run the (Surprise! Surprise!) Chinese restaurant and the very civic - minded gay brother. Enough please! The drama is low level, Days of Our Lives stuff, with the acting similarly of an unsurprising low standard. And the soundtrack! OMG! Has to be heard to be believed.
The main storyline repeats the trope of countless Chinese movies, whereby a villain seeks to acquire a series of ancient artefact weapons in order to rule the world, or something similar. But even though said artefacts are spread all around the world, they conveniently keep turning up in Nicky's San Francisco, so she can avoid air travel, in her quest to set things right.
It's drivel of the first degree and I have to confess I could only last 5 and a half episodes of Season1, before throwing in the towel. Cannot believe this shallow stuff has apparently has been promised 3 seasons.
Avatar: The Way of Water (2022)
Better Than Expected! Don't believe the Naysayers!
Most agree, including me, that the film is a technological marvel. There is simply no doubt, James Cameron is an innovator of the highest order. This film has the quality and realistic underwater scenes that a movie such as Aquaman (a hit in its own right), could only dream about.
With so many on this forum complaining of a lack of storyline however I was fearing the worst heading into the cinema, only to be surprised. I'm pleased to say the armchair critics are way off the mark. And note please, the vast majority offer absolutely no evidence for their hand - ringing whines. For the record, the story is quite different from the first episode. Besides introducing the ocean going Metkayina clan to us, the narrative spends a great portion of onscreen time, exploring the support characters, such as the Sully offspring, Spider and the kids of Metkayina chief Tonowari and his wife Ronal. One has to gather therefore, that many of these characters will have parts to play in future episodes. For countless correspondents to slavishly continue to state "the story is the same as the first" is patently false and simply not supported by an objective viewing of the movie.
This is not to say the movie and its story is perfect. I still found the "resurrection technology" sketched out relatively thinly and quite difficult to follow. And um ... what did happen to the Metkayina tribe in the final battle? One minute they seemed to be there onscreen and the next they were gone, apparently content to leave the heavy lifting to the Sully family and Payakan, the Tulkun. It didn't really feel right and then the clan turns out in numbers for the funeral scene. It was an unusually odd continuity lapse in what really is an outstanding and thoroughly entertaining 3 hour+ movie.
Go see it in numbers. You won't be disappointed. I'm happy to admit I do want to see it a commercial success, because I'm rather keen to see how this story continues in Part 3.
Tin Star (2017)
All Good Apart from the Story! Tin Star Seasons 1-3!
Tin Star features excellent acting with the 3 Worth family members portrayed by, Tim Roth - Jim, Genevieve O'Reilly - Angela and. Abigail Lawrence as Anna, just outstanding. The show has faultless technical production standards and is filmed in some truly panoramic locations. So why do I feel that it's extremely lucky to be rated 6/10.
Well like many others in this forum, I'm, even after 2 seasons, just non - plussed by the storyline and ongoing narrative, which continually stretches the bounds of credibility to ridiculous lengths. Some examples over the first 2 seasons to follow.
Little Big Bear seems and looks to be a decent sized town/small city with lots of criminal activity. Yet we only ever see 3, yes, 3 cops, on the beat. In the second season Denise and Nick have so little to do, it's almost embarrassing. Their character developments come to a complete standstill.
Lamely, the big, bad, North Stream mining company is just immediately written up as a villainous corporation, without any backgrounding whatsoever. It's like we are expected to assume they have bad intentions, just because they drill for oil or whatever.
The gang of 4 from Liverpool, who "work" for North Stream are never, ever, seen to work, despite anyone with half a brain, knowing that these people in these sort of jobs are expected to work long shifts 6 or 7 days per week.
How does Chief Jim Worth get away with what he does in both seasons and not be held to the slightest account? It's quite bizarre. He is seen to shoot and assault people including fellow officers, steal police equipment on multiple occasions as well as cars (including police vehicles), caravans, burn down buildings and nothing whatsoever happens?? And the Popeye thing where he gets drunk and then kind of turns into a anti - superhero is just ludicrous. Seriously, how did this English migrant become appointed a Chief of Police? Of course he naturally gets shot, stabbed, beaten up over the course of the 2 seasons, yet never appears physically impaired for too long. It must reflect the restorative properties of whisky.
Just an aside! Although second - billed after Roth, Christina Hendricks as Elizabeth Bradshaw is really only a minor character in the second season and is it ever explained how she gets to live/squat in a North Stream mansion, after she's been well and truly fired from the firm?
It may be poor editing, but it's never explained in Season 2 how it seems to go from mid - winter to mid - summer overnight. One scene everyone is in their winter woollies and the next scene with no explanation, or anything making the slightest bit of sense, we have characters running around in teeshirts, heaps of sun and no snow. And while we're on strange lapses in continuity, how did the Worths know to "tool up" and face the hit squad on that particular morning? They'd been hanging around that Ammonite community for days and then magically seem to know they were coming on that day. BTW, just to illustrate how confusingly inexact the exposition is, read a cross - section of external reviewers' pieces. No one maddingly seems to be able to agree where the hit men come from. Some say it is "The Cartel", while others state that they come from Liverpool. Ah, the absurd deficiencies highlighted of running multiple vague storylines!
But a confession dear reader! I'll likely go and watch the final 6 episode third series of the show. For despite all its plentiful story weaknesses, there is something addictive about Tin Star. I think its probably tied up with the terrific acting of the above - mentioned cast, combined with the slightly surrealistic, comic flourishers, such as Roth's constant stream of one - liners, interwoven with out there concepts like an Ammonite girls' vigilante squad, who hone their deadly skills with paint ball guns.
Yes, it really is that sort of TV series; frustratingly rewarding in a certain, qualified manner.
*Addendum. I've now seen Season 3 and all I can say is its dreadful. At least the first 2 series had the benefit of Canadian scenery. Again I have to say, it's been a very long time since I've seen such an amazingly incoherent screenplay. Most of the list characters are given no back story, so we don't really know first hand, why the Worth characters need to kill them. Yet over and over we get the same sort of Worth family bonding episodes. It makes for rather frustrating viewing.
Venom: Let There Be Carnage (2021)
And I Thought Morbius Was Bad!
Venom: Let There Be Carnage is even worse. This is an overloud, confused mess of a film. It wants to rub shoulders with the Deadpool sub - genre of superhero (Venom - superhero???) features, but it's seriously not in the race. (For the life of me, I still don't understand how the character can be seen as a superhero, when even in its downtime, it just appears to continue to destroy and damage stuff. Oh, wait on! That has to be funny, right?)
Deadpool is funny. Ryan Reynolds is a good comic actor. There is copious witty dialogue from all characters and plenty of tongue in cheek, cleverly - staged scenes and situations, enhanced by appropriate musical selections. Venom on the other hand, just continually flounders along. It's idea of humour is to make a lot of noise, introduce massive amounts of CGI among lightning edits, smash up props and locations in a 3 Stooges type fashion and hope that its intended audience will find it hilarious. Here's the sad news folks. This punter found it just plain boring and really annoying on the ears. (In the first half of the film especially I began to dread the interplayed scenes between Venom and his host Eddie, because of them both continually screaming at one another. This was apparently done to emphasise the conflict between both characters, but there was little subtlety and like just about everything in VLTBC, was overplayed massively.)
Supporting actors like Michelle Williams and Naomi Harris pop in and out, but they have little to do and are so lightly sketched, they almost appear invisible. And the action scenes? Ho - hum! If you're into cartoons, you may be drawn to them. For me, tedious is the only adjective that may suffice. I just can't get my head around the fact that studios and production companies continue to pour big money into this sort of rubbish.
Alex Cross (2012)
Let's Remember The Cross Novels Aren't High End Literature!
I've read enough Cross novels by James Patterson to know I can't be bothered reading any more. Enough to also wonder why the stuff sells so well. It's kind of like the Mills and Boon of crime - writing: very formulaic pulp. Even the twists end up being half - expected and relatively unsurprising. At any rate, much as I think Morgan Freeman is a great actor, he was always about as convincing to me as Alex Cross, as Tom Cruise was convincing as Jack Reacher. In other words ... not particularly.
Even back in the day, Freeman was at least 20 years too old for the Cross character. He was so old, that from memory, he was made a single bachelor in the previous 2 movies, which were good, because Morgan was in them. It's just that they seemed to be Alex Cross in name only.
Rob Cohen is not a great director, but to give him some credit, he does capture the tone and feel of the Cross books in this movie, better than the earlier films. And Tyler Perry is a better fit for Alex Cross, as described in the books, than Morgan Freeman could ever hope to be. And what do you know, Cross is actually drawn here as a family man and his family play almost as big a part in the book series, as the various villains and the crimes they commit. So I'm not quite sure why so many arm - chair critics on this forum long for those days of an even then quite elderly Morgan Freeman in the part.
Other things I liked were Matthew Fox's psychopathic assassin, playing impressively, even bravely, against type.
A couple of things that stood out as being weird. Monica is virtually not even mentioned again after her off - screen murder. There's no funeral, no recognition bar some solitary reference to a pathology report. At least Maria got a funeral and a wake. Monica = zilch! Was there an editing glitch? And how in the hell did Cross and his off - sider Tommy, (Why not John Sampson as in the books?) know exactly when to hit Picasso's car? Coincidence? It was just never explained. Bizarre!
Alex Cross is not great cinema, though I did think it catches the spirit of the Patterson books, better than the earlier films. As such I found it reasonably entertaining in a low brow way and I think some of the criticisms directed towards it are misguided and unwarranted.
The Flood (2020)
Glossy Looking Rubbish, but Rubbish Nevertheless!
I've never done this before, but as we know there's a first time for everything. At time of writing this review, The Flood, according to IMDB has a rating of 4.5, which I can completely understand, though I personally think it's a little high. Bear with me here. There are 47 user reviews, about 40 of which have scores of 9 or 10. Make sense statistically? No, I don't think so either. I've always been a sceptic, but maybe there is some truth to that IMDB urban legend about cast and crew of these sort of C grade movies, all collectively contributing powder puff reviews complete with outstanding numerical ratings in a crass effort to increase their film's audience.
Because Victoria Wharfe McIntyre's film, while visually magnificent, is the cinema equivalent of a rather rancid piece of mutton dressed up as succulent lamb. I weep for the contributors on this forum who actually believe this trippy little wannabe Tarantino downunder piece, has some sort of historical pretensions. No the Australian government wasn't in any conspiracy with Catholic missions to provide indigenous slave labour on farms and stations, as the film alleges in its opening scrolled notes. And no, post World War 2 rural Australian townspeople didn't engage in wholesale rapings and killings of indigenous people at the drop of a slouch hat. The town posse sequence for instance! I mean the film even confuses itself over this. First it states that there was this officially - sanctioned slave labour process, but then suggests that the beneficiaries of the said labour, just shot them up, whenever the yen took them.
And then we come to the technical aspects of The Flood. The acting is just plain ordinary. The characterisations almost uniformly cardboard, especially those of the villainous whites. About the only stereotypical image we weren't dished up, was some guy with a waxed moustache tying an Aboriginal girl in a white dress to a set of railway tracks. We got just about everything else including an incredibly intrusive and anachronistic soundtrack, choppy editing and repetition of certain scenes, dream sequences which only added to the main narrative's overall incoherence and John Woo style slow motion action scenes which added nothing to the sequences, apart from reminding us continually that McIntyre loves to ape and pay homage to far better directors. She even bizarrely finds the time in this overlong film to throw in a flashback/dream Mad Max reference. Make of it what you will.
I have no issue with writer/directors such as McIntyre wanting to make films about the injustices that First Nations people have suffered. But let's try and start with a semi - realistic storyline, such as that offered by The (far better) Nightingale. The Flood is a contradictory jumble of themes, ideas and characters that undermines any valuable points that McIntyre was possibly trying to make about colonialism and racial hatred. Best avoided.
Act of Valor (2012)
Big Budget Recreations!
This is a strange movie to review. As Roger Ebert once said, "It plays out more as a recruitment film, than anything else." And I have to agree with him, when noting too, that whilst generally being critically panned, it proved to be popular with (especially) the American public and ended up being a commercial hit.
Act of Valor is like a big budget version of those acted recreations, you may frequently see in certain documentaries. The film's content is made up of various, supposedly true Navy Seal episodes, that have been woven and edited together in an overall fictional storyline, that features 2 main, interconnected episodes. The distinguishing positive or negative feature of the movie, depending on your viewpoint, is that the lead roles are taken by career Seals and not professional actors. Clint Eastwood, a usually very perceptive director, tried a similar gambit in his 2017 film 15:17 to Paris. It failed miserably in my view and the viewing public and critics generally agreed. Valor has greater success with the experiment, though I feel it's mainly due to the expansive action set pieces and deployment of military hardware, which all look incredibly realistic. This highlights the support of the Defence Department in the making of the film, where it would seem no expense was spared in promoting US Defence's role in the War on Terror. It follows then, that Act of Valor is highly reverential, rather than down to earth, in its depiction of its Seal characters. But it must be said, that when these characters interact with one another, cheesiness and woodenness are very much on display.
The supporting (professional) cast do their best in what are generally stereotypical perspectives of terrorists, cartel lords and soldiers and stoic military wives. And really for a film of this nature the production standards can't really be faulted. Interestingly in the big action scenes, the influence of gamer videos such as Call of Duty is all pervasive.
I've given it 6/10, but have to emphasise that this is primarily due to the realism on show in the action and technical scenes. The jingoistic and propagandrist tone of the film failed to impress me.
The Courier (2019)
Equal Parts Diehard/The Transporter in a Closed Car Park!
I think people are being a little hard on this derivative, but quite entertaining action flick. There's nothing particularly original about it, but I didn't mind a couple of different approaches taken.
We don't have Frank the Transporter in his fancy black car, but we do get the female Courier on her flash motor bike, essentially with the same background and doing the same sort of thing on 2 wheels, instead of 4. She is taken advantage of (which she naturally doesn't like) and now must find a way to survive and lead her unintended target/victim to an escape from a large, locked, hotel car park, whilst pursued by numerous, well - armed villains.
Olga Kurylenko is serviceable as the unnamed titular courier and the onscreen relationship she develops with Amit Shah who plays the witness to a murder, Nick Murch, evolves from initially annoying, to quite entertaining by the end of the film. I have to admit Gary Oldman does overact like I've never seen him overact before, in the role of a notorious crime lord who is under house arrest in New York, who seeks the elimination of Murch in London.
This is clearly not a big budget film, but unlike others on this forum, I thought the production standards were quite reasonable. The set action pieces were pretty good (without being superlative) and at least they were reasonably lit and not overly dependent on close-ups and super - quick editing. Having much of the story take place in just 2 venues, does help I suppose, when you're on a tight budget.
I did appreciate the fact that this movie features a heroine rather than a hero, a factor I feel tends to enrage many of the fanboys of this type of genre. I also liked the fact that she had to be quite inventive in her defensive strategies, as the screenplay gave reasons she frequently couldn't utilise captured automatic weapons. And like the John McClane Diehard character, it was also more realistic, to see her character, get knocked around quite a bit, by the film's conclusion, which does feature a quite unnecessary final twist.
The other obvious plot hole which needs to be overlooked by prospective viewers is that this is a large car park with lots of cars and yet, no one else ever seems to want to get their vehicle, nor contact hotel management or the police, as to why their cars are inaccessible and why an evident extended gunfight is occurring.
Nevertheless, I really don't think action film aficionados should be put off engaging with this film by the current IMDB rating of 4.8. The Courier is a better film than that score would indicate.
I See You (2019)
Too Cute by Far!
Credit is due to director Adam Randall and and scriptwriter Devon Graye for going that extra mile to make I See You appear to be something it isn't. And arguably this is another of those films that is really best seen if you know absolutely nothing about it. But it's also one of those films unable to produce a twist without making ridiculous demands of both the narrative and the viewer's common sense.
I mean "phrogging". Seriously, people living in your house (One of the owners is a detective. Hello security!) and you're not aware of them being there? And let's remember here, we're not talking about Wayne Manor. It's also one of those movies, where pretty much none of the main characters are drawn very sympathetically, so I for one, didn't really care much about what happened to them. Bring on the body count!
It's also strongly inferred that Alex, the male phrogger is a survivor from earlier kidnap attempts when he was younger. He knows who the perp is, so why does he not do a shout out earlier? Again, it just seems contrived in an effort to throw in a final little twist and a clever last line in the movie. I also agree with many others in this forum who rapidly got sick of the intrusively loud and frequently simply inappropriate soundtrack.
If you are into cross - generic films (This one even goes found footage midway for a spell.) and wholesale twists, you'll probably get some sort of buzz. But I'm already thinking I was too generous in giving a film with too many cheap tricks and unlikely scenarios 6/10.
Arrowhead (2016)
There's a Reason Kye Appears to be in a Perpetual State of Confusion!
He has suddenly understood the full extent of the crazy storyline of the movie of which he is the protagonist. It's great to be ambitious. But writer/director/producer Jesse O'Brian just isn't realistic in attempting to fuse enough ideas for 5 movies, into his 95 minute film Arrowhead. Ironically the first 10 - 15 minutes is both intriguing and compelling and the best part of the movie. Convict/prisoner of war Kye (I'm still unsure) is responsible for busting both himself and a war leader named Hatch out of a prison quarry. Hatch promptly displays his thanks by immediately sending the reluctant Kye off on another mission, supposedly the success of which, will lead to the release of Kye's father from another prison. Yeah, I know what you're thinking. It already sounds complicated. That's not the half of it.
Arrowhead kind of resembles a C - grade version of Pitch Black, likely because both were filmed in the same outback area of Australia. But then O'Brian decides to throw in extra ideas from other SF classics such as Solaris, Robinson Crusoe on Mars, The Edge of Tomorrow and Interstellar to the point, where the story ceases to flow and instead just continually spins its wheels and just goes nowhere.
Not helping proceedings in the least, is that the acting isn't particularly strong and the production's limited budget is pretty obvious, from the cheap - looking props and special effects, to the same sort of landscape from the opening prison prologue to the main setting on a supposedly "distant moon". You just want to shake your head when a pair of blokes are running around this moon for half the movie wearing nothing but jeans, whilst other characters are wrapped up in spacesuits and everyone carries on as if every thing is perfectly normal. Critical, need-to-know information is presented too late in the script to maximize understanding.
Arrowhead's slow pace, dullish cinematography and vague narrative means much is lost on the viewer. It becomes hard to feel one thing or another for the different characters and therefore the result doesn't have the impact that I suspect the film is looking for. With more action and conviction from the plot and better acting, I feel this may have been a more gripping film.
The Yin and Yang of Gerry Lopez (2021)
The Jesus of Cool!
This is an excellent biopic (Yes, biopic!) of iconic Hawaiian surfer/shaper/actor/snpwboarder/yoga practitioner and teacher Gerry Lopez and directed extremely proficiently by award-winning director Stacy Peralta. Lopez himself is the virtual singular talking head, though past and present associates and family members, flesh out intriguing aspects of his enigmatic personality.
The film is divided into roughly two halves and does jump around somewhat between time periods, albeit successfully in my view.
The first half concentrates almost exclusively with Lopez's development as a surfer in Hawaii and his famed relationship with the Banzai Pipeline on Oahu's North Shore, as well as him coming to be the prime representative of the Lightening Bolt brand. Surprisingly although comprehensive and good in the scale of things, I thought this was the least successful side of the movie. The editing here was very quick and jumped almost too quickly between different scenes, giving you the feeling, Peralta felt he had too much material to get through. You do hear from quite a few well - known figures, but I was a little surprised that there was nothing much heard from Lopez's Pipeline compadre surfers of that era. Rory Russell for instance is only there to tender a story about taking Gerry to hospital. It should be noted here that all the surfing/sports footage is exclusively of Gerry Lopez, with some later comparative footage of his son Alex, highlighting their obvious close relationship.
The second half focuses on his international travels, his life as an actor, his early family life and his present family. It is notable that the pace of Yin and Yang notably slows through this half, which I found I much appreciated. There are some great tales told, complemented by some rarely seen footage of his early experiences in Indonesia. And I personally loved his observations about the importance of his family life, coming from a guy, who admits onscreen, he initially felt intimidated and unknowing about being a husband and a father. Th only thing here I felt was missing, was a complete absence of any reference to do with his involvement with Maui's "Strapped Crew" and the development of towed in surfing in huge waves. It's pretty well known that Lopez shaped a lot of their specialised tow boards in the 1990's, not to mention that he towed into some huge ways himself wth them at Peahi on Maui.
Whilst obviously being an "authorised" look into Lopez's life, Yin and Yang is not just an uncritical paean to one of the world's most influential and revered surfers. Gerry Lopez is strongly self - judgemental of himself, especially in his earlier life as arguably the most well - known surfer emerging from the 1970's and I include world champions here. But ultimately he comes across as this exceedingly interesting, compassionate human being, who now in his 70's, is very much content with his contribution both to surfing and his life in general.
Shadow in the Cloud (2020)
One Part Locke, One Part Memphis Belle, One Part Twilight Zone Rip - off and One Part I Am Woman, Hear Me Roar!
I mean if that's your bag, you'll probably like it. It won't live in my memory, but I applaud Kiwi director Roseanne Liang for giving it a red hot go and getting Chloe Grace Moritz involved who totally carries the picture, which I'm sure didn't have a huge budget. And that's really not a problem. The film looks good. It's just that there are so many wild ideas thrown into a storyline with expectations that you suspend belief to the highest level, that for me, it just didn't really work. There is just not enough logic and reality touch points playing out in this high flying World War 2 creature feature, that feels like 2 or 3 mini - movies mashed into a mercifully short 83 minute running time.
There are some clever aspects. I liked the unexpected animated prologue which does have some tenuous links with the story to follow. And Moritz does do a splendid job, especially in the (relatively) long first act where her Flying Officer Garrett is confined to the Sperry - the ball turret on the belly, the most dangerous position on a bomber - as a sign of how unhappy the misogynistic crew is about having her onboard. From her cramped position in the Sperry, Moritz gives a totally convincing one-woman performance with the men's voices and dismissive attitudes carried over the interior coms system.
But following on from this, we are expected to believe and cheer on, as a woman with a recently broken arm, a broken/dislocated finger and a severe wound in her side, taps into her inner Lara Croft and fights to get out of the turret and to protect her package at all costs.
Shadow in the Cloud is one of those movies that embraces the absurdity of its narrative and tries to have fun with it like for instance Snakes on a Plane The difference is Snakes never took its tongue out of its cheek for a moment, whereas Shadow appears to want us to totally ignore the relentless abuse Garrettt suffers from most of the crew for much of the film and just revel in her green screen achievements. It's a big ask. It's such an uneven film that there aren't enough thrills and excitement here to keep us from noticing, even when we try to turn our brains off.
Living Space (2018)
There's Some Excellent Reasons Why This Movie Has an IMDB Rating of 3.3!
And of course the main one is that this is a truly hideous production.
For a start it is terribly lit. Potential viewers (and I hope there are not too many of you) be prepared for a lot of squinting into many a blackish/near dark scene.
Our two protagonists, Brad and Ash (Why couldn't she have been called the more appropriate, Janet?) are completely unsympathetic from the outset. They speak in solitary sentences with bizarrely long pregnant pauses in between, as if one another keep forgetting their lines and are waiting for the other character to prompt them. And again, how many times do we hear the defiantly non - heroic Ash whine annoyingly, "What are we going to do Brad?" I honestly answered not too long into this train wreck, " I don't really care Ash.
The narrative just doesn't flow at all, even allowing for the fact that (hardly a spoiler) there are time loops involved. There are no smooth transitions between scenes. And the little dialogue there is, as inferred previously, is just of a risible quality.
Let me just be brief and summarise: This is a ghost movie without the slightest degree of suspense or dread and at the same time a wannabe torture porn film without shocks.
As for the third act "twist" (LOL!), well let's just say Blind Freddie would have seen it on the horizon from miles away.
Finally, the director ... Steven Spiel ??? Is he really serious, or just trying for some sort of in joke/homage to the great Steven Spielberg? If there is any doubt on the part of any one about this, his ahem ... debut feature. No, Living Space unfortunately, doesn't reach anywhere near the quality of Duel's (Spielberg's debut) out takes.
Bleed for This (2016)
Raging ... Calf!
Martin Scorsese's Raging Bull became the classic it is, by daring to deal with the "anti - Rocky"; a hungry contender whose skill and courage in the ring, fail to hide from us, his many horrific flaws, which include a deep - seated misogyny and raging homophobia.
Ben Younger's Bleed for This, could have taken a leaf out of Scorese's book in centering his story on the life of former world champion boxer Vinny Pazienza. Besides being an extremely talented fighter, who courageously came back from a potentially career threatening neck injury (the focus of this film) to take another world title, he also had an extensive criminal record which include alcohol-related crimes, domestic violence, passing bad checks, and disorderly conduct. Hells bells, the bloke even tried to sue (unsuccessfully) the producers of this film for more money than he was already receiving.
So what does Younger give us? Just another boxing film with a very much air - brushed, blemish - free portrait of its protagonist. If you like boxing films, you'll likely be drawn to this one with its narrative of Vinny Paz drawn as a rough around the edges kind of nice guy, with his back against the wall and the odds continually loaded against him. But despite the movie's good production values and very competent acting, I found the storyline overly derivative and extremely run of the mill, to its detriment. There's just nothing special or unusual to see here. I think awarding it 6/10 is generous, when it never came close to knocking me out.
Manifest (2018)
Manifest: Seasons 1 - 3!
The central storyline is undoubtedly compelling. It's the only thing that's kept me in the mix for 42 episodes now. You do want to find out exactly what's the story with Flight 828 and its passenger component. There certainly seems to be a time shift factor in play, but. Intriguingly we wonder whether there has also been some sort of divine intervention. The series is generally competently acted too and while this isn't an effects driven extravaganza, what CGI is on show is quite adequate for the circumstances. I don't expect ridiculous amounts of money to be spent on TV shows of this ilk.
My main issues with the show involve the quality of the scripts.
I agree with many in this forum who state that by now, punters like me should have a stronger idea of where everything is heading. It really is quite odd, that after 42 episodes with supposedly 20 more to come, we're still none the wiser about what's really going on since Episode 1. Instead we get the usual spiel from the show runners, about tuning into Season 4 when all will be revealed. I have to honestly say, that after 3 seasons, I'm not really convinced whether returning for a 4th, will be all that rewarding.
Other aspects of the storyline I'm pretty much over without spoiling:
1 Stone family tropish melodramatics! Enough please and sorry Grace, you had it coming and it probably should have happened much earlier in the piece.
2 Why don't we ever see Ben working? Back at the very start of Season 2, he's supposed to have got a new job lecturing in tertiary mathematics. Yet he's never there. He spends his whole time obsessing over 828 cases. How does the Stone family earn a living, when Grace is also home bringing up baby? Very lazy writing IMO! BTW, much the same could be said about the Olive, Cal (and later Angelina) characters, who never seem to go to school. They just seem to spend their days mooching around at home, waiting for callings (well Cal and Angelina anyway).
3 The triangular romantic tension play between Michaela, Jared and poor old Zeke is just over repetitive too. We really don't need it, unless something completely fresh and surprising can be brought to bear.
4 I have to admit, I have a real liking for Parveen Kaur's Dr Saanvi Bahl. But can something be done to allow the poor woman to smile occasionally. She seems to spend every onscreen moment perpetually distressed. It was a relief for a couple of episodes, back there in the first half of Season 2, when we did get a peek into her private life. But that door slammed shut pretty quickly and since then, she's been the character most likely to be on the verge always of a nervous breakdown.
A few positives: 1. Melissa Roxburgh as Michaela Stone does make a good central character and unlike brother Ben, we do see her working. She also boasts an amazing pair of eye brows.
2 I wish Ellen Tamaki as Drea Mikami, Michaela's partner was written into more episodes. She actually regularly smiles and I like the way she stirs the pot and often pokes fun at other characters' seriousness.
3 Similarly the Robert Vance character is probably completely unlike a regular NSA director. But I do like the way Daryl Edwards (and the writers in this case) have managed to develop his personality from that which we saw, early in Season 1. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for many of the Stone family members.
For me, Manifest is all too frequently a show, which to use an airport analogy, is often stalled on the runway, when it should be moving forward winging its way to some sort of exotic, mysterious location with which the audience can identify. I can't say honestly whether I'll be back for Series 4.
The Reckoning (2020)
Neil Marshall: What's Happened to You?
Dog Soldiers, Centurion, The Descent ... all good movies and now The Reckoning, where somehow the wheels have fallen off the billy cart. The Reckoning is a movie with a good idea, which hasn't arrived at fruition, through poor script - writing and direction.
It's pretty much an update of the old (1968) Vincent Price vehicle Witchfinder - General. And it's probably not a bad idea, in an era of female empowerment, to reconfigure a story of idiot blokes running around the English countryside, burning women to death on the slightest pretext, or hearsay, of being a witch. But the whole thing is put together sloppily and haphazardly, ending up in a film that just can't seem to settle on what direction it wants to take. Even the DVD cover is confusing, with its artwork identifying our hero Grace Haversack, as a witch. It's not spoiling to state here, she ain't. But then lazy writing, especially throughout the second act, suggests hilariously and confusingly that torture and deprivation might cause our Grace to dream and imagine she becomes the devil's spawn. For goodness sake! It's like the writers are seeking to grab any reason to strengthen the case of our two prime villains Witchfinder Moorcroft and the slimy Squire Pendleton.
The film which was shot in Hungary, actually looks pretty good. I agree with many others that Charlotte Kirk playing Grace looks too glamorous, but then I really don't mind a bit of eye candy in movies and she does put in a reasonable performance. I have more concerns as to how suddenly, in the final act, after being so hideously and cruelly tortured, she suddenly overcomes her physical disabilities and evolves into a Middle Ages version of Lara Croft to ensure we end up with the titular Reckoning. Really? And the whole big deal of The Plague, as focused on in the first act, seems to be forgotten about and just used as a narrative convenience to ensure we are delivered an action - packed climax.
Overall, I felt rather disappointed that someone like Neil Marshall, who has directed films with strong female characters, in reimagining a film set in a period of institutionalised misogyny and the women who survive it, could only come up with the sort of confused ideas and storyline, The Reckoning delivers.