ejb4501 Reviews

Blood Father (2016)

GENRE EXCELLENCE

[8/10 · 1 April 2020]

The knocks on this film have nothing to do with story, acting, direction, cutting, etc...Perhaps a better score, a slightly bolder, fresher script, a couple other things...

But if you want a couple hours to eat too much popcorn, this film will grab you, keep you in your seat. Good pace and rhythm, Mel is terrific, Erin Moriarty is excellent and gives this character real depth, wonderful appearance by the always great Michael Parks, and the supporting characters do their jobs well.

I had other stuff to do, but couldn't pry myself away until end credits, which I cut short. I'll look them up online when I have more time...

Hunters (2020–2023)

From a hot mess emerges a very good show

[8/10 · 9 March 2020]

First, Al Pacino deserves an Emmy nomination. So does Saul Rubinek and Carol Kane. They are real flesh and blood characters with performances that are sensitive, nuanced, powerful.

Second, the below review was after 2-3 episodes. I almost stopped watching, but the compelling scenes kept me in, like that final shot on the 18th hole that is perfect after a lousy golf game...and it keeps you coming back. This show gets better, and I think it's because producers realized they ROYALLY screwed up in the first 2-3 episodes. They lost a critical chunk of audience because of it. What began as truly immature filmmaking evolves into some truly powerful stuff, from cartoonish nonsense to deeply moving and dramatic and electric filmmaking. My original review:

Well, after the first episode or two, so far, this is a MASSIVE failure in execution. I am stunned by the EPIC miscalculation by producers that 1) a story about Nazi hunters in America should be told in this Tarantino-wannabe style, while WILDLY lacking his deft touch when mingling humor with unimaginable tragedy, 2) this - so-far - Tarantino knock-off wouldn't be seen as a total rip-off instead, and 3) camp and silliness and comic book characters and characterizations have ANY place in a series about the hunt for guys that used the skin of Jews for lampshades, who used bulldozers to push stacks of ex-human beings, starved to death, into pits, who enjoyed raping, torturing, experimenting on little Jewish boys and girls, and well, the list goes on and on. Tarantino's "Inglourious Basterds" achieved something NO ONE else can do right now, and his take on the subject of Jews recruited into the Nazi-killing business , while using some highly stylized techniques sprinkled with dark humor, NEVER, EVER approached the non-justified silliness we see in "The Hunters", and NEVER, EVER let you forget that we are talking about horrifically scarred Jews who've set about eradicating the the greatest monsters our species has ever produced. Now, perhaps it'll get better - it has to - but only if it stops trying to be something it can never be.

Pacino is WONDERFUL, of course, and some of the other older actors (Carol Kane, Saul Rubinek, Lena Olin) support him well, but the rest of the cast has much to prove. And while this show is largely a hot mess, there are compelling scenes, unfortunately divided by connective tissue that should be aggressively excised.

The soundtrack is often B-movie horror, the direction is heavy-handed and renders critical characters in 2D at best, and MY GOODNESS, when the main characters break out in dance to Saturday Night Fever at Coney Island...and then a bunch of random people start breaking out ion carefully choreographed dance as if we're now in "musical" mode, it's just ridiculous.

Here is just one of many examples of the dumb mistakes writer David Weil and executive producer Jordan Peele make:

There is a scene where Nazi's play chess on a large field using Jewish prisoners as chess pieces. When the piece is lost, the Jew is shot dead and hauled away. Never happened. Weil's explanation: He wanted to convey a "representational truth", i.e., convey just how brutal and callous and sadistic the Nazi's were. Are you effen kidding me?!? What, the LITERAL truth isn't brutal enough?!?

Weil rails against revisionist narratives that whitewash Nazi crimes....while he offers his own anti-Nazi revisionist history which, in fact, is precisely what those Nazi revisionists lie in wait for.

Finally, there really were and are Jewish Nazi hunters. This often flippant treatment of this topic thoroughly disrespects them all and the unimaginable pain they endured.

Hunters (2020–2023)

"Shindler's List" meets "Springtime for Hitler"

[8/10 · 8 March 2020]

Well, after the first episode or two, so far, this is a MASSIVE fail in execution. I am stunned by the EPIC miscalculation by producers that 1) a story about Nazi hunters in America should be told in this Tarantino-wannabe style, while WILDLY lacking his deft touch when mingling humor with unimaginable tragedy, 2) this - so-far - Tarantino knock-off wouldn't be seen as a total rip-off instead, and 3) and that camp and silliness and comic book characters and characterizations have ANY place in a series about the hunt for guys that used the skin of Jews for lampshades, who used bulldozers to push stacks of ex-human beings, starved to death, into pits, who enjoyed raping, torturing, experimenting on little Jewish boys and girls, and well, the list goes on and on.

Tarantino's "Inglourious Basterds" achieved something NO ONE else can do right now, and his take on the subject of Jews recruited into the Nazi-killing business , while using some highly stylized techniques sprinkled with dark humor, NEVER, EVER approached the non-justified silliness we see in "The Hunters", and NEVER, EVER let you forget that we are talking about horrifically scarred Jews who've set about eradicating the greatest monsters our species has ever produced. Now, perhaps it'll get better - it has to - but only if it stops trying to be something it can never be.

Here is just one of many examples of the dumb mistakes writer David Weil and executive producer Jordan Peele make:

There is a scene where Nazi's play chess on a large field using Jewish prisoners as chess pieces. When the piece is lost, the Jew is shot dead and hauled away. Never happened. Weil's explanation? He wanted to convey a "representational truth", i.e., convey just how brutal and callous and sadistic the Nazi's were. Are you effen kidding me?!? What, the LITERAL truth isn't brutal enough?!?

Weil rails against revisionist narratives that whitewash Nazi crimes....while he offers his own anti-Nazi revisionist history which, in fact, is precisely what those Nazi revisionists lie in wait for.

Pacino and some of the other older actors (Carol Kane, Saul Rubinek, Lena Olin) are wonderful to watch, but the rest of the cast has much to prove. And while this show is largely a hot mess, there are compelling scenes, unfortunately divided by connective tissue that should be aggressively excised.

The soundtrack is often B-movie horror, the direction is heavy-handed and renders critical characters in 2D at best, and MY GOODNESS, when the main characters break out in dance to Saturday Night Fever at Coney Island...and then a bunch of random people start breaking out in carefully choreographed dance as if we're now in "musical" mode, it's just ridiculous. Pick a genre, for Chrissakes! Preferably the right one considering the material. This isn't "The Producers" , and no place for "Springtime For Hitler".

Finally, there really were and are Jewish Nazi hunters. This often flippant treatment of this topic thoroughly disrespects them all and the unimaginable pain they endured.

War Machine (2017)

Walk's a razor's edge...

[10/10 · 26 May 2017]

This film will be under-rated simply because it's on "TV". But make no mistake, this is REALLY good writing, directing, acting, music supervision, and so on. If you liked "Three Kings" and David O. Russell's sensibilities, or Altman's, you'll like this director and this film.

The performances are through the roof in this satirical take. Meg Tilley mesmerizes, Swinton delivers, Anthony Michael Hall, Alan Ruck, Ben Kingsley are brilliant, right on tone.

And Pitt walks the tightrope. HANG with his performance. What starts out as a cartoon becomes true flesh and blood. That goes for the whole film, and it is a moving ride.

Empire of the Sun (1987)

Absolutely one of Spielbergs best

[10/10 · 8 July 2006]

Underrated is right. This film has so been ignored when discussing truly great films and certainly the films of Spielberg. This film came out the same year as Bertolucci's "The Last Emperor", and was buried under the buzz of that film. Too bad, because Spielberg achieved what Bertolucci could not: Encase and convey a highly personal story within the context of particularly turbulent historical events. The experiences of Spielbergs "Jim" are felt more deeply than those of Bertolucci's Pu Yi. Both films are visually stunning, and on an epic scale. But these qualities tend to overshadow the human story of Last Emperor, and this is a human tragedy of epic scale! It is about China's last monarch, the last of a line dating back thousands of years. It is about the extinction of a species. Pu Yi is the last Mohican, so to speak, the last dinosaur. And yet, the deep, personal sadness of this doesn't come through anywhere near as profoundly as the broad and deep emotions of the boy Jim living through Japanese internment in Spielberg's Empire of the Sun. We get underneath Jims's skin, and ride the emotional roller- coaster that is his life. Conversely, we watch Pu Yi, often with the level of understanding one might have watching an animal in a zoo. We may feel some pity at it's captivity, but then we see it fed and housed and calm, and we figure, "Well, I guess it's not that bad." And of course there is this: Empire of the Sun makes me cry every damn time I watch it.

For Your Eyes Only (1981)

Another nail in the coffin

[4/10 · 28 December 2005]

Well, the opening sequence is just plain silly. The rest of the film improves on that minimally. Bill Conti's music, save for the title song, is horrible. H-o-r-r-i-b-l-e. By the end of the first chase scene, you'll agree and wonder why Conti didn't leave those charts back in the 70's. By the way, chase scenes shouldn't contain "comic relief", and like all the Moore films, this one can't resist ripping off the Keystone Cops. The plot of the film is sound and believable, and the written characters are as well. But the performances of the two female leads - Bouquet and Johnson - are poorly directed. Topol & Glover are quite satisfying, though. This script was a pretty good one, but this film, this Bond, puts one more nail in the coffin of the franchise. Yes, it has yet to be buried, and younger audiences apparently dug Brosnan. But who among the Connery fans and the first 5 installments can watch any after them without feeling disappointed? Finally, even Maurice Binders normally great title sequence falters. For some reason, Sheena Easton weaves in and out, singing to camera, and steals focus from the wonderful and seductive visuals that always put us in the right place for what was to come. Let's see, this film came out in 1981, and MTV came out in 1981. Hmmmm.

Batman Begins (2005)

Ditto "...got it right".

[8/10 · 10 July 2005]

"Batman Begins" is where this film series should have began. Christian Bale's Batman is dead-on, bringing in the rage and darkness Bob Kane and Bill Finger first instilled into the character of the Dark Knight. Suave and smooth are at a minimum, and then only as a cover for the deeper, more complex stuff going on in the heart and mind of Bruce Wayne. Bale gets downright ugly at times, is truly menacing. In just the way he carries himself - his posture - the character is so much richer than those that came before him in this series. Nothing but superlatives for Bale's performance.

All other facets of the film are above average, and my only gripe is that - without giving away the story - the "crisis" is a little muddy, and is one place I think the filmmakers could have afforded to simplify, go a more traditional route. James Bond faced a nuclear threat (NOT the crisis in Batman Begins!) in virtually every film, and Bond never got old, although certain actors playing the part DID. And this is where this incarnation of Batman SOARS: provided the story is fundamentally solid, the threat to Gotham doesn't need to be over-convoluted. This new Batman - this GREAT character study - will keep us riveted film after film with even the simplest of devices.

The Electric Horseman (1979)

Seen this movie 100 times

[9/10 · 15 December 2004]

OK, first, to the reviewer that suggested "too much Fonda" and would have liked to see Susan St. James or Jennifer Warren in the role of Alice, you are forbidden from ever reviewing again. Fonda was perfect, and more on that later.

Second, this is not about a cowboy freeing a horse who is about to be drugged, as some reviewers have said. The horse was drugged from the beginning. Sonny noticed it, and that was a contributing factor to his subsequent actions.

This movie is about a man who strayed far from who he was, and who sought to find himself again. The horse is metaphoric: it is drugged, exploited, and broken, just like the man. So, the man attempts to find himself, as he helps the horse find itself again, so to speak. And, in the process of trying to report the story, the Fonda character attempts to find herself as well, for she has become neurotic, pill-popping, and uptight in her quest to become a star reporter. And, of course, as they travel the countryside, we find America.

Back to Fonda. Fonda's casting has always been that of the strong but flawed "career" woman, from "Barbarella", to "Klute", to "Electric Horseman". She is independent, doesn't need a man. As the tough and aggressive reporter in personal crisis, she is cast perfectly. St. James has neither the strength nor the necessary equal dose of vulnerability that Fonda can muster. This is about chemistry as well. Redford and Fonda have teamed up before, and the chemistry is proved.

So this brilliant and simple story illustrates and creatively reinforces the the idea of straying from true nature, and the need to find it again.

VERY good film.