Change Your Image
mme3924-1
Reviews
Abducted in Plain Sight (2017)
Unbelievable.....
Only in Utah, perhaps, would these parents retain custody of their other two children after what appears to be their naivete or negligence in allowing the terrible events that affected their other 12 year old daughter. They failed to report her missing for five full days after she left to go horseback riding with an adult male friend. Why? Apparently because he was a friend and a member of their church, and they hoped/believed she was safe with him. Dd it not occur to them that both he and their child might be the victims of an accident? Later, they sign an affidavit that they voluntarily allowed their child to be gone that long with the adult male friend, which was both a lie and which aided and abetted his further crimes against the child. The parents' behavior in this case is incomprehensible; there's simply no other word for it. Consequently it views like bad fiction. Unfortunately -- unbelievably -- it's true.
Absentia (2017)
Pathetically bad
ABSENTIA (Amazon 2017 - 2020)
Oh, yeah, it's as bad as other reviewers say it is. Which is baffling because it looks like a costly production with adequate directing. But appearances don't substitute for and can't save really bad writing, plotting, and mediocre acting, and those are the three strikes against this series. The actor playing Nick, husband/father/FBI agent, has two expressions: both pained and/or constipated. The actress playing the lead, Emily, wife/mother/FBI agent, is marginally better but she can't overcome what she's given to work with. This series is mindful of an imaginative child telling a tall tale: ...."and then.....!" followed by a scenario even more outlandish than the previous one. It's what these creators seem to think passes for good writing and believable, interesting, plots. Emily is basically Wonder Woman without the costume, lasso or invisible airplane -- she does still have the airplane, right? She is invincible. Kidnapped and held captive for six years --- the Absentia of the title -- she is tortured, nearly drowned, and has amnesia, something that seems forgotten in Seasons 2 and 3. Does she take disability retirement? No! She returns to her FBI job where she is beaten, stabbed, shot, again held captive, but overcomes everything to muster on. This plot device doesn't just occur once, but repeatedly. In Season 3 though seriously injured, weak, and bleeding, she pulls out her IV line and leaves her hospital bed because she -- and only she! -- can find and save Nick, who has also been kidnapped. It's absurd to the point of being laughable but takes itself too seriously to be funny. One wonders why the bad guys -- it's never entirely clear exactly who they are or what they want; their motives seem to change from season to season -- don't just kill Emily and Nick, especially since they have multiple chances.
This is fantasy, comic book stuff, but presented with the gravitas of Law and Order or The Wire. If it were a drinking game, and one took a shot each time "You okay?" or "I'm fine" was uttered, he or she would be under the table before the end of Season 1. I gave this a 5 after watching about half of Season 1, thinking it couldn't be as bad as I thought. But I was wrong and 5 is far too generous. It's about a 2, and that's mostly for the appearance of Paul Freeman, who can actually act and is convincing as the heroine's ex-cop father. You find yourself looking forward to scenes he's in, as a relief from the drivel. But his appearances are not enough to make this worth watching. Don't risk any brain cells; skip Absentia.
The Midnight Sky (2020)
The Martian It Ain't
Midnight Sky is not so much a movie as a political polemic: George Clooney's statement on climate change. But as a movie, it is terrible. The music is far too loud, intrusive, annoying and predictable. The writing is simplistic. The plot is trite and disjointed, with the main characters disappearing halfway through so we can watch a space drama, complete, of course, with tragedy. The only positive in this film is the charming child actor, and she is only there as a prop for Clooney's character. Clooney also directed....no surprise. He and Netflix should be ashamed. Skip this one, if you have any respect for movies or yourself as a viewer.
La trêve (2016)
Could be retitled "The Broken"
The high ratings of The Break are astonishing, considering how amateurish it really is. I have to wonder if they watched the same Season Two I did (did not watch Season One). I gave it two stars for the scenery because everything else is just bad. Badly acted, badly written, badly plotted, badly directed. badly edited, badly filmed -- why the tendency in some of these European series to show long stretches of empty gray roads? Is that someone's idea of a metaphor for mystery? ? This series 2nd season had unconvincing characters, lame subplots, unresolved questions (who emptied the bank safe?), a cheap throwaway denouement, and, unbelievably, a supernatural element.
And then there's the length. Presumably they were paid by the episode because some are simply filler, such as Episode 5. Final word: stay far, far away from this mishmash of bad. Your time will be better spent doing almost anything else.
Liar (2017)
Pants on fire.......
It's not enough that this series treats the crime of rape and its victims in an unintelligent, and disrespectful manner, it's also just plain dumb. As another reviewer has detailed perfectly, neither the victim nor the supposed rapist -- nor any supporting characters -- behave in realistic ways. The writers were apparently so caught up in the clever idea of "who is the Liar" of the title, and so anxious to keep the audience guessing, that they neglected to write with any integrity about what is a serious and damaging and terrible crime.
This review contains possible spoilers below this line -----------------------------
Allow me to add to the comprehensive list presented by another reviewer of things the characters in this series would not believably do: If a man -- especially a clever, experienced rapist -- doped a woman's drink, wouldn't he hold that glass out to her, to make sure she took it, instead of allowing her to choose, so that he later had to switch glasses? Wouldn't a police constable know better than to threaten a man he believed had raped his ex-girlfriend, and thereby get himself suspended? Wouldn't a rapist keep his doping supplies somewhere other than a patient's garden shed? Rent a storage locker under an assumed name, why not?
This series not only does a disservice to victims of rape, and their family members, and to law enforcement, it is just plain insulting. The actress portraying the victim -- Joanne Froggatt -- is not allowed to make her character sympathetic, and why not? Because she could be wrong or lying, that's why! On the other hand, the doctor, as portrayed by Ioan Gruffudd, is seen as sympathetic and sincere. Why? Because he may be the victim of a lie! I won't even get into the stupid subplot of the doctor's son impregnating his girlfriend, who aborts the fetus, causing Froggatt's character to insist that the doctor, who she has accused of rape, lie to the girl's father about the real reason for her hospitalization. Or why Froggatt's character answers phone calls from a man whom she had accused, years earlier, of a sexual crime. Or why the infidelity subplot, or possible murder disguised as suicide. It's all stupid beyond belief.
There's a Season 2, not yet available on Prime. No idea if it's better, but it couldn't be worse. I rated this series one only because that's as low as I could go.
Trial by Fire (2018)
Death penalty agenda
Trial by Fire is a dramatic (fictionalized) account of the Cameron Todd Willingham case -- notorious in Texas death penalty debates -- in which he is convicted and sentenced to death for deliberately setting the fire that killed his three young children. The film is obviously anti death penalty and the makers are entitled to that opinion, which many share. That aside, when Yankees "do" Texas they always get it wrong, usually beginning with the accents which they somehow assume are "southern," and this movie is no exception. That they didn't know Texas culture at all, though, became apparent early on, when Texas Rangers/law enforcement officers interrogate Todd Willingham. One of the officers' hat is on the table -- to indicate we're in Texas, don't you know? -- and it's brim down. No one who wears a Stetson places his hat like that, but always upside down, with the brim up, to protect its shape. From that moment on, it was obvious we were going to see Texas through unknowing eyes.
There are other problems. too. The portrayal of Willingham at trial is unrealistic. .His own attorney, convinced of his guilt, presented no real defense. But that's just part of it; even the worst attorney would have insisted he cut his hair, sit up straight in his chair at the defense table, and not blurt out protests to the judge or the witnesses. Then there's the Texas State prison guard's brutality (i.e. Shawshank Redemption) and the idea that Willingham's "personal" guard is actually involved in executions (i.e. The Green Mile).
It's all ridiculous. But Laura Dern, as a woman who becomes involved in Willingham's case, is excellent and some other performances are noteworthy, with the exception of the actor playing Willingham, who made his character so unlikeable that it was difficult to feel sympathy for him, even when we're supposed to. And the transformation, including a haircut, is neither explained nor credible; it's just a heavy handed amateurish way to indicate to us, the audience, that Willingham is deserving of the help Dern's character tries to provide. That Willingham was almost certainly innocent and that the prosecutor was guilty of malfeasance appears to be a given, and if true, this is the story of tragedy piled on top of tragedy. Trial by Fire purports to address that, but its agenda -- protesting the death penalty -- and failure to get basic Texas culture right, weakens the effort.
Watch it if you're curious, or for Dern's performance.
The Stranger (2020)
Seriously?
A series that starts out fairly well but quickly becomes an incredible, implausible, and convoluted mishmash of too many plot threads, improbable and unrealistic characters, and unresolved questions. For instance: was one character really the victim of Munchausen by proxy or was she doing it to herself? Or why kill a victim of blackmail but not go after other blackmail victims who could also identify the blackmailers? Or why did a seasoned police officer choose to amplify a phone call? Far too many character actions appear to be author manipulation rather than reasonable and normal behavior.
The series also appears awkwardly produced and edited. There are transition scenes that make no sense. The acting is acceptable if unremarkable, the writing at times embarrassingly trite, and the denouement incredible. Far too many Netflix original productions are of this quality, which is unfortunate. Recommended only if the viewer doesn't care about cohesive storytelling, good writing and dialogue, and a believable mystery. How veteran actor Stephen Rea found himself in this turkey only he knows.
Buried (2010)
What's the point.......?
Of this hour and a half claustrophobic film in which a man is buried alive?
Another reviewer said it was about the man's choices. Seriously? He doesn't have any choices! Other than to burn his lighter --and his oxygen -- because the dark is worse. Or whether to use his phone for human contact, or save the battery, hoping the signal will lead rescuers to him. Or to wait and hope and fight panic and despair.
Three calls he does make pretty much summed up my reaction to the film. One was the last phone call to his wife, who has, incredibly, not answered her phone all day, even though her husband has a dangerous job in a foreign country where terrorism is common, a job she advised against. But it's the dialogue itself that made my lip curl. "I love you so much" repeated by each multiple times. In reality, they would, no doubt, express their love but be sobbing, incoherent; there are no words in such a situation, much less the same words said by both repeatedly. Perhaps I'm too harsh but instead of emotionally realistic that scene felt inane and certainly the dialogue did.
Then there was the phone call with the lawyer and how long it took him to catch on that the company was going on record -- and getting him to -- of denying any liability. First, I don't think the coldest hearted company in the world would do such a thing to a man they know is buried alive. But anti-capitalist Hollywood does not miss an opportunity to paint corporations as unfeeling and monstrous.
And, finally, there's the phone call from his contact at international rescue or whatever it is, who actually tells him that their informant has led them to the wrong "buried in the desert" person, that they still have no idea where he is. Who and why would he tell him say such a thing, knowing the man has minutes left to live?
The one phone call that is realistic is when he tells this same informant, in bitter recognition and resignation: "You don't care about us. You're babysitting. You're just waiting." It's true; all the guy on the phone can do is try to pacify and reassure a man trapped beneath several feet of sand in a box, with no way out, completely dependent on others, unable, no matter his will, to save himself.
As a character study, the film provides little since we don't know who Paul is before he found himself buried alive. No flashbacks to his earlier life, no pictures of wife and kids, no joking around with buddies. Just him, in a coffin, with a phone, a lighter, a knife, and a pen, the last two, by the way, curious. Why did his kidnappers leave him a knife and pen? Ryan Reynolds is very good in a role that couldn't have been easy, having sand sift down on you, no headroom, delivering every line while lying flat, and being in absolutely every scene. But he's not, perhaps, enough to recommend this film, which can't even be seen as a triumph of the will.
In the Tall Grass (2019)
Another Netflix stinker.....
Which should be better, considering it is based on a Stephen King novella and features Patrick Wilson.
But no. There's nothing here worth watching unless tall grass, lost people (in more ways than one), a lot of screaming, boring characters, and garbled themes of personal choice, responsibility, redemption and evil are your thing, and you crave a story with no point and worse denouement.
Here's the plot, such as it is. A young pregnant woman and her brother, driving to San Diego, stop by a field of tall grass because she has a bout of nausea. While stopped they hear a child calling for help from the grass. Instead of calling 911 and staying put as any sensible person would, they walk into the grass, which is over their heads, to rescue the child, and are soon lost themselves. The first 15 minutes are fairly intriguing, but it rapidly deteriorates into ....well, a field of grass, calling one another's names, time shifts, and confusion.
It occurs to me that Stephen King may have had his tongue in his cheek, writing about "grass" and getting lost in it, unable to find a way out. Or maybe he was quite seriously using "grass" as a metaphor for making bad choices (like everyone who goes into the field), and then being literally "lost". Or not. Whatever his motivation or the actual novella, this film is a waste of time. Instead of watching it, go mow the grass; you'll have spent your time better and feel greater satisfaction.
An Affair to Die For (2019)
Truly terrible......
What is Titus Welliver, coming off Bosch, doing in this turkey?
It's not only bad, it's empty, a complete waste of time, talent, setting, lighting, even the music.
A woman arrives at a luxury hotel, is shown to a gorgeous suite, and while waiting for her companion, finds cutesy notes, sexy underwear, a mask and even handcuffs for an obviously well planned romantic weekend. But it soon turns ugly, and we then discover that she is one half of an illicit affair, and that her husband, who is "into surveillance" knows about it. He has kidnapped the lover, threatened his family, and for reasons never explained, insists the lover continue the weekend without letting his wife know that he's onto her. At the same time he phones his wife and tells her the lover is a serial killer. It's all so silly that the twist at the end shouldn't come as a surprise....and it really doesn't.
What has happened to writing? Does no one recognize or demand quality any longer, thereby allowing a script like this to actually be produced? One that has no real suspense, no character development, and no point....unless it is "don't cheat" which as a message has been done far and away better in other films. The rating of two points is only for the hotel suite, which was nice.
Skip this trash.....even if it does have Titus Welliver. What was he thinking?
The Case (2011)
Wait for it.......
And sure enough, the twist. Can the Brits not do courtroom drama without the added cynicism? First the Trial: A Murder in the Family and now this one. Not sure anyone can watch this series without expecting that all is not as it appears; it's there in every scene, the breathless waiting for the shoe to drop. Good guys are not as good as they appear; bad guys may not be as bad as they appear.....though the ex husband was over the top unlikeable and jaw dropping in his outrage. He was an EX husband! What rights did he think he had? This series is a mishmash of tease disguised as a question of murder or assisted suicide. Most of the characters are two dimensional, their motivation "on the page" -- meaning, because, like Jessica Rabbit, it's written that way. Nothing seems organic. And then there's the secondary plot of pettiness in the defense lawyer's chambers, with the obligatory and abrupt about face by the major instigator, equally unbelievable. A series with a good premise, perhaps, let down by writing and production.
Unforgotten (2015)
Nicola Walker and Tom Courtney.....
....together -- what a treat.. He is a legend and is wonderful here, and she has been immensely impressive since Last Tango in Halifax. The rest of the cast is also good, with special mention for Sanjeev Bhaskar, Trevor Eve, Brian Bovell, Bernard Hill, and Ruth Sheen. But this series has problems, and it's in the writing. Could it be more righteous? Or manipulative? The good characters are beyond reproach and the bad ones -- and there are too many of them -- all get punished in accordance with his/her particular offense or sin ....according to the writer.. This is a very politically correct series, judging by Season One. The characters behave as the writer wants them to rather than in organic, believable ways.
And then there are the what the hell moments. Does the UK have no statute of limitation on a $50 theft after forty years? And would a knighted businessman really conspire with criminals to silence a witness? And let his children in on it? Especially a son who was prepared to go into business with these same criminals but suddenly becomes one of the righteous? And what about another son who turns on his poor demented mother, visiting only to torment her? How about a church leader who justifies stealing from his own congregation in order to support a child conceived in an illicit -- and illegal -- affair?
Five stars are for the cast and their handling of less than stellar material.
Schitt$ Creek (2015)
More than a comedy, should not be missed......
I love this series!
These people are shallow, pretentious, egotistical, selfish, and ridiculous.....and I love them. Each episode is a visit with a family -- and townsfolk -- you wouldn't want to live with but can't help liking and wanting to spend time with .... within reason. Developers Eugene and Daniel Levy (who also act in the series) -- and the writers -- have created characters who maintain a delicate balance, as on a high wire, between absurd narcissism and caring sensitivity. The Rose family, having lost their fortune, find themselves stuck in a fate-worse-than-death situation in a town--Schitt's Creek-- they own but hold in complete disregard. Eventually, somehow, they make the best of it, due, in no small part, to the town's citizens, who react to their polite superiority and contempt with warmth and acceptance.
There are so many ways this series could have gone wrong and yet it doesn't. As over the top as it is, there are no false notes. The dialogue is excellent and the acting, especially by the four principals who play the Rose family, is brilliant, incomparable. This is absurd comedy at its best.
That it also has a heart becomes obvious only after several episodes, when you begin to see the decency of the failed video magnate Johnny Rose, his egotistical soap opera star wife, Moira, and their immature, vain, spoiled, empty headed (though not dumb) adult children, non-starters David and Alexis. The supporting characters are also comedy gold, from Chris Elliott as Roland, the clueless and self-aggrandizing mayor, Jocelyn, his sweet school teacher wife, Stevie, the motel manager/receptionist who is nobody's fool, Twyla, the waitress at the town's only cafe, Ted, the handsome young veterinarian smitten with Alexis, and the assorted, quirky Town Council members.
There is a sweetness about this show. The Roses, while often -- mostly -- foolish and oblivious, are never mean or intentionally cruel. Beneath their outrageousness, they are a loving family, positive and supportive. Johnny Rose, who is marginally more self aware than the others, is an admirable father and husband, concerned for his family's welfare. You find yourself wanting these people to be happy and glad to celebrate their small successes.
This is a series both funny and, at times, moving. Those who haven't seen it do not know what they are missing.
Acceptable Risk (2017)
Unsure what Acceptable Risk even means......
in this six episode series that could have been done in 3 or 4 with judicious, and welcome, editing. Many scenes are held too long, for no obvious reason, the dialogue in too many scenes repeats information already known or are there simply to re-establish a character's outrage. But this series has bigger problems....such as the writing and the acting. The incomprehensibly convoluted plot includes the FBI in Ireland (really?), the CIA, the Garda, big pharma, buried secrets...as in shades of Philomena...and too many murders. Characters who have presumably made a career of being smart and careful suddenly behave stupidly....because such behavior is necessary to get the story from Point A to Point B. The dialogue doesn't help, nor do the performances, which are mostly one note, without nuance, and tiresome...and the effort to hide the Irish accent in characters supposedly from elsewhere all too apparent. And then there's the wardrobe budget, which must have been non-existent: a main character wears the same mustard yellow coat and sweater in countless scenes, over, one assumes, many days. Waiting for that coat or sweater to appear yet again became more interesting than the mystery. This is a melodramatic and ultimately lame series that is badly written and appears cheaply produced and amateurish. I gave it two points for the many outdoor scenes, which, upon reflection, were probably to save on production costs.
The Sopranos: Made in America (2007)
Interesting finale to a great series......
Not having HBO, I came late to The Sopranos and have just finished watching the Finale. This is a very rich series, well conceived and written, beautifully produced. Great acting throughout by all the cast but Gandolfino's portrayal of Tony Soprano stands out because of the way he and the writers have brought this character along. At first one feels sympathy and understanding for him; his panic attacks, which bring him to Melfi, the psychiatrist (their scenes are my favorite of the series) can be seen as an symptom of his deeply buried conscience. But as the series progresses, you see that he is, in fact, evil, a monster, selfish, egocentric, and just plain mean, who represses every decent impulse he has. But, while the sympathy dissipates, the understanding remains; he's despicable but you understand--mostly--how he got that way.
Some thoughts on the final episode. Others have argued that the abrupt cut to black means Tony has been assassinated. Chase has coyly and cleverly left it so that viewers can have it both ways. They can be, like the Sopranos themselves, deeply deluded and in denial. Or they can see the reality: Tony dies. The clues are many. His and Bobby's conversation about being hit, for one thing, how you never see it coming. Also, the scene in which he awakes in the safe house is very like every wake scene in the series. His head is on a narrow white pillow, exactly the way a body looks in a coffin. We see him from above, the way one views a corpse at a wake. Later, he admonishes Paulie about his fear of death, saying (paraphrasing) "You gotta live your life," which prompts the final scene in the café. He also wears only black throughout the last half of the final episode.
But I don't think the New York mob did it. I think it was his own remaining crew, led by Patsy, probably in cahoots with the New York bunch. Note how Patsy and his wife behave during the scene in the Soprano living room. She is clearly taking in the house, looking up and around at all Carmela's things, and she checks the label on the china plate she's holding. And Patsy is nervous. His son, Jason, is friends with the other Jason, Carlo's son, whose arrest apparently turned Carlo. Patsy has been shown to be ambitious before; he'll never have a better chance to take over, when Tony is at his most vulnerable, his crew decimated. Even if there were anyone in New Jersey to avenge Tony--and who would? Not Paulie, who will probably join them. Certainly not the weak and inept A.J. Meadow, perhaps, if she were a man--Tony's death can be blamed on New York. I think the finale shows that the Soprano era has come to an end. Junior doesn't even remember he was a Soprano or that he "ran northern New Jersey" and Tony will be dead. The song on the jukebox is both true and ironic: "on and on and on and on" is how it will go: on and on, from one boss to another to another and they will all end the same: dead or in jail.
By the way, I think the guy in the café in the baseball cap (some refer to him as a trucker) looked like Martin Sheen. What connection he would have to the show, however, I have no idea.