Change Your Image
holistic-5
Reviews
Everest (2015)
Wealthy/unlikeable vs Everest. How is this the first major motion picture about an Everest ascent?
First the good: The film had many captivating scenes of high alpine environs. The film makers did a good job portraying the rigors of contemporary mountain climbing, even if most of the high alpine footage was actually filmed 10,000 feet lower than suggested in the film.
Now the bad: The characters in the film were utterly unlikeable. These folks were no Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay let alone Charles Bruce and George Mallory. Unlike early climbers, these TOURISTS had all the amenities they could dream of: lots of technical and logistical support, pre-set paths, experienced guides, etc. etc. How heroic is that? Furthermore they were all full of pomp and attitude, especially the men. The line "100% Texan, here" still rings painfully in my ears. I found myself rooting against the men on several occasions, especially near the end.
Now to address the elephant in the room. HOW IS IT THAT THE FIRST MAJOR FILM ABOUT AN ASCENT TO EVEREST WAS ABOUT THESE IDIOTS?
Please, somebody, make a proper film about climbing Everest, such as the ill- fated 1924 British Everest expedition. These were REAL explorers, not the guided tourists from this pathetic film. There is even wide speculation that the 1924 climbers, Bruce and Mallory, were actually the first to reach the summit, something films like to explore. They didn't have much technical and logistical support, and were reliant on early 20th century technology. Unlike the characters in this film, their story is actually interesting.
Back in the Day (2014)
Elitist rubbish for the middle class
I couldn't make it through this film, turned it off after 30 painful minutes.
Stereotypes run rampant through the film. The "average" guys are hardly average, they are glorified in all their mediocrity. Nobody in this film seems real. Even the film score is painful, hardly representing music from the early 90s.
The humor in this film is dull, really it is more for "successful" folks to laugh at the losers they knew in high school. Basically it is the writers' wet dream of going to their high school reunion to laugh at all those poor sobs who didn't have the opportunity to make it to the middle class. Shame on you.
The acting is woeful, the leads are basically movie stars trying to pretend to be normal Americans. What a joke.
None of the main characters are likable, unless you can really relate with them, in which case, I just feel sorry for you. Don't waste your time with this one.
13 Sins (2014)
Hidden gem, surprisingly deep
This film was great! It hooked me from the start and kept me entertained from start to finish. Good acting, an interesting and fresh premise, a strong and well-paced plot, and a satisfying ending. Better yet this film has real depth, and it all comes together very nicely at the end. A thought-provoking film, to be sure.
At one level this film is about how everyone is (potentially) a monster, if enough is at stake. At another level, It's about the conflict between community/family and the individual. Would you forsake your community and/or family for personal riches? This film asks that very question. Definitely worth the price of a rental, you won't be disappointed!
Gravity (2013)
Great film, don't listen to the wannabe geeks and hipsters
1. how many self-proclaimed geeks have attacked this movie with flimsy arguments about the science behind it. They must have hated "2001: A Space Odyssey" and just about every film set in space ever. Note to self: Never listen to a self-proclaimed geek when it comes to movies.
2. A number of hipsters have submitted reviews critiques that criticize the plot or dialogue. What did they expect? A conspiracy? Wow people have really lost touch with the meaning of survival in this post-modern era. One reviewer complained "CSS doesn't exist", to which I say, nor did the USS Enterprise (Star Trek), or the Discovery 1 (2001). At least the CSS is actually in the works in the rel world. Reviewers who don't understand the concept of FICTION probably shouldn't be making them about fiction films.
The movie was spectacular. First, the physics of zero-gravity and space travel were spot on; probably the best ever on screen. Second, the plot was moving...not because there were conspiracies or fantasy elements, but because it was more about human survival and perseverance in the most inhospitable environment known to man. Bullock was surprisingly good out of her normal role as a romantic interest of some rich New Yorker. Clooney was both firm (as a mission commander) and comical (as a human) which helped the film get going and, in a wise move by the director, his role was surprisingly short in the film, dampening any negative aspects of his character. While perhaps not perfect, this film was damn close. 9/10
The Walking Dead (2010)
Interesting idea full of plot holes and lacking real dystopian themes
Okay so I like zombie apocalypse stories, usually. As far as the zombies go, it's not a bad show. However, major plot holes make me cringe in almost every episode. In the first season, it was discovered that to avoid being detected by zombies, the characters needed to smear themselves with dead zombie guts since, it is presumed, the zombies can tell they are alive by smell. Then, in the next season, the group of travelers manage to avoid a whole "herd" of zombies by merely crawling under cars and remaining silent. Huh? What happened to the smell thing? Then there is the transmission of zombie-ness: a bite or scratch will do it, but not being smeared with zombie guts. Hmmm. Finally, I live near Atlanta, GA where the whole thing is set, and in the show it NEVER rains except when it is needed to wash zombie guts off of the people who were using them to blend in. Maybe zombies can only smell you after it rains? There are trees and green foliage everywhere, but the climate is apparently a desert. But not a very hot desert. Occasionally, characters are seen sweating, but as a resident of the unbearably hot southeast, it is hard to stay dry going from the front door to the car in the driveway! What? Okay, so maybe the first three seasons happen during a rare mild spell of weather. That means that these 3 seasons occur over a period of like 10 days. It feels more like 3 weeks, but this is way too slow of pace, in my opinion. The point of apocalyptic stories is that civilization has crumbled, and while the conflict with zombies has merit, the battle with nature should be equally prominent. But these folks apparently live in an idyllic place where it is never too hot, never too cold or wet, and well, if that is the case, who needs civilization anyway? For me this undermines the dystopian themes that it tries so hard to convey, crucial to this kind of story, in my opinion.
The Walking Dead: Days Gone Bye (2010)
Interesting idea full of plot holes
Okay so I like zombie apocalypse stories, usually. As far as the zombies go, it's not a bad show. However, major plot holes make me cringe in almost every episode. In the first season, it was discovered that to avoid being detected by zombies, the characters needed to smear themselves with dead zombie guts since, it is presumed, the zombies can tell they are alive by smell. Then, in the next season, the group of travelers manage to avoid a whole "herd" of zombies by merely crawling under cars and remaining silent. Huh? What happened to the smell thing? Then there is the transmission of zombie-ness: a bite or scratch will do it, but not being smeared with zombie guts. Hmmm. Finally, I live near Atlanta, GA where the whole thing is set, and in the show it NEVER rains except when it is needed to wash zombie guts off of the people who were using them to blend in. Maybe zombies can only smell you after it rains? There are trees and green foliage everywhere, but the climate is apparently a desert. But not a very hot desert. Occasionally, characters are seen sweating, but as a resident of the unbearably hot southeast, it is hard to stay dry going from the front door to the car in the driveway! What? Okay, so maybe the first three seasons happen during a rare mild spell of weather. That means that these 3 seasons occur over a period of like 10 days. It feels more like 3 weeks, but this is way too slow of pace, in my opinion. The point of apocalyptic stories is that civilization has crumbled, and while the conflict with zombies has merit, the battle with nature should be equally prominent. But these folks apparently live in an idyllic place where it is never too hot, never too cold or wet, and well, if that is the case, who needs civilization anyway? For me this undermines the dystopian themes that it tries so hard to convey, crucial to this kind of story, in my opinion.
The Big Bang Theory (2007)
Highly educated doesn't equal smart
It's really hard to believe how this show made it past season 2. Sure there are funny moments from time to time, but upon reflection, these tend to be moments of childishness - these guys act like they're still in grade school so often that it makes them loose credibility as "smart people". They are so culturally insensitive, so unaware about the world outside of their little bubbles in their ivory tower, it makes me wonder how they ever got past college in the first place (after all, you can't graduate with nothing but math and hard science classes, thank goodness). The environment, the economy, politics? These are all foreign terms to the characters in the show. Highly educated and specialized is not the same as smart.
As far as the characters go, how does a rude jerk like Sheldon avoid being slapped, if not beaten up, at least once per season? Intelligent people pay attention to the world around them, but these characters are SO self-absorbed that they become unlikeable within a few episodes. If you want to see a funny show about geeks, I'd recommend "Freaks and Geeks" since it at least acknowledges the wider world...and they don't pretend to be adults.
All in all, the characters are very one-dimensional and shallow. I don't see how even a character like Leonard could hold a relationship with a "normal" person. Ironically it reminds me of the William Shatner song "Common People". Sorry guys but: "You'll never live like common people! You'll never do whatever common people do! You'll never fail like common people! You'll never watch your life slide out of view, and dance, and drink, and screw! Because there's nothing else to do!"
For a show to succeed, the audience needs to be able to relate with the characters. So how, exactly, does this show garner an 8+ rating here? Maybe people watch it just for the opening song, easily the best part of the whole show.
Country Strong (2010)
Pop country strong: an oxymoron
This film is poor, but not awful. The acting is decent, but the storyline is unbelievable. Paltrow's character acts like a Johnny Cash type figure, with lots of flaws that disappear on stage. But what doesn't fit is her hard times with her painfully mainstream music. Any musician or artist in general would know that really good music/art comes from pain, and the music is far from good, it's POP. Maybe once, many years ago when mainstream country music was GOOD, it was pop(ular), and it featured many musicians who struggled with their past, with drugs and alcohol, with crime and alas, that's what made it good. This film paradoxically combines the darkness of country stars of old with the tepid music of Nashville country stars today. There goes any believability. No, this is a pop country music fan's fantasy film. SO if you're one of those, you'll like the movie on its mythological basis alone. If you're a fan of dark, edgy country in the "outlaw" or Alt-country veins, you'll see right through the film's fallacies before the trailer ends.
Rear Window (1954)
Feeding McCarthyism
While the predictable plot, agonizingly slow pace, and excessive dialog weighed heavily against this so-called "classic", apparently Hitchcock was feeding the baseless flames of McCarthyism with this film. I bet a million housewives left the film thinking "I bet I'm right about my neighbor..." or "as a good citizen, I should keep an eye on mine". Blatantly, Hitchcock was glorifying voyeurism and exploiting contemporary fears.
The only reason I can figure why this movie has such extremely high ratings is that people are (still) really afraid of what their neighbors might be up to (greatly renewed post-9/11), are proud voyeurs themselves, or are simply lobotomized.