Change Your Image
mark-4522
Reviews
Das Leben der Anderen (2006)
Both a realistic spy thriller, and absurd, but works.
I didn't live in the GDR, but I have experienced similar crisis of consciousness and it's difficult particularly when the system is designed to make it impossible to resist. The film has many tropes, but they are all excellently done: The spy master, the amoral boss, the noble, handsome playwright, and the pretty actress. The cinematography is first rate. I still struggle to digest the film emotionally, which is a good thing. The cold war, like WWII, was a time of tremendous upheaval and after generations, there's a fear that we'll forget out what happened and how significant it all was particularly as this generation undergoes their own crisis of conscience. When the right thing needs to be done, will you do it? Can you live with yourself?
Regarding entertainment: For the most part, the film delivers. A bit slow in the middle, it happens, but this is necessary for the plot. The characters are all relatable although deliberately obvious, which is actually a good thing and adds to the layering of their actions. There's details abound including the various actions of EVERY character in the film, no matter minor. A wonderful film I could watch again.
I have a dear friend from the GDR who is about to pass away. She might enjoy the film before she moves on.
Ojing-eo geim (2021)
Refreshing take on an old genre
There are probably some people who are shocked that this isn't what they expected but that's what I like about it. It has a distinct Korean flavor with unique sets and costumes throughout the story that tell a tale by themselves. I watched so intently I realized little nuances in later episodes. From the point of view of the characters, there are emotional twists that we, as the audience, can go through if we are willing. Plot holes and contradictions abound, but it's also that way in real life. I know several people who think their thinking is real but from another point of view, they're transparent.
What I'm saying is that if you want to see Hunger Games, there's a film for that but much of this show focuses on character development and emotional journeys.
Why 9 stars? The ending basically trashed the whole journey we, and the main characters, went through. I'd have preferred they just leave the end as is and let our imagination fill in the blanks (or leave for season 2).
A film such as this immerses you in its own universe including Korean life, the strange games, and the creative "business" that the Squid Games themselves comprise including the workers. Did you ever wonder what James Bond's villain's henchmen's lives were like? That ALONE was quite amusing.
Finding Dory (2016)
2040 readers, I warn you to stay away from this!
I feel I MUST write this review even if it's years after release because since Finding Nemo was a classic, someone 2 decades from now, even born as I write this, needs to be warned. Kid, there are so many other worthy films to watch! Don't waste 2 hours of your life!
OK, how to put this: Everything that made Finding Nemo so charming is not in this commercially written fluff hack and it's not original in any way. The best way to judge this film is that if, on its own, would it be worth watching? If you're in love with the original characters and just feel you MUST see them, then by all means, watch whatever nonsense they're in. Let's review what the original film had this this doesn't:
1) Original characters who were all charming in their own right. None of the new characters in FD are interesting. Even the human dentist and his horrid niece in FN had some charm to them. The humans in FD are much like Non-Player-Characters.
2) The original had pacing, character development, timing, humor, and a script that felt like a cohesive story. That's all missing here. The original felt like it was "filmed" by a clever director. The action and dialogue is clunky and worse: BORING.
3) The original felt real. Not only were the graphics immersive but the story itself felt plausible while this is much like a video game with the characters doing things that appear unrealistic. In the original, even an adult could feel like the hilarious events in the film could happen (at least on film) but in this, it's as real as a cartoon. As a cartoon/video game, I felt no connection to the plot.
4) Did I mention BORING? The film spends most of its time in the fish rescue center in different habitats but unlike finding Nemo full of wonder about the ocean and Austrialia, we feel stuck IN A MUSEUM? Don't get me wrong, being in a good museum can be fun but imagine if you were stuck there for hours without an idea of what to do. That's a lot like this film.
My 4 year old enjoyed hearing the characters talk and going from room to room much like I suppose she enjoys watching me play video games. But for me, there was no joy in this film. If you loved the characters, I suppose just having them talk about what they ate for lunch is worth the price of admission.
If you have NOTHING BETTER TO DO in the future, then by all means, watch this. Considering how messed up 2020 has been, perhaps lousy sequels really are the best someone will get out of life by then.
Frozen II (2019)
My daughter loves the songs so gotta give 5/10
The plot for Frozen 2 is a hot mess that appears to have been developed over a writer's table of wish lists: The original Frozen was purely Nordic and this one is more "diverse" even if it's totally forced. The majority of new characters don't feel useful or compelling and this includes most of the animals as well. The original Frozen's Olaf and even secondary characters all had a charm and integral connection to the story that these lack. Much like in Friday the 13th, you wouldn't feel too bad if most of them were killed off (or notice or care.) Hmm, perhaps not the best way to put this for a children's movie, but apt.
The songs are "meh" but there's a LOT more of them than in Frozen and my daughter likes them for her repertoire. The main Elsa song is purely derivative from the original film.
While the plot in Frozen was reasonable cohesive and even clever, this one is forced, confusing, and jumbled and seemed designed to sell merchandise. Frozen Fever and Frozen Christmas were better "sequels" even if as shorts.
Children will love the action and ignore the lousy plot but adults will feel bored at times. I entirely enjoyed Frozen 1 but Frozen 2 could sleep through half of it.
Frozen (2013)
A modern classic, better than most Disney films
Having watched most Disney films as a kid and with my daughter as an adult, I have gripes with many of them. Some of the classics are learned helplessness and unrealistic relationship standards (psychotherapists have made billions from young girls with helpless princess fantasies) and some modern films are "woke" PC garbage (but enough about Frozen 2! :-)
Frozen has a near perfect balance of realism in a plot even though it's fantasy. Most Disney tales involve childhood psychological trauma combined with royal entitlement but yet the characters in this film are relatable and useful for normal people and children to watch. The dialogue is surprisingly lucid and enjoyable to adults and children alike although the trolls can be a bit cringe but that's also part of the charm.
Nearly all of the songs are classics and my daughter can belt them all out.
Another plus in favor is the charm the film has with Nordic culture. I read somewhat that Elsa and Anna are top baby names in that part of the world now.
A 1/2 star taken off because I think the Kristof character could have been a bit better developed.
Jack Reacher (2012)
If you like the movie, you'll love the books more
One of the challenges to adapting a book to a screenplay is that the action descriptions in the book allow detailing how 1 guy can take down 5 others in a street fight. When filmed, the fight may take place in 30 seconds and hits take a half second. In the book, the fight techniques are described in pages of detail.
Another challenge is that although the Jack Reacher books are fun, the villains can be a bit James Bond cartoonish. On screen, "The Zec" appeared forgettable. We ignore this in the book because Reacher's experience is what where the excitement is, but on screen, the script writers should have developed that character more. I cared more for when horny teenagers were knocked off in Friday the 13th than I did for these villains.
Next, the chase sequences in the film were more Mission Impossible than the undercover-vagabond that Jack Reacher is. Tom Cruise is known to be a great car driver, but Jack Reacher rarely gets behind the wheel. The charm of Jack Reacher was lost as the film merged with other Tom Cruise, er, vehicles.
Which leads us to something others have said here: Casting Cruise as Reacher. Reacher's attractiveness to the ladies stems not from James Bond style and charm, but rather raw muscle and height with him being smarter than he looks.
Now that's all the bad news first. The good news is that much of the philosophy of Reacher and his way of thinking was represented in the film, albeit subdued by the action sequences. The story was reasonably well represented. What makes a Reacher novel fun to read is following along with Reacher's mind as he solves the mystery so some of that would be lost in trying to read this novel after seeing the film. But (most) other Reacher novels are of similar quality or better than the source material for this film. So use this film as a gateway to the Jack Reacher universe.
Superman: Red Son (2020)
I liked it. Original and the best kind of trolling.
There's a lot of either intentional or unintentional subtle parody of the DC Universe, feminism, and modern politics. The "Superior Man" appears to be something that Donald Trump would dream up. Loved it!
Also thoughtful in that in this universe, we see both sides of the Soviet and American cultures come unraveled as well as fearful cautionary tales of what a "brainiac" may do in our own present culture with "brain slugs" attached to our heads. Like Futurama, there's lots of insightful material thrown in but it requires being observant.
Some have criticized this film as "woke" but that's rather the point: Is Wonder Woman an "empowered woman" or a man-hating shrew unable to have an (unironic) sense of humor? "Men men men". I was laughing everytime she opened her pretty mouth!
In the post Soviet era, we see that there's still a lot of of trouble in the world. The cold war is over, but is the world a happy place? Are we in this "new world order" utopia as promised in 1992? This alternate universe asks that question and asks us to answer it, if we desire. As a regular film, it's also a fun romp for kids who couldn't care less.
Tangled (2010)
Subtly clever, timeless classic. Will age well.
Tangled wasn't as big a success as Frozen perhaps because while watchable, it didn't pander to what successful Disney films engage in: Fantasy elitism. Even as the films required some sort of quest for the heroine to achieve (or preferably, a dragon for the hero to slaughter), there's a secret desire for kids to never have to grow up and earn a living. Even in this film, Rapunzel lives a pretty easy life in the tower but there are no parties and friends to marvel at her dresses and singing.
What makes this film special is that the villains and heroes, even the rogue, engage in psychology we see in everyday life. The gaslighting performed by the witch should be required viewing for psychology students. The rogue who attempts to dissuade Rapunzel from her quest tries to scare her while it hilariously backfires. It's like the writers were remembering all of their childhoods.
That kind of savvy commentary flies over the heads of most kids (and even many adults) but there's plenty of great music, endearing characters, and solid jokes to keep it moving but not perhaps sell as many toys or get girls excited about a life of leisure on a reality show. It's more healthy, but less addictive. The diet-Frosted Flakes of Disney entertainment.
Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015)
Not as bad as Lucas would have done it
It's no secret that most of Lucas's Star Wars films stank. It's easy to criticize so I'll reveal what I think made "A New Hope", "The Empire Strikes Back" and "Phantom Menace" so great: Great characters and stories were allowed to be themselves. There wasn't a big concern with forcing a story to "fit" into a fan universe. It's fiction. It doesn't have to make perfect sense.
And much of the above logic takes place with Abram's interpretation as well except he had a directive to cast a diverse film. In theory, it could have worked. Look at how Lando's character in The Empire Strikes Back was so good. But again, shoehorning in doesn't work and making a female "grrl power" lead in Ren was boring. Of course she's good at everything she does. She's a girl, right? The Luke Skywalker character started out in the first film as a farmboy who never saw combat. He didn't even throw a punch in the film. Like with Clone Wars, the new cast are largely "red shirts" we care little about as viewers.
Abram's ripped off most of the first film (A New Hope) from the sets to various elements of the plot lines. It's hard to tell if this is a ripoff, a homage, or a coincidence. In some ways, it's rather fun. I counted at least 20 similarities between New Hope and Awakens. What Lucas did better with Phantom Menace was to start out the series somewhat fresh which worked because the story to New Hope he'd have to reconcile with was 15 years off in fictional time. He could be free to let the show "breath". This film can end the series in an unpredictable manner. It's got its own "future". _ALL_ of the characters could die and the "universe" would go on. There's hope (pardon the pun) that the two remaining films can take the plot in a new and creative direction without stealing from the old films or having to reconcile plot holes (and there are a LOT in this one.)
All that said, the special effects and action (which is a huge component to the Star Wars franchise) was pretty good. They were enjoyable and didn't overCGI the viewer. The music and cinematography also was high class. After the novelty of these special effects wore off, it became a challenge to make the audience feel involved in the action and that's largely not a problem with this film. Disney clearly spent a lot of money and spent it well.
Halt and Catch Fire: Ten of Swords (2017)
What is your thing you're trying to get to?
I was reading the first review of this last year of the series and want to balance it out. This is about the episodes leading up to the finale. Usually, a pretty bow is less than satisfying to a series. You feel like they just wrapped up loose ends (and in an inelegant way) or provided a cheap happy ending. This episode doesn't do that. You feel content as the characters where they are but you recognize that their lives are continuing to move forward. The problem is that since they're butting up against modern times, that simply isn't possible with HACF continuing to be a retro series to see what happens.
This wasn't just a technology show. It was "the thing that gets you to the thing". That the technology is about what people do with it. Not just with the technology itself, but how those who develop it impact their own lives. Joe matures during the season from a confused, neurotic genius to someone more at peace. He wanted a child with Cameron and failed but found an adoptive bond with the Clarks' daughter, Hailey. Gordon, a regular Joe (pardon the pun), has seen this business help ruin his marriage but he rebounds to become a strong, wholesome man. This is all in episodes leading up to this finale. But the finale helps put this all into such wonderful perspective. I cried at the last scene because of its powerful reminder that even as all this technology they developed and played with together: The Giant laptop, ham radios, chat rooms, it's all about the people in your life. They are the "thing" that the technology is about getting to.
What made this series so stunning is that despite it being a girl power theme and portraying women in STEM, it doesn't shy away from some of the difficulties that creates. Gordon and Joe ended the series happy. Yes, Gordon died but he was going to do that anyway. His success he pursued made him complete as we see in previous episodes where he's miserable that his original PC project failed. Joe also wanted to make his mark and did. After the Giant was built, they just spun their wheels and repeated different projects and realized that they had "made it" all along. They've "made it". They have the thing. You'll know where Joe's thing is after watching the finale.
As I said, it would be easy to just give a happy ending to everyone but either due to it wanting to be a drama or perhaps just honest writing, the women have a harder time. Donna remains single and mending bridges with her daughters. Cameron is upset that her relationship with Joe is over and has no new prospects on the horizon. Hailey is sort-of gay but in love with the masculine figures of her father Gordon and Joe (teenage boys with pimples just can't compete with such strong father figures). Sure, these gals can program in C and fix a down hard drive but can they get the thing that their thing is getting them to? Do they even know what is the thing they want? Joe struggles with it during the whole show and this finale helps to put to rest that maybe he's found the thing. Gordon found it and died. It's a wonderful philosophical insight that goes beyond retro fun chuckling at 33Kbs dial up connections and "in line graphics" browsers. (Although a lot of that technology is still fun today. Give me retro games anyday).
Yes, HACF was wonderful in that we got to experience the retro period of the 80's where amazing technology was born. I still marvel at it. But it also has a human story and that's wrapped up in this finale. Much like with the Sopranos, I suggest you don't watch this finale before watching any other episodes. It's so much more gratifying to watch the whole series including some of the "slower" episodes. These are real characters I could recognize in the industry (which I'm in.) This series does honor to them and to the modern political issues discussed without pulling ideological punches. So many people struggle to get their "thing" without realizing it's not what they want. This show's finale makes you wonder about your own "thing". And that is why I was so touched at the last moments of it.
Enjoy.
Blade Runner 2049 (2017)
We should have flying cars by now
Spoiler alert, but I think my review will enhance your experience.
I enjoyed much of the film due to little easter eggs such as the actress who plays Cameron in the 80's retro series "Halt and Catch Fire" is a prostitute in a sequel to a film based upon an alternate reality from the 1980's. Irony wrapped in an onion
And note: This is an ALTERNATE universe from the original film that had expected the USSR to still be around and for us to have flying cars by 2010 or so. The director wants us to note this by showing Pan Am advertisements and other retired 1980's brands (Braniff perhaps? Keep a lookout!) The style is similar to that of the original film so if you liked the original film, you'll feel comfortable and in a way, I liked that. Look for appearances from (aged) original cast members from the original film aside from Harrison Ford. The plot rolls along almost exactly like it's predecessor. It's almost as if it was written and conceived a year or so afterwards and put on hold for 34 more
The original film's notion of replicants was not entirely believable but in the introduction text for this one, the story is preposterous: The Nexus series replicants were so dangerous that it caused a civil war resulting in a ban but later lifted when they were made "safe" (similar to Asimov's three laws) and the human bigotry towards "skin jobs" continues even as many humans still live in absolute poverty (including an orphanage utilizing humans as slave labor) and a replicant working as a police officer. Now think about it: If replicants are now operating on Earth because they're so safe, what need is there for human slaves or poverty? And the replicants are apparently not safe since they require continual imprecise oral "base checks" where the replicants now often exercise free will and kill and attack living people.
Asimov is spinning in his grave. "This is not how ANY of this works!!!" he would be saying.
And all of this robotic technology that is just a hair's span away from killing all of humanity overnight is in the hands of a weird Tyrell replacement whose blind, insane and evil and sends out robot minions to beat up people to get what he wants. He apparently thinks that his manufacturing process isn't efficient enough and needs a way to get robots made the, er, old fashioned way.
This does spur a philosophical insight on my part in that even as our society becomes more efficient at manufacturing and information retrieval, the world's elite cries out for more labor even as they engage in massive layoffs at their companies to have a lean workforce. So while the raw message of the film is a bit silly, it can spur insights (at least with me).
Finally, while bladerunner original had many fun, technological devices such as a scanner that could take a photo print and examine it in HD, this film has nothing new that would surprise us. That' s OK because it's a continuation of a film conceived in the mid-80's and helps to keep the style consistent. I wish this had been done with Star Wars. I'm reminded of a sequel to the Fifth Element, one of my favorite films, that was just awful (I wrote a review on that) and this is better at least. These sequels and remarks only serve to remind us of how GOOD the 80's films were (and still are).
Le Cinquième Élément (1997)
Please read before watching DESPITE presence of spoilers
As a public service, I'm reviewing this film 20 years after watching it. There are some negative reviews of this film that need to be rebutted!
At the time this film came out, many didn't "get it". It was a sci-fi action romp that seemed to make no sense with ridiculous characters. A villain who has a southern accent. An absurd idea of 4 elements + a fifth stopping a black hole. Over the top costumes and lines. But it was MEANT to be that way. What came across as silly was French and European movie style. Some don't "get it". Here's how to understand:
In this bright, but dismal world (much like today where you can find beauty mixed in with poverty), there's flying cars, magical machines that make rotisserie chicken out of pellets, makeup applicators you put on your eyes like a sleeping mask, and Chinese food delivered by a guy to your window. Oh, and a cigarette dispenser and a shower that doubles as a refrigerator and closet. It's the journey that was all about fun but it all kind of made sense: Save the world.
The characters were perfectly cast for what they did. Yes, Bruce Willis is obviously typecast as a future cabby/ex-cop but that's what he does well. Leeloo/Jovovich is a supermodel with brains who is simultaneously likable and feminine despite the worst hairdoo ever. The action sequences were good for the time and fun and also had a lot of humor. You even can like the villain Zorg with his interesting take on destruction that ought to be part of an economics class.
There were hundreds of moving parts including Chris Tucker acting with Willis that shouldn't have worked, but did. There was a lot of room to have fun and for those viewers who wanted to have fun, they did. Some didn't. And that's OK.
Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (2017)
Ripoff of The Fifth Element, Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, Avatar and Battlefield Earth. And not as good as any of them.
I feel bad for Luc Besson. The Fifth Element was a pop art masterpiece. He then wasted a hundred million on this mess. Inevitably, since so much of this film is a ripoff of that great film and others, comparisons are inevitable. Here goes:
The Fifth Element, unlike this film, was well cast with actors that had chemistry in their roles, had a bright, fresh palette that was both easy to follow and rich, and French technical inventiveness everywhere you looked. Remember the clever cigarette dispenser in the Fifth Element and the crook who waited outside of Dallas's door peephole with a photo attached to his head? Nothing like that here. All stuff you've seen before. Heavy CGI effects like a dozen video games. And a politically correct plot with Smurfy Avatars. It's hard to care about ANY of these characters.
While the Fifth Element wasn't serious science fiction (which was the charm), it made a certain amount of sense. OK, the Earth, Wind, Water and Fire against an evil force but the logic worked. In this overpriced amateur production, there are black hole sized plot holes everywhere that even a casual viewer would wince at. Spoilers: Launching a spaceship from the center of a massive space colony. (Ever try to launch a model rocket from your basement?) A fake radiation threat perpetrated by a bad guy for his cover-up that's not noticed by ANYONE else in a colony of millions of highly advanced technological species. A cute Avatar iguana that poops super energy pellets (I don't make this up) that is somehow not monetized by a culture that lived in the middle of a galactic war zone. A planet destroyed like Alderaan where the avatars make their escape in a disabled spaceship. Wouldn't the disabled spaceship have also gotten destroyed? The space colony disrupted Earth's gravity yet needed to go on the move. Why not just park it out by Jupiter?
Let's go back to the characters: In the Fifth Element, nearly every character was fun in their own way and thought provoking. Zorg's rationalization for destroying the Earth could be used as a learning tool for college economics classes. The Mondoshawan (dog headed mercenaries) were cute and thuggy. Dallas and Leeloo had chemistry in their roles from their off-screen personae. The serious priest who comes across as everyman. Lines all delivered with amusing timing. Remember when the President tells Dallas that the Earth will be destroyed in an hour and 57 minutes and Dallas says he'll call back in 2 hours? It was so funny and well delivered. The lines in this were all written badly AND delivered badly. I don't want to blame the actors but oftentimes, some actors can push back and deliver the lines or adlib to save a boring role. That didn't happen here.
Finally, a ray of hope: There is still good sci-fi out there. Moon, for example. This genre is not dead. But what makes it great is when someone decides to do their own thing including away from themselves. Sci-fi sequels are rarely as good as the originals. And this film is no exception.
The Leftovers (2014)
A religious experience in
The Leftovers takes no prisoners. It's a strong emotional roller coaster ride nearly every episode. The deeper meaning to the premise is this: In our (real) world, religion is an abstract concept for most of us. The miracles and fire-and-brimstone events occurred thousands of years ago. Aside from death, most of us view religion as a philosophy but not an immediate reality (sort of like global warming). But in this series' universe, everyone on Earth has experienced a Biblical level event: The supernatural disappearance of 2 percent of the world's population. And then after that, nothing. Something could happen tomorrow, or not.
Consider that many people even today are unhinged with NORMAL religions but imagine if there was a genuine religious experience everyone had gone through. How would (or could) the world return to normal? Even as viewers, we don't know if the strange experiences the characters go through are for "real", or due to their own delusions.
A Cure for Wellness (2016)
What they heck did I just watch?
It's technically a spoiler to observe the obvious: You know going into the genre that the hero should probably not hang around a weird hospital to "see what happens" but should call home and then leave. Immediately. The plot holes and "stupid" moments of this film are so numerous that I lost count and found myself enjoying it. We know the head of the institute is a mad scientist so why doesn't the hero see it? Why is the most significant room in the whole place secured with a lock that a shovel can remove in seconds? Why does the mad scientist allow the hero to wander around and get into trouble, again and again and again? Why doesn't anyone EVER investigate a Frankenstein castle-on-a-hill even as wealthy people that are sure to be missed are going there and disappearing? How does such a place exist in modern day Switzerland in the middle of one of the most busy tourist regions in the world? Wouldn't Samantha Brown and her Travel Channel camera crew have stumbled onto this place by now? If you're a hero and just escaped a madhouse, wouldn't you at least go a few villages over before trusting local law enforcement? If you're visiting someone and given a 3 page document to sign, wouldn't at least a few people bother to check out what it says before signing?
Aside from the dozens of plot holes, there's the awkward perverted sexual scenes in the film sure to make audience members wince. I suppose it's like a horror version of 50 Shades of Grey where the viewer will be ashamed to admit they watched the scenes and perhaps that's part of the appeal?
All of this combined made the moviegoers I watched this with laugh as they were thinking: "What the heck did I just watch?" Perhaps that was the point in which case, Bravo!
Airport Security: Colombia (2015)
Pity this only ran for one season
I'm a traveler and love shows about airports and this one doesn't disappoint. This is basically COPS for airports and being Columbia, most of the busts are over drugs. I'm (pleasantly) surprised that the airport is so modern and makes me want to pay Columbia a visit. Their airport is better run than most American airports. I wish the other seasons of the original show were translated into English. Good camera work making one suspicious it may be staged but I don't see any sign otherwise that the human drama is less than real and compelling. Also, it's very impressive how smart these airport narco agents are and thorough. In the very least, it makes me realize just how much space there is in a bag after all!
Sem nevest efreytora Zbrueva (1971)
A heartwarming Soviet date movie
Many Soviet films were heartwarming and apolitical. This could have just as easily been a heartwarming romcom made in the states (perhaps it was back in the 1940's or 1950's and I missed it). Being Soviet/Russian, the humor is subtle and sometimes there's more going on than meets the eye or something happens and before you have time to consider it, the plot has quickly moved on.
A soldier arranges for 7 girls each with something different to offer to meet him along the railway. There are different elements of Soviet life portrayed in each meeting. One is at a university, another is in a big city and another in the countryside. Americans would call this a "road trip" film. It's sad that in the states, there's not much to enjoy about riding the rails but even now in Russia and Europe, it's possible to see a lot of the world without needing to get into a car.
As a man, watching the film is amusing because the protagonist throws away relationships with wonderful women simply to move onto the next big thing meaning you hate and love the guy at different times but you never take anything too seriously.
Elysium (2013)
Imagine a liberal screenwriter has a nightmare and put it on film
Whenever a film has obvious political overtones, the plot suffers because the writers and actors develop a kind of emotional and creative rigor mortis. Spoiler alert: I must summarize the plot to explain my position. The draft written up is this: Evil white male elites are so separated from humanity, they must live in a space station. Everyone there is white and evil except for an Indian president. The hero, Matt Damon though, is white (of course) because Hollywood leftists, also white, don't want to view themselves as entirely bad and this film won't sell to ignorant action movie audiences if the hero isn't white. This is probably what was said over the initial screenplay writing table.
Jodie Foster needs to be believable as an evil white woman security director but she can't humanize the role (since she has no empathy with it) so it falls flat. Bad acting. She should have taken lessons from Sir Anthony Hopkins who humanized Hannibal. Other apartheid villains are also stereotypical due to limited emotional ability for the actors or writers to see past their ideological blinders. The droids seemed to have more emotion than the bad guys who just couldn't read their horrible lines (as they saw them.) Compare and contrast to Archie Bunker who was portrayed by a leftist. Carol O'Conner humanized a working class bigot into a national icon.
It's hilarious that the film is so PC, that the evil guys have to stop "undocumented" flights from entering their airspace. Why not say "unauthorized?" They want to make the point: The evil future world is run by Republicans who use leftist terminology!
Others have pointed out the numerous plot holes and logical inconsistencies that just don't work. Like a computer program determining whose "citizens" (sort of Logan's Run there) and also, storing stuff in people's brains? Ever hear of Johnny Mnemonic?
(Side observations: The cybernetic implants for Damon and others went over their clothes including bolted in. How do these guys change their underwear? Do they have to painfully bolt out of these outfits?)
The actors and writers didn't consider that this future revealed the nihilism of their own politics: After a world becomes overpopulated and the USA's borders are wide open, instead of Swedish paradise for all, the white elite would just go up into space (with an Indian president, of course) and continue to oppress everyone. There is no end to white privilege. Ever. How long would Elysium last as a Malibu paradise after a million shuttles land and make it into East L.A.? Is Jodie Foster opening up HER mansion doors to the great unwashed? (Funny google: I looked it up and she does have an actual mansion and values her "privacy". I guess she'll probably reserve her slot on Elysium in advance!)
For that reason, and that reason alone, I give this 6 stars. Savor the limousine liberal hypocrisy like a fine wine.
The Discoverers (2012)
Watch Sideways rather than this
I'm sure I'm not the only one who observes this, but this feels like a ripoff of Sideways. Ironically, the story is about a failed author whose angry about another writer beating him to the punch in putting out a bestseller which is precisely what happened here. Even if this had come out first, I still think Sideways would be better. This film makes me want to watch Sideways again. I wonder if it is a ripoff, or just an awful coincidence that the two are so similar but this one is inferior. Let's start with what made Sideways so much better:
The star of Sideways was the California wine experience that could have been written by the tourism board. All the drama the characters were going through revolved around the charm of the Northern California wine tasting experience. The characters and their backstories remained charming by remaining in the background. The subtle twists and turns of the story were delivered with an element of surprise that made it a thoughtful, adult film that despite not being an action film, didn't bore. The moments of sadness when Miles goes into a whiny depression are immediately offset by the beauty of the scenery and on-screen wine, or should I say, "whine" binges. Like Miles, we could drown our sorrows in some fermented grape juice even if vicariously.
In the case of Discoverers, the Americana charm of re-enactments, which deserves a fine documentary or movie storytale is sadly shoved in the background for the father-son-reconciliation, sullen teenage politically correct daughter, and formulaic romance. Similar elements were in Sideways but being more subtly addressed and centering around the characters' mutual appreciation of wine and nature, generated a holistic binding between the characters and the scenery.
There are neat parallels between where the character of Lewis loses his temper over his failed novel in a store and in Sideways where Miles loses his mind during a wine tasting after finding out about his novel. It's hard to put my finger on it, but one feels robotic while the other is engaging. Perhaps with some fine tuning of the writing, directing, and acting it could have worked. That's the tragedy of it. I think if the Nell and Patti characters had remained in re-enactment character and drawn us into that universe, it could have been a surprise hit and Sideways would look second best in comparison.
I watched more of this film than I liked because of Cara Buono, Madeleine Martin, and Ann Dowd who are knockouts. If they're in a re-enactment, I'm GOING!
Bottom line: If you haven't seen Sideways, perhaps watch this and then watch Sideways and you'll like it even more. Perhaps you'll even like this one too in seeing what could have been.
Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015)
Not as bad as Lucas would have done it
It's no secret that most of Lucas's Star Wars films stank. It's easy to criticize so I'll reveal what I think made "A New Hope", "The Empire Strikes Back" and "Phantom Menace" so great: Great characters and stories were allowed to be themselves. There wasn't a big concern with forcing a story to "fit" into a fan universe. It's fiction. It doesn't have to make perfect sense.
And much of the above logic takes place with Abram's interpretation as well except he had a directive to cast a diverse film. In theory, it could have worked. Look at how Lando's character in The Empire Strikes Back was so good. But again, shoehorning in doesn't work and making a female "grrl power" lead in Ren was boring. Of course she's good at everything she does. She's a girl, right? The Luke Skywalker character started out in the first film as a farmboy who never saw combat. He didn't even throw a punch in the film. Like with Clone Wars, the new cast are largely "red shirts" we care little about as viewers.
Abram's ripped off most of the first film (A New Hope) from the sets to various elements of the plot lines. It's hard to tell if this is a ripoff, a homage, or a coincidence. In some ways, it's rather fun. I counted at least 20 similarities between New Hope and Awakens. What Lucas did better with Phantom Menace was to start out the series somewhat fresh which worked because the story to New Hope he'd have to reconcile with was 15 years off in fictional time. He could be free to let the show "breath". This film can end the series in an unpredictable manner. It's got its own "future". _ALL_ of the characters could die and the "universe" would go on. There's hope (pardon the pun) that the two remaining films can take the plot in a new and creative direction without stealing from the old films or having to reconcile plot holes (and there are a LOT in this one.)
All that said, the special effects and action (which is a huge component to the Star Wars franchise) was pretty good. They were enjoyable and didn't overCGI the viewer. The music and cinematography also was high class. After the novelty of these special effects wore off, it became a challenge to make the audience feel involved in the action and that's largely not a problem with this film. Disney clearly spent a lot of money and spent it well.
The Man Who Would Be King (1975)
What? No Oscar?
Nominated for 4 Oscars yet winning none it's shocking it didn't get nominated for more. Michael Caine's performance was stunning as a best friend who stays with his comrade no matter what.
This is the ultimate of buddy, road-trip films similar to Easy Rider or Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. You're supposed to enjoy the ride even if there's foreshadowing that things don't end right. At the same time, there's a Doctor Zhivago aspect of a grand epic. The scenery is stunning as is the whole scope of the film. In Doctor Zhivago, you know from the beginning how the tale ends and you almost forget it because of 3 hours of grand (although sad) story. In this one, the two hours seem to fly by. The jokes and clever human insights are thrown out, at several levels (both vaudeville as well as more subtle) faster than than you can follow along or laugh.
The material is wonderfully unPC by today's standards and consequently, a few (few) reviewers were turned off by it but simultaneously, it was a film of it's times (the 1960's, the late Victorian era, and even the cultures portrayed in the film) that you feel immersed and drawn in. This Is An Epic Film. Like life, sometimes we are too busy having a good time, or not, to stop and smell the roses. You can do that after a 2nd viewing which I guarantee you'll want to have.
Idiocracy (2006)
Under-appreciated, like a lot of Judge products
Beavis and Butthead. Office Space. King of the Hill. Some people love them all. Some like a few of them. They are all witty, biting, current satire that can be appreciated at multiple levels. Sometimes there are 3 jokes told at the same time. As Peggy Hill put it: "I learned one thing in summer swim class: You cannot save a drowning man!"
This film was poorly marketed and released and it's a pity. It's genius and hilarious and has a ton of inside jokes you have to watch for. Like with Beavis and Butthead, the crudity is not meant to be funny on it's surface but rather from looking deeper. B&B were funny because we all knew kids like that in High School and as adults, looking back at them is sad but simultaneously, they were happy with their bleak future because they were too stupid to know better.
And that's what Idiocracy is all about. Beavis and Butthead as a future. And if you don't laugh, you'll be scared because there's a lot of intellectual caution expressed in this tale. A lot of smart people don't want to have children so it begs the question: What will the future be like? It's a political question that many are afraid to address. There was even a huge debate about it between Larry Niven & Isaac Asiniov. This movie is based upon a short story by CM Kornbluth: The Marching Morons. But that story was bleak while this one is funny. In multiple ways.
The humor is evident in that this bleak future is already partly here. As other reviewers observed, as you leave the theater, it's almost as if the idiots in the film wrote the advertisements in the Mall. Folks who don't think this is funny are, ironically, too "dumb" to get it. Folks who are REALLY dumb, will laugh, but for different reasons. That's the genius. It's also the genius behind B&B. How smart you are is determined by how many things you find to laugh about.
I could really use a Starbucks right now...
Jodorowsky's Dune (2013)
Makes you imagine as if you had seen the film
I love good documentaries and this is one of them but one thing to keep in mind about most of them is their need to steer and corral you into a point of view. The point of view of this one is that Jodorowsky's Dune wasn't made because of inflexibility and lack of vision by the Hollywood studio machine.
The film ended with me thinking that was an unfair judgment. Two key factors would kill this film even today: One was the demand by Jodorowsky that the film be 15 hours. Imagine if the original Star Wars trilogy was made all at once into a 6 hour film. We'd certainly enjoy it but would many 13 year olds who fell in love with the first film be able to handle sitting for 6 hours straight even with an intermission? Also, three movies made 3 times more money than one.
This film COULD have gotten made! If Jodorowsky started out from the Planet Caladan and ended on Arrakis just after the Baron had killed Duke Leto and Paul had escaped, for instance. The budget would have been reduced and even if Hollywood had rejected it, he could have filmed from a private investor (no doubt Salvador Dali and Orson Welles could have made some phone calls) In the end, ironically, the studio execs were right: Jodorowsky simply wasn't practical enough of a director to get the film cut. He was ingenious in negotiating and compromising with the biggest egos of all time including literally Orson Welles and Dali but couldn't figure out a way to make this project viable to a simple minded Hollywood exec? His genius could have manipulated such a simple mind if he had allowed himself to.
So it's thoughts like that which make this documentary into one of the best thoughtful experiences ever. Even if you disagree with my conclusion, the vision of what this film could have been, and why it wasn't, is as engaging as any of the three Star Wars "prequel" films. What I think the film could have been like is a 100 times better than what Lynch's Dune turned out to be.
That Gal... Who Was in That Thing: That Guy 2 (2015)
If you want to hear stuff you already know, this is the documentary for you
It's inevitable that a "sequel" has to be compared to the original even if it's about a relatively different theme (actresses versus actors.) "That Guy" was an honest and refreshing look at the life that an actor goes through in the industry both positive and negative without much emphasis on gender issues. Heck, I can't think of a single instance in which what a man might go through as an actor was discussed (for example, how does a male character actor go through periods of unemployment with this dating life in a city where appearance of affluence is everything?) With "That Gal", it was almost entirely about feminist issues. Not to say they aren't valid or useful especially to the context of what women go through in the industry but a lot of the issues are well known by now (cosmetic surgery, ageism, etc.) These are interesting women but sadly hearing them chat across a dinner table like on the View made me fast forward through segments On Demand.
Granted, sequels have a problem in the best original material has already been mined for the original so the writers either need to dig deep or go with a new theme and they did the latter. Also missing from the sequel I would have liked was the way in the original they explained "where are they now" about each of the actors at the end. I actually shed a tear for the actor who had passed away between filming and release in the Guy's version.
Ironically, the theme of the film that Hollywood is sexist and typecasts women was a flaw precisely with this documentary. Rather than being about women who are actors, it became about stereotypical women's issues as actors. With Guys, I felt like I was getting an inside look into what the actors thought. With Gals, it was like I was getting something they thought the producers might want to hear. Pity.
Fried Green Tomatoes (1991)
Typically Politically Correct Hollywood Propaganda
Here's the real summary of the film: The story is a flashback about two women, a butch feminist rescuing a "femme", helpless woman from her racist, abusive Southern husband (is there any other kind?) She kills the husband and feeds the body to unwitting, stupid Southerners as BBQ. haha! Jokes on those stupid Southerners! Happy ending for Hollywood. During the film, the women grow together with grrl power and start their own business (because that's the path to feminine empowerment) and befriend weak men they are able to use to help make them more powerful.
If you liked this, then you'll love Thelma and Louise which is a similar type of grrl power film. Another film with a similar theme is the Emma Stone vehicle The Help which features African servants spilling the secrets of privileged white Southern women (which I found funny in retrospect because when Hollywood stars got hacked and had their nude pictures posted on the web, they got all upset about the invasion of privacy.)
These films are useful to watch to see the contempt Hollywood has for the working class people that keep them fat and happy.