Change Your Image
aserpentperplexed
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
A Haunting in Venice (2023)
Original But Middling Poirot Tale That Had Potential
First of all, I want to say that I was a fan of the first two Kenneth Brannagh Poirot movies. Even though his version of Poirot is very different from the book Poirot, the mysteries themselves and the way he added backstory to his version of Poirot held my interest in the previous installments.
I also want to say that while I've never read the book this is based on (Hallowe'en Party) I had seen the "Agatha Christie's Potion" TV adaptation and enjoyed it. Since I had seen that version and knew this version was going to be very different based on the setting and title change, I was excited to see a new original Poirot story!
Overall I left feeling this new story was just okay. It truly was different in many ways, some characters have the same names as characters in the original, but besides that everything is different, which is what I was hoping for! But the problem is the story doesn't feel as suspenseful or intriguing as the original story or the previous two movies.
I think the first big issue is the characters. I feel all of the characters in this movie weren't given as much depth, personality, charm (or lack thereof) as they needed, INCLUDING POIROT!!! One of the things I liked about the previous movies was adding interesting backstory to Poirot, and how he seemed to change and grow between movies. Yes it was silly sometimes, but it was at least interesting! This movie doesn't add anything to Poirot really, and the only thing carried over from the previous movie was him retiring. But what about his fling with Salome Otter Bourne from the previous movie? What about him shaving his moustache to symbolize his moving on from his past love? This movie is set ten years later, and basically ignores all of that from the previous movie! The acting itself was fine, but I was disappointed overall.
The other thing is even though I didn't know how the murder was committed before Poirot explained it, I had figured out whodunnit long before that moment. The how was interesting and not super predictable, but the who was obvious just from the way the movie was shot.
The camera work in this movie was also odd. They kept zooming in on seemingly random corners of the room, and a lot of obvious Go-Pro shots from Poriot's head as he looked around. I think it was meant to give you a feeling of clasutrophobia, but it didn't feel like that, it just felt like "huh? Why did they zoom in there?". It also sucks because if you're going to set it in Venice, it would have been cool to get a lot of cool shots of Venice and the city and the culture! That's something I loved about the previous two movies, especially Death on the Nile. But there's only a little of this at the beginning of the movie, and the rest is inside. The camera work doesn't make the film feel clasutrophobic, it makes it feel like they had an extremely small set to work with.
This relates to another aspect of the film: they tried to sort of give this movie a horror film feel, since it takes place at Halloween time. I was excited for this because it's something that Poirot films have never really tried to do before, and they named the movie "A Haunting in Venice" for Christ sakes. The horror aspect felt kind of half-hearted, they didn't want to go too horror but it might have been better if they had idk. It did keep me guessing, which is good, but it wasn't scary enough and relied mostly on jump scares with little suspense or buildup. I think this is why the camera work is weird, it is meant to make you feel clasutrophobic and uneasy, but it really wasn't done well enough.
To summarize: I liked the originality in the story, the acting, and the ways in which they tried to do something different with a Poirot story. But the camera work, lack of characterization, and predictability of whodunnit holds it back.
The Whale (2022)
A Very Good Story Tainted by Weight Voyerism
First of all, the story of this movie is tragic, emotional, complex, and really well done. The performances by all of the actors are excellent, they really sell every scene and paint a picture of a very flawed man trying to do some good in the world. It touches on so many themes in a way that feels very natural, grounded, and realistic. Themes of loss, depression, religion, rebellion, honesty, conformity, sexuality, empathy, and self actualization are woven into a tapestry that never feels overly complex. Overall it is a very good movie.
That being said, all of the points this movie lost from me concern the way it handled one of these themes much more than any of the others by themselves: obesity. The movie had such a strong emphasis on empathizing with all of the characters in the story in spite of their flaws, but really dropped the ball in my opinion when it comes to the way it tests the protagonist's weight. There are so many themes and issues that this movie deals with beautifully, but the portrayal of obesity is inconsist, voyeuristic, and is emphasized way too much. It feels dehumanizing to have every single action taken in your home to have sad music playing and zooming in on the feet. HE HAD SO MANY OTHER REASONS TO BE DEPRESSED, THEY DID NOT NEED TO FOCUS ON HIS WEIGHT LIKE IS THE ONLY ORIGIN HE HAS!
Winnie the Pooh: A Very Merry Pooh Year (2002)
Holiday Cheer Hampered by Budget Cuts
It's obvious watching this movie that they had a much smaller budget than in other Winnie the Pooh movies, even compared to the other direct to VHS movies. They reuse clips from a decade older Winnie the Pooh Christmas special, and the new animated story they are trying to tell is pretty ROUGH to say the least.
That being said, the movie starts with one of these newly animated sections, and it's fine.
Unfortunately it serves as an introduction to the first half of the movie, where they heavily reuse old clips from "Winnie the Pooh and Christmas Too" from 1991. These segments are obviously older, but at the same time it's clear that more time and effort was put in to animating them. However they are edited together in a way that is a little confusing and removes a lot context and charm from the original. It also doesn't really match the tone or flow of the rest of this movie, but that has more to do with how the new sections were animated than any fault of the original movie.
I grew up watching "Winnie the Pooh and Christmas Too" and would recommend skipping this new movie entirely and watching the original; except the original is a bit hard to find if you don't already have it on VHS (and have a VHS player still). While this new movie is on Disney+, as of writing this "Winnie the Pooh and Christmas Too" is only available for rent on YouTube or Amazon Prime Video. If you are willing to pay $3.99 or have the original through some other means, then I highly recommend checking that movie out, it was done better there.
The rest of the movie consists of a newly animated story that moves on from Christmas and focuses on New Years and New Years resolutions. Christopher Robin tells Pooh about New Year's resolutions, and wants to throw a New Year's party. Pooh decides to invite himself over the Rabbit's place to snack on some honey and ask Rabbit if it's okay to have the New Year's party at his place. When Piglet, Tigger, and Eeyore show up, Pooh tells them there's a party, even though he had yet to tell Rabbit this until that very moment. Of course they trash the place and, Rabbit scolds them all and decides to leave the Hundred Acre Wood. Pooh, Piglet, Eeyore, and Tigger all then make New Year's resolutions to change in order to please Rabbit: Pooh will never eat honey again, Piglet will never be scared again (now sure why Rabbit is so upset a Piglet tbh but alright), Eeyore will always be cheerful, and Tigger will never bounce again. You can guess where the story goes from there and the lesson about not changing who you are too much just for others.
Immediately the payoff of what was set up in the intro to the entire movie is tonally just off. They break out into two separate original songs, when "Winnie the Pooh and Christmas Too" had exactly 0 songs. There are also more original songs to come later, and none of them last for very long or are particularly good. Pooh's characterization is also different from the original: he forgets where he hid Piglet's Christmas present and searches for it for a whole week before forgetting about it. He has always been a bit absent minded and honey hungry, but they push it to an extreme that just doesn't feel right for his character. And when the characters have to change who they are for their New Year's resolutions, it feels a bit forced. For some reason it can't just be "Tigger isn't happy if he can't bounce", or "Piglet can get into danger if he isn't afraid of anything" it becomes "Tigger acts like Piglet without his bounce, and Piglet acts like Tigger when he's no longer afraid". Similarly Pooh and Eeyore are portrayed as counterparts,
: Pooh becomes sad like Eeyore without honey, and Eeyore eats honey, stands on two legs, and wears a shirt like Pooh when he's trying to be happy? Not going to lie, "cheerful Eeyore" is unsettling, it's scarier than a number of horror movies I've seen.
I think the idea could have worked better in concept, but the execution did not work. A lot of that has to do with the animation of the new sections, which is cheap looking and removes a lot of the charm of these characters. The characters feel like they are disconnected from the background they inhabit, like they are paper cutouts over a static backgrounds. At times you can tell where character models have sections that don't move and sections that willove as the movie parts are colored differently than the static parts. It's definitely not the worst animation I've ever seen or anything, but it's the type of animation that screams "HELP!!! We are the animators, and we need more staff, more money, more time to work on this, something! Please help!". I can feel the crunch time they were put through through the animation.
I also think the juxtaposition of what is essentially two separate movies smashed together here is also what makes this all a bit jarring. I suspect though that I wouldn't be complaining as much here if instead this New Years segment was allowed to be it's own 30 minute special, instead of being smashed together into an hour long double feature. I think if there had been one New Year's special which started off with emphasizing Pooh, Piglet, Eeyore, and Tigger's flaws right off the bat, when Rabbit scolds them and they make their resolutions it wouldn't feel so off. The Pooh and friends in "Winnie the Pooh and Christmas Too" are much more benign and their character traits less extreme, to the point where it feels odd alongside their behavior in the new segments.
That being said, there are things I like about this movie. The New Year's concept is unique, not a topic that a whole lot of children's animated movies usually cover. Some of the charm still manages to come through, despite their best efforts. And I think the lessons that it is trying to teach (first half: the effort we put into our friends/loved ones is the best gift of all; second half: don't try to change for other people, only change for yourself) are good lessons for kids to learn. Overall, I gave this movie a five not because it's a egregiously terrible movie, but because the two stories forced together in this movie should be split right down the middle (just like 5 is 10 split down the middle)
Reminiscence (2021)
Blade Runner with an Unhealthy Dose of Cheeeeese!
Clearly in some ways inspired by Blade Runner, in the sense that it is a Neo Noir film set in a not too distant dystopic future earth and has some interesting philosophical points to make. It's more like the original version of Blade Runner rather than the director's cut, in that there is an annoying voiceover narration from the protagonist (Hugh Jackman) which attempts to explain every single thing the movie should be telling us without narration. This voiceover has the same probably as the voiceover in the original versions of Blade Runner: SHOW DON'T TELL. A lot of symbolic significance to the various scenes that one should be able to glean from just watching the movie are explained to us by a Hugh Jackman narration as if we are kindergartners who haven't been taught what symbolism is yet.
In this case, rather than the topic of what makes a person a person and reckoning with your own mortality, this movie has some points to make about memories, and how we revisit them (both literally and figuratively), and the addictiveness of living in the past. I would say that there's a message about Climate Change as well, but that mostly just informs the setting and while the concept is brought up multiple times the main plot of this movie would be identical if climate change hadn't flooded Florida.
One could also make the argument that this movie is about drug addiction, both in that there are literal drugs being abused in the movie and this drug like memory device that enable people to be addicted to re-experiencing their past. However, I don't want to think about that too hard because if the memory tank is an addiction, then Hugh Jackman *spoilers* decided he wanted to overdose himself until he's dead, which I don't think is a very well-thought-out message when you deliberately and repeatedly go to the effort to compare the memory tank with a drug addiction.*End Spoiler"
As you can see here, there are quite a few themes that the movie wanted to explore. Too many themes to fit into this movie! A lot of the pol would keep out attention.
The dialogue is just CHEESE. And I'm not talking a good cheese, more like Casu Marzu. It feels like every character is speaking in poetry (which on one or two occasions they are actually quoting epic poetry), even during life and death chase sequences where poetry is not appropriate.
Old Fashioned (2014)
His values aren't "Old Fashioned". They're "Confused and Disturbing"...
This movie is meant as a Christian faith-based counterpart to "Fifty Shades of Grey", which is fine in theory. You can tell this because it came out around the same time, and if you read some of the other user reviews many people saw it that way. The poster reads "Love is Patient. Love is Kind. Love is... OLD FASHIONED". Love is also NOT something that this movie understands very well though...
Now look, the concept that one would not have sex until they are married is a pretty common one, and there is NOTHING WRONG with that. However, there is something VERY WRONG with how Clay, the film's protagonist, interprets this concept. See, Clay says early on in the movie, "I made a promise, to never be alone with any woman who's not my wife". This is taking the concept of no sex before marriage to an extreme! You can absolutely be alone with a woman AND NOT HAVE SEX WITH HER! You can have friends who are women, whom you don't sleep with. You can get to know a woman in a totally asexual way, you know, what is she like AS A PERSON? When Clay says something like this, it implies that he is unable to control his sexual urges, and fears that he will be unable to resist the temptation of sex if he is simply alone with another woman. Rather than learning how to control his own urges and resist temptation, he would rather HIDE from them and not have to deal with them. That's not Christian, that's irresponsible. You CAN'T hide from Satan and the evils of the world, you have to resist his temptation, like Jesus did in the desert. It also has a very... rape-y vibe to it? I'm sure that's not the movie's intent, but that's how it comes off in the modern age.
Clay also has some ill-informed ideas about what a date is. At one point he says to his friend, "Most people know more about someone after a job interview for delivering pizzas than after most dates". This shows a complete misunderstanding about what a date is. He thinks all dates are one night stands where the only goal is to get into bed with someone and never speak to them again the next day. We know this because it's Brad's behaviour, whose lifestyle Clay disapproves of. In reality, NOT ALL DATES ARE ONE NIGHT STANDS! A date does not necessitate sex. Maybe you two just want to get to know each other, see how your personalities and beliefs match up, find out whether or not you'd make a good couple (for marriage or otherwise), and you know, just generally find out what they're like AS A PERSON!?!?
On top of this, Clay's definition of "treating a girl right" is also damaging to a woman's self esteem, he is only better than Brad in that he only dates ONE woman! Whenever Amber tries to ask her own questions or get more answers out of Clay, Clay shuts her down. He is annoyed if she doesn't answer his questions RIGHT AWAY. So much for "Love is patient... Love is kind..." On their second date she turns the radio on and Brad starts spewing his sexist garbage, Clay and Amber both make fun of him. But when Amber tries to have a real discussion about it, Clay shuts her down by saying, "Hey you wanted to turn the radio on, not me! Let's get back to the book". God forbid they have an ACTUAL DISCUSSION ABOUT SOMETHING IMPORTANT TO HER!!! Even when Clay lets her choose what to do on their next date, she has him pick it out of a box, you know, so that he still feels like HE'S in charge... What's really funny is, this is one of the big complaints many people make about "Fifty Shades of Grey", Christian Grey dominates the will of the leading woman! Replace Grey's desire for S&M with a desire for making a mother out of her, and you have Clay (in a motivational sense).
Let's take a look at what love is, according to the Bible that I assume Clay is familiar with: "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth" 1 Corinthians 13:4-5. I've mentioned how Clay is often IMPATIENT and EASILY- ANGERED with Amber on their dates. This also makes it hard for him to REJOICE WITH THE TRUTH doesn't it? He often lectures to Amber and his friends on how their ways are wrong, which seems pretty PROUD to me. Clay only sees Amber as the future mother of his children and often shuts down her opinions, he's SELF-SEEKING. At one point he reads the church book and asks Amber "How many sexual partners have you had in the past ten years?", which sounds to me like he's trying to KEEP A RECORD OF HER WRONGS. There are many aspects of love which Clay clearly has no interest in keeping in mind.
The "values" that this movie's protagonist espouse about relationships ARE NOT Christian VALUES. They are the values of someone who does not want to take responsibility for his own actions, who doesn't understand how relationships and dating works, who has little interest in understanding who is love interest is as a person, and who is more concerned with turning everyone around him into straw men for his confused philosophy about love. And since the ACTOR who plays the protagonist is also the WRITER AND DIRECTOR of the movie, I'm guessing these are his values, and he needs to seek help. Maybe from a psychologist, or maybe from an understanding Christian minister who isn't absolutely insane.
Batman and Harley Quinn (2017)
I feel like I got trolled by Paul Dini and Bruce Timm!
I had a feeling that if they were going to make a movie where "Harley Quinn" is about half of the title, she would steal the show. And I was right! Unfortunately, the show which Harley stole was not not a very good one...
At first I didn't know how to feel about this movie. I grew up on the "Batman the Animated Series" cartoons which this movie spawned from. Those cartoons always took themselves very seriously, and explored themes that were pretty dark and complex for kids shows at the time. However, that show ran in the '90s, and it's 2017 now, and Batman has been pretty thoroughly explored and picked apart on TV and in film since then (see The Lego Batman Movie).
Maybe because of this, I think Paul Dini and Bruce Timm decided they would try a different route than what one might expect from the original cartoons: this movie DOES NOT take itself very seriously. Harley Quinn is good for that, she is making jokes and acting silly throughout. Batman and the main villains take themselves very seriously, but literally no other character in the movie does. About half of the jokes and antics are funny, and the other half fall pretty flat. Comedy was never the original series's strength though, in fact jokes falling flat was the norm. That normally wasn't a problem in the original series though, because the story, mystery, or character development was the focus, not the humor.
In this movie though, the story is pretty generic, there is no mystery, and there aren't very many new or interesting characters to develop. On top of that, the focus of this movie is shifted more onto the humor and to Harley Quinn's various antics, which makes it feel, well... really CAMPY. Honestly though, many of Batman's iterations over the years have been quite campy (RIP Adam West) so I would bet there would be many fans of Batman who would not see this as a problem.
Where it does become a bit of a problem is when some characters act VERY out of character with minimal explanation as to why. Without spoiling anything, one scene in particular has a character act EXTREMELY out of character for what I have to assume is only for the sake of "fan service" (if you see the movie you'll know what scene I'm talking about). Combine this fan service with the campiness and you come away from this film feeling as if you just saw someone's fan fiction brought to life. Admittedly it's not really BAD fan fiction, but it is very AVERAGE fan fiction.
Truthfully, even with all of that I could easily justify giving this movie a 7/10, or maybe even an 8/10 if you really enjoy camp. However, THAT ENDING THOUGH!!?!?! Without spoiling anything, the movie's ending is abrupt, overly silly, and anti- climactic. They really build up a character appearance and an epic fight, but the payoff is instead that the character leaves as soon as they arrive, a silly moment happens, and then the film pulls with a Looney Tunes-esque moment. It felt like suddenly Harley Quinn became the director and directed this final scene. It felt like I was trolled by Paul Dini and Bruce Timm. They might as well have played the movie out to the tune of Rick Astley's "Never Gonna Give You Up". I knocked two whole points off of my rating just for that ending!
It should also be noted that there are two stingers in the credits: one that happens a few minutes into the credits, and another that happens after they have ended. Both are pretty silly. In addition, after the final stinger, there is a short interview/behind the scenes look in which Bruce and Paul and others are asked about the origins of Harley Quinn, a look at what her real-life sociopathic disorder would be, and just a description of her as a character. It's good, as good as or possibly even better than the movie that came before it... In fact, I added a point back onto my score because it was good. Admittedly it did feel a bit like they were justifying some of the poor decisions being made in this movie (including the fan service one...) but still cool to know!
So overall, it's a very okay movie with some problems, but was still fun to see. 6/10
The Belko Experiment (2016)
Fun at first, ultimately a waste of time...
The set up for the movie had a somewhat interesting concept at its core: what do people do when they are trapped in a situation where the only way out is to kill others? Not a completely original idea, but it has some potential to be thought provoking if there is some kind of message it is trying to send, or some aspect of society it is trying to satirize. The resulting bloodbath is well executed, if you are into seeing office workers murder each other. I can't tell if the movie has a messed up sense of humor, or if a few people in the theater with me just thought some of the deaths were so ridiculous it was funny. Personally I never found any of the deaths over the top ENOUGH to truly find them funny, so the other people's laughter just kind of made me uncomfortable... After the bloodbath ends though, ultimately there was nothing there, no deep thoughts, no important message, no point at all really. The closest thing I can up with for meaning in the movie is that in the end, they basically admit there was no real reason for the experiment to be conducted, and so conducting cruel experiments without a purpose is a bad thing? But that seems obvious, right? When chaos ensues, different people react in different ways. It's sort of like the Walking Dead in that sense, but the Walking Dead has time to develop its themes and characters long enough for you to extract some meaning. In a way, the pointlessness of the experiment and the killing is reflected in the pointlessness of the movie itself. I don't know if that's kind of meta, or just a waste of time, but yeah, if you skip this movie, you won't be missing much except seeing a lot of talented actors who always play supporting roles murder each other in the center stage. If you want to see John Ghallager Jr in something better, watch Hush, or The Newsroom. If you want to see Meryl from the Walking Dead, watch The Walking Dead. If you want to see the ideas this movie brings up actually addressed in a thought provoking way, maybe try the Hunger Games, or Battle Royale. This was a fun little film that ultimately means very little.
The Intern (2015)
Well Acted Movie Bogged Down by Clichés
Overall, I quite enjoyed the movie. It's a cute movie about growing old, marriage, and balancing work life with family. It was well acted by DeNiro and Hathaway, and the remaining cast also played their roles well. You laugh, you cry, etc. This movie's cast and writing team alone easily could have earned this a 9/10. But unfortunately while the premise is interesting and the execution is good, by the third act it falls into quite a few clichés and sappy resolutions. If you're not familiar with the genres of the retirement story or the work life balance movie, you'll probably give it an 8 or 9 out of 10. If you are familiar though, the third act will have you rolling your eyes constantly. In particular, there is a climactic scene in which a character who did something very bad gives an apologetic speech to Hathaway. The film earlier built up that this character deserves little respect for what they did, but without even so much as a scolding or a look of anger, the character gives his little apology and receives tearful instant forgiveness to the sound of sappy music. Which reminds me: while the plot got cliché about two thirds of the way into the movie, the MUSIC was cliché throughout. Completely uninspired sappy elevator music typical of this type of movie. But neither of these really made me hate the movie overall, hence I still gave it a rating of 7/10.
Silent Hill (2006)
Mostly Good, With One Big Mistake
I am a fan of the Silent Hill games. I loved the games' ability to create an overwhelming feeling of suspense, fearing what is behind the fog and yet always being driven towards it. There has always been a psychological aspect to the games, not just in how it plays on the very human fear of the unknown, but also in how the events and creatures that exist in the games reflect the psyche of the main character. Or do they? The thing that made these games stand out for me compared to other games in the horror genre is their unique approach to the blurring of the psychological and the supernatural. That's not to say other games don't do this, just that the way in which Silent Hill does this is a little bit different, it is used to instill a sense of dread and curiosity. I usually found myself thinking a lot about the games afterward, interpreting the plot through a psychological or philosophical lens (although admittedly I try to do that with many games and movies). Part of this also has to do with the fact that many of these games were made to be open to interpretation. There is a vagueness as to the characters and creatures' motivations, but there is enough in the game for you to build off of and form your own interpretation.
This is where I think this film has its one failing. For the most part, the film is pretty good. Without any spoilers, the plot and characters are mostly made from different pieces of the first three Silent Hill games. This is then combined with some new ideas to create a story that is still very Silent Hill, but is also its own unique story separate from any of the games. The casting was done well, all of the actors really seemed to fit well in their roles. No one seemed out of place, and they mostly did a pretty good job acting. And let's be honest: the acting here is at the least better than some of the voice acting in the English dubs of the Silent Hill games, which usually weren't top notch. The visual effects, including the fog/ash and the creatures, were all done well and utilized well to create that feeling of suspense and dread and intrigue.
Where the movie falls apart is near the end. Spoiler-free, a character shrouded in mystery that is pivotal to the plot decides to basically explain their entire back story and how each piece of it relates to events depicted earlier in the movie. This basically removes all the mystery and suspense the movie had built up in one big reveal. It makes explicit everything that should have been left open for interpretation. I feel that unfortunately this important aspect of what makes Silent Hill different and unique was destroyed by this moment. Why did they do this? Did they really just not get that aspect of what made Silent Hill great? Or did they have a test audience full of people who just don't want to think and use their brains and wanted an ending where every detail is explained and laid out for them? On top of this, the explanation that is given for everything is, well, unfortunately pretty generic. It is one that is full of horror clichés, which further removes the identity and individuality this film could have had.
This film could have stood out as something unique in the body of psychological horror films. It at the very least stands out among video game based films, with the only horror rival being the Resident Evil series. But Resident Evil always favored action over thought, both in the games and in the movies. I hoped that Silent Hill would succeed in bringing a little more depth and subtly to the big screen to contrast this, and to do it well. And while they definitely tried, it seems like they chickened out at the last second, and the result is a good film that could have been so much more.