DavidMovieReview Reviews

Make Me Believe (2023)

Worse than a Bad Hallmark Movie

[4/10 · 29 June 2023]

The two central characters have zero chemistry. How can you possibly cast a movie, however badly written, and not find people who have chemistry with each other? The two characters, Sahra and Deniz, are in conflict for the entire first half of the movie, which is typical for many scripts, but the writing is boring. Early on, Sahra makes a bet that endangers her career, but the character is not stupid enough to make such a bet, so it rings inauthentic. The two actresses playing the grandmothers are extremely weak, worse than the other two. Deniz's friend is adequate, and probably the best actor in this subpar movie. The actress playing Sahra's grandmothers character is one of the worst actresses I've ever seen act.

The only redeeming value of the film is the scenery, which is shown a few times in the first half of the movie, which is as far as I've gotten. I'm willing to update this after seeing more of this horrible film just to complete the review, but I really don't imagine being able to recommend it.

You have a problem with a script If in your movie, the two characters who are in the major conflict cannot even speak to each other, which is the case for one of the two characters in the story. One talks, and the other one doesn't say a thing at some points. I won't reveal who (big surprise!). When characters undergo personal growth during a story, there is of necessity some sort of natural feeling of transition in them that occurs over a period of time in several scenes. In this movie, they decided to do it all at once, with no believable prologue.

I am generally skeptical of watching movies that have been out for some time and only have a few hundred ratings. I violated my own rule! Lol. Please apply my rule and spare yourself some time.

P. S. To be updated...

All Good Things (2010)

The Best Acted and Most Boring Movie I've Ever Seen

[5/10 · 11 March 2023]

The acting is excellent, because the main actors are excellent, but the subject matter is extremely boring. Murder by itself is not an interesting subject. It happens all the time based on common motives,

The writer simply lays out all of the facts of the story/case in order with too little passion behind them. It's like someone wrote an Unsolved Mysteries episode and worked hard to make it boring. They certainly didn't make it interesting.

I recommend going to Wikipedia and reading the real story the movie is based upon, which will take you 10 minutes, and leave it at that. Your time is far too precious to waste on this tedious movie.

Red Notice (2021)

New Title of a Mediocre Film

[5/10 · 28 November 2021]

The film should be re-titled "Raiders of the Lost Egg." That really doesn't give anything away, but by the time you watch the entire movie, you will know what I mean, that is, if you have the time to waste.

I watched the film only because I like the individual lead actors. They were OK, but the script is so formulaic and the lines were just so cheesy, it was painful to watch. There is lots of banter with zero emotional connection between any two characters in the entire movie. Zero chemistry.

Ryan Reynolds lines were the cheesiest and could not possibly have been delivered for real laughs by even the best of actors, which he is. OK, I laughed a couple of times. But the action was so "canned Hollywood" in its nature, it was boring. If you want to turn off your brain for two hours, watch the movie...

Note: A rating of 5 means "Barely Watchable." Despite warning you, only one out of five people thought my review was helpful. These actors have all been in better films, and you should watch them again IMO as opposed to watching this one! I wonder whether the down ratings come from people who are connected with the film? Just wondering...

Home Sweet Hell (2015)

Bad Attempt at Pulp Fiction

[4/10 · 1 October 2021]

If the writer of this film were the worst possible version of Mozart then this film is the worst possible variation on the theme of "Pulp Fiction." I despise films that use violence for the sake of it. It represents cheap, bad writing. The actors should have turned down the roles. The leads have appeared in much better films. You tend to assume that good actors won't take lousy roles. They did. Do not waste a minute on this movie.

Taken (2017–2018)

Season One was better! Skip Season 2!

[5/10 · 16 February 2020]

In Season 1 of this show, the cast was much bigger and more captivating. There were several strong male actors in the 1st season who were replaced by the 2 man/2 woman team in Season 2, I assume for budgeting reasons. It would have been better to kill the show after Season 1 than to dumb it down the way they did.

Season 1 has a love story intertwined. Bryan's love interest simply vanishes between the two seasons, which was horrendous writing. Bryan is pretty boring alone as he's almost robotic at an emotional level (the actor seems like a very nice guy, but he doesn't emote much at all). Lots of sighs and near clinical depression in Season 2, but little passion.

If you saw the movie "Taken," you know that Bryan had a bunch of close friends from his "old life," which is what I suppose this show was trying to reveal to us. The fact that they removed his big group of buddies to trim the budget in season 2 is simply sad. Watch Season 1 and save yourself the time and skip all of Season 2. It's almost all mechanical action sequences with very little heart. There are also some horrific supporting actors in season 2 as well that just make things worse (no names!). They are cookie-cutter bad guys. Laughable really despite the sometimes long and tedious fight scenes.

I love Jessica Beals as a person and way back as the "Flashdance" star (amazing), but she's almost stone cold in this one and to me not believable. I believe she was miscast for the role. She's at best passable, which is just not good enough, especially in the setting of the four person team in Season 2.

"Kilroy" gets so repetitive in his attitudes, it was difficult to watch his scenes. At the start he was like the tech character in "Italian Job," but a neurotic version of him vs. the bold and out there version in that movie. Guess which one was more interesting to watch? I think Adam Goldberg is a very good actor, but his role became tedious. Characters need to evolve or change to some degree over the course of a series. Let's blame the writer for that.

There is another core flaw in Season 2. How the writer and director theoretically conceived of carrying out anti-terrorist missions with TWO operatives in Season 2 in the first place is beyond comprehension. In many scenes, ONE of them was acting alone, which is even more ridiculous. As said, they should have buried Season 2 before it started. You should bury Season 2 as well, as your time is valuable, and I've wasted mine to save yours! ;)

(Season 1: Score of 6 Season 2: Score of 5...My 5 ranking is "barely watchable" and 6 is "not bad; watchable)

Alex & The List (2017)

A Dog of a Script with Some Very Good Actors

[4/10 · 17 June 2019]

Alex and the List

The best way to summarize the script is that it has to be one of the worst scripts ever made into a movie. It is completely formulaic, composed of a conglomeration of innumerable disjointed scenes that were supposed to be funny by themselves, which together comprise a very bad movie. I'd much rather watch one of the 100 Hallmark movies about cooks who fall in love than this film!

The male lead who is supposed to be a nice dog walker turns out to be one of the lowest energy human beings that you could ever run into anywhere on this planet. Again, not in a very funny "The Office" (the movie) sort of way. His affect is that a dedicated pot smoker who walks through life completely stoned. To top it off, he is unable to make any decision by himself. He often seeks out guidance from a highly unlikely source of wisdom.

The script is an insult to Michael Nouris's talent. He actually says some reasonable things (despite needing to work more on the consistency of his accent) as the "film's rabbi," which are immersed into the surrounding inane scenes.

Jennifer Morrison who plays Katherine is a very decent actor as is the dog walker's best friend, played by Karen Gillan. Gillan is a great actress. To shine in the middle of a mess of a script is not easy.

Katherine's father is played by Bob Gunton who is a normally a very good character actor playing a horrible role depicting a complete idiot of a father, and not in a humorous way. Thinking about his role now, I feel very sorry for the actor. It must've been a painful job.

The character who is supposed to be challenging the dog walker for Katherine's hand is yet another stereotype. I assume the actor with the role can't act, but that might be unfair, because his part was so ridiculous. The way he keeps showing up is annoying and unrealistic. One would have to assume that Katherine was braindead or emotionally crippled enough to allow that to happen. The trouble is, she's not. It doesn't fit her character.

Katherine's final ask of her to-be-fiancé is ridiculous given what we know about him...

The most important scene near the end is beyond ridiculous. What is very sad is that it was supposed to be funny, and it wasn't funny at all. Loose ends are tied up in an absurd way. At this point you might want to throw something at your screen, but you won't because you realize there are good writers out there who will bring you better movies!

The very last scene is a cute little bow the writer tied, and you will once again want to yell at your screen as a warning to the last person to appear in the cast.

I apologize to the writer if this hurts your feelings, but you really should not have tried to sell this film. You should have taken it as a starting point to write something much better.

I would've given this movie a one or a two which would be stretching it if it weren't for the acting. The actors don't deserve a two.

Or maybe they should've just refused to take the role. I realize that working is sometimes prioritized over quality. I can understand that but it leads to a lot of lousy movies being made.

In fact, I would suggest to IMDb that they separate the script score from the acting score, and have an overall score for the movie. This could be optional. If the script is very good and the actors are very good then you only need one score.

PS For parents, there is a very graphically depicted sex scene despite the presence of panties on the woman involved who plays yet another horrific role - badly. The man is naked beneath her. It should've been rated R for that alone. Those who are offended by graphic sex should not be subjected to that scene...

I Feel Pretty (2018)

"I Feel Pretty."... A Forced Feeling Fantasy

[5/10 · 18 May 2019]

"I Feel Pretty" starts out with the helpful notion of having strong self-esteem regardless of looks, although it is a rip off of "Big" in the end with different twists and turns in between. The best actor in this movie was Rory Scovel, as he was believable at every turn while Amy Schumer, though bound to make you laugh multiple times, felt forced in her acting.

Part of the issue may have been the writing, because she went from one extreme to another. There was no subtlety. I think it would've worked better if the transitions had been more gradual rather than abrupt. For example, they could have showed her gain more confidence after being hit on the head, quickly perhaps, but not all at once. (that's not a spoiler because it's in the preview on IMDB). Even in movies, where we often deal with make-believe, we want to be able to feel that what is happening is real, and that is not the case with this movie. It just feels too forced.

As with all of my ratings, if I rate a movie 5 or above, I consider it a watchable movie, but you may find yourself wanting more or something different by the end! A rating of 4 or below means you will waste your time with it. 6 is better than watchable and 7s and higher should be watched first if your time is short! Start with the 10's and work down. Enjoy the shows and as my mother used to advise "Enjoy your life!" ;)

Heaven Sent (2016 TV Movie)

On the verge of divorce? Watch this!

[8/10 · 17 December 2016]

This film is surprising for the acting talent displayed. The three lead characters as well as the two supporting male characters are clearly talented. Mallory reminds me of the fun of watching Shirley Temple. No singing involved, but she is genuine and brings the same childlike glee to her acting. Christian Kane does very well as a rough edged creative type whose game has lost some of its polish over the years. Marley Shelton is great at acting both hot and cold in her relationships, a struggle for many modern business women. I liked her character more and more throughout the film, and her heart is the true focus of the film. Ernie Hudson was pitch perfect in his delivery, even though his role was relatively small . Sean Miller is decent, although the role written for him was somewhat two- dimensional and definitely predictable.

Yes, the script is formulaic. Classic conflicts arise. You may even guess some of the twists in the plot. But the movie gives you the sense that it needs to be watched. Hopefully it will give some couples new hope and help them to avoid the devastation of divorce if they pay attention to the film's lessons. If not, they'll find out the hard way, which we see demonstrated within the film. But the movie will serve as good medicine for those who will hear the message and bring more happiness to them and their children. Change like that would truly be "Heaven Sent."

Designated Survivor (2016–2019)

Writing is Stilted and at the Level of a Soap Opera. New President Needed!

[5/10 · 13 December 2016]

President: "Pretty soon our son and our country may not feel that way." The writing is stilted like this repeatedly throughout. You don't talk to your wife privately that way. You don't refer to "our son" or "our country" in private to your wife. The writers of the show are amateurs. The writing is it the level of a soap opera. Meaning bad.

I thought Kiefer Sutherland was great in 24 ( at least until they went overboard on torture), but boy does he need acting lessons to do this role. Plus, does he really have to talk in hushed tones in every single role that he does? Is that the way he talks in real life too? We can only conclude that it must be. I don't call it acting when you constantly act as you do in your life. He seriously needs to bring new life to this character. His interactions with the other characters on the show are stilted in every case. Being more emotional in the role would help him. His emotional range is suffocating.

There is hope for the show in the supporting cast around the President. Natascha McElhone and Maggie Q are exceptional in their delivery and Kal Penn stands out above Italia Ricci and Adan Canto, but the two of them are decent. Malik Yoba is OK but needs some smoothing. His speech to the prospective vice president seemed weird rather than believable. Then again he's dealing with a horrible script. The Deputy Director of the FBI would not walk into the Oval Office and have nothing to say to the President. You know the scene if you've seen the show. The director must have some responsibility in the lack of coherence of the show.

There are other ridiculous plot choices too. Is the FBI actually going to withhold information from the President on a conspirator when it has specific information implicating him in the destruction of the entire government? Give me a break.

I hope the other producers and network read these reviews and improve the story and the show. Fire some writers and get some new writers with a clue on the job ASAP. And get Sutherland some acting lessons, or have the writers do away with him in a Game of Thrones fashion. He certainly doesn't deserve to be the President of the United States! Need a new President? Maybe Michael Douglas will come out of retirement from his stint in the movie "The American President"! Now that's a President!

The Lovers (I) (2015)

Misscast and poorly written

[2/10 · 8 December 2016]

SPOILER ALERT - Not much of a spoiler, but I mention a life changing event for an unspecified character. ;)

I think that some viewers gave this a 3 out of 10 due to the scenery, but this was not supposed to be a travelogue. Some commented that they liked the music, but I felt it was a ripoff of the "Last Samurai." Hartnett and Basu had negligible chemistry together, but the writing was hollow throughout the film, so the shortcomings of the film cannot be blamed entirely on them. I felt Hartnett was the better actor by far. Basu, and more the director perhaps, try to evoke emotion through her by having her stare out into space over long periods of time that were almost excruciating to watch.

I don't believe I've ever watched a film in which a major character died, when I felt zero reaction beyond some disgust at the means of death. I suspect that is because I felt the character deserved to die at that point, as they were so awfully written. The lines uttered by the Indian guru at the end were cheesy. The relationship between Hartnett's American lover and him was never established, so it was impossible to connect with all the crying on her part.

The movie was a mishmash of British colonialism, which was extremely boring by the way, and the two relationships of a British soldier/sea explorer both lacking real connection. This movie is a masterpiece of boredom. I've seen much better Hallmark movies. This film should be watched only if you are already in severe pain, which can only be alleviated through distraction. Although it's not very distracting, come to think of it. It could ease your pain by putting you to sleep though, through a combination of mental and emotional boredom, beautiful scenery, and mournful music . ;)

It Follows (2014)

Soso Acting of Repetitive Script

[3/10 · 2 September 2016]

***SPOILERS***

The most disturbing thing about this film is the high rating of it. The script is a repetitive bore. The premise of a zombie that mutates into virtually any human form with or without clothing that just keeps coming and coming no matter how many times you kill it is simply a zombie variant. There's lots of gratuitous nudity among the zombies who probably don't have to worry about a future career. The idea that the one being followed has been infected by some sort of spiritual attractant is interesting, but the problem is that this is about the most interesting thing in the entire film, the rules of zombie engagement. The zombies have inconsistent powers as was pointed out by other reviewers. Most of them can't even open a door or knock, but they can smash a window for some odd reason and the last ghost can throw large objects across an Olympic swimming pool.

The acting is OK, but it's not inspiring. All of the actors have much more work to do to better their craft. The affect of nearly every actor except the girl who had her leg shot is blasé. Apathetic. That itself is boring. The backdrop of the city of Detroit is equally unpleasant. That wasn't scary, just sad and depressing.

The film just ends abruptly as if they ran out of money with the second presumably infected boy walking down the street with the previously infected protagonist. The director made the final scene unclear, because although there is a "being" following them down the street, it's not clear whether that "being" is a human or a zombie. It would've been better to end the film with them running for their lives once again. I don't call that ending mysterious. I call it ambiguous writing. The movie is more like a low budget school project than a serious film (which it was, as they spent $2 million supposedly).

Like Sunday, Like Rain (2014)

Meester Masters Her Role as Eleanor

[8/10 · 1 August 2015]

Julian Shatkin did quite well playing a preteen savant named Reggie, considering his age, but writer/director, Frank Whaley, let him down. The role would have been more believable had Whaley given him a wider emotional range (and, in my view, it's the director's job to coax the writer into writing each character equally well - funny that the director did not have that conversation with himself as the writer!). From the start of the movie, the boy's isolation is palpable as his mother plans to leave him on travels. (Debra Messing plays her well, but the part is limited and is only consequential in that it shows how emotionally deprived Reggie was.) He "snaps" at his friend at one point, as he put it, but compared to the frustrations of dealing with adults and children who rarely understand him or his choices, there was not enough emotion, particularly not enough anger. I feel his character loses a certain amount of aliveness because of it.

In great contrast, Whaley was able to figure out Eleanor's (the nanny's) emotions, and Leighton Meester was in turn able to play those emotions brilliantly.

After the movie ended, I attempted to flash back to moments where Leighton had not played her role authentically, and could not find any such moment. That's how great her acting is. The fierceness of her initial confrontation with her boyfriend was placed into context by our understanding of her family that followed. A beautiful young woman emerges from the initial mess, and we quickly find that she possesses advanced maternal instincts toward Reggie, supporting him exactly as he is, with all his awkward brilliance, even as he bends her to his wishes along the way. Her character is no pushover and she has her own plans, caring for her own soul as well.

Overall, the film is well worth watching, as it will move you, and you may even understand what children need a bit better. They need love. Leighton Meester clearly has that love in her, and her performance is a credit both to her and to Whaley. Yes, both actress and writer/director got Eleanor exactly right.

A Deadly Adoption (2015 TV Movie)

Great Actors With a Mixed Up Script and Audience

[3/10 · 28 June 2015]

WARNING: SPOILER ALERT - the following discusses plot points, but you might want to read on anyway to save two hours of your lifespan! Or don't read it, watch the movie, and then come back and read the reviews to see if you actually "got" this movie! This is also written to bring closure to those who have spent the two hours watching it.

The overall plot was used previously in another Lifetime movie no doubt. Crazy girl, bad boyfriend fresh out of prison wanting his money, a child about to die because she needs her meds, and parents in a dysfunctional marriage with a secret held by one against the other allowing "crazy girl" to enter stage left, scene one.

Is this movie a parody of Lifetime movies or other movies that revolve around "crazy girl" replacing a wife and making the wife's family her own? The predictable script does not let on to this possibility other than in a few spots such as Will Ferrell's character standing in the middle of the road to face off "crazy girl" without so much as a drip of blood coming from his two wounds, one of which appeared earlier as fatal. (It's highly unlikely that he'd be knocked out cold by two flesh wounds and even less likely that his wounds would both stop bleeding without immediate medical attention.)

Another possible parody moment was the garage door opening scene. The garage was filled with far too much exhaust for any human being to emerge from it without hacking his guts out. Will emerging from a cloud of deadly exhaust appearing to breath normally, looked like Superman with Lois in his arms, back-lit with a glow. That smells of parody or very bad direction, take your pick. Will "speeding" off to the rescue in an incredibly slow moving boat with a very serious look on his face smelled like parody too.

Still, most of the movie was not at all funny, or even suspiciously funny, so what was the point of that please? Furthermore, there was not a lot in the dialogue to suggest that this was in fact a parody. The sheriff asking after he had heard the entire story of Will and "crazy woman," (paraphrased) "Do you think they could be together?" could have been one such line. That must be ranked among the stupidest lines ever written in a movie, and if it was not in fact meant to be a stupid line appropriate for a parody, then we must conclude that the line is just an awful line. The movie is otherwise mostly predictable, with the "manner of pregnancy" of "crazy girl" being nearly the only surprise. Were you really surprised that the bad boyfriend was just behind the organic foods co-worker who had snapped one too many branches on his rescue mission? His death was not funny, just cruel. Where's the parody in that?

The scene with Will's incredibly awkward dancing with his family that went on longer than any sane director would have allowed, just iced the cake of this movie's demise.

In sum, this was either a poorly written parody or a poorly written violent though almost entirely predictable drama, acted about as well as it could have been acted (hence my higher rating than the 1 for the script).

Note to actors: next time you might want to turn this sort of script down. Note to screenplay writer: you need a lot of practice. Note to viewers: I'd sorry for your loss...of time. And that is not a "spiteful comment," because I'm really, really sorry for your loss. Or is this just a parody of a hardhearted reviewer? You decide! ; )

P.S. I think this movie was deliberately written to thoroughly confuse us all and is therefore brilliant! (Just kidding....but maybe it is...regardless, you'll never have closure on this movie or on this review. ; ))