hyperiontitanj Reviews

Ghost in the Shell (2017)

There Seems to be More than One Version of this Movie Playing

[2/10 · 19 April 2017]

There are a few problems with this movie all of which are do to incredibly poor directing:

1) The exposition. Where is it? Unless you've seen the anime (I haven't) it's very unclear who she is, exactly who she is working for and why she is doing what she is doing (which is what, again?) There are a lot of regular characters in this movie and none of them received any substantial character development--so little, in fact that I hardly know any of their names. The setting is even less developed. It's not even clear where/when the movie takes place. I assume some future Japan but I don't even think they bothered to give the name of the city much less explain who they are fighting against and why they are fighting them.

2) The movie fails to pay anything more than lip service to the concept of...is she human? Is she a robot? That would have been a compelling area to explore. The movie almost completely glosses over it and overall the plot is very shallow.

3) The CGI. There is good CGI bad CGI and Ghost-in-the-Shell CGI which is undoubtedly the worse. The textures look so unrealistic it's jarring to seem them imposed on live action scenes and the movie is oversaturated with it to the extent it detracts from most moments in the film. The physics are way, way off which greatly diminishes the impact of the action scenes. It's difficult to sell a fight scene when the characters move completely unnaturally and appear as though they are weightless. It seems that either:

A) They used decades old CGI techniques which wouldn't hold up back in 1998. B) They hired a cheap studio for the CGI which has little skill with it. C) They hired people to do the CGI that have no prior relevant experience a la Mass Effect Andromeda.

People who are suggesting the visual effects alone are worth seeing the movie for clearly saw a different version of the film than I did.

4) Dialogue and acting. It's not very good. Scarlett Johansson comes off as a human trying to move like a robot and in an extremely unconvincing manner. This is a shame because I think she is a fairly talented actress. I will chalk this up to directing because they definitely should not have gone with the shots they did. If it didn't work and she wasn't up to the task, have her act all human-y instead.

In any case: Poor direction, poor acting, poor dialogue, poor plot and horrific CGI. If movie standards were building codes, this movie should be condemned.

The American Side (2016)

Just Plain Awful

[1/10 · 24 January 2017]

There are two things going for this movie.

1) Film noir tropes. If you like that sort of thing. 2) Shots of Buffalo. If you're from Buffalo, like Buffalo and don't feel like going outside, maybe you will enjoy this.

I almost added the Tesla history to the list. I love Tesla and this played a role in my decision to see the film. Unfortunately, the movie became so fanatically ludicrous over Tesla I'd rather they left him out completely.

The movie is otherwise awful. Painfully obvious is that the movie is essentially various characters walking up to Greg Stuhr and saying their lines to advance the plot. In this aspect it's just like an elementary school play, only with Matthew Broderick instead of your six year old.

The plot makes less and less sense as the movie plays out and becomes increasingly hostile to common sense and logic. Much of the movie flits around to various locations in Buffalo for absolutely no rhyme or reason except to squeeze in as many Buffalo shots as possible. There is no exposition and no character development. Not a single character receives any real treatment during the film. At the end, the only names I could recall were of the lead actor and Nikola Tesla, who wasn't even in the movie.

Overall, it's the type of product you might see from a film student who was only admitted to film school because someone on the admissions committee was snorting coke.

Fun Fact: Actress playing government agent was The Bowler in Mystery Men.

Luke Cage (2016–2018)

Luke Cage Hits Like a 90lb Creampuff

[5/10 · 2 October 2016]

I was looking forward to this more so than the other Marvel Netflix shows, but Luke Cage is easily the weakest of the bunch.

The show improves throughout its run, but it really only picks up over the last few episodes. The story is not compelling, the acting is troublesome at times (mostly early on), and Cage's story arc and motivation (or lack thereof) leaves much to be desired for most of the first season. At times it's hard to believe he's the same character who first appeared in Jessica Jones.

The biggest issue is the tedium. The director appears to have a problem with story telling, but the real issue is there just isn't enough material to fill each episode. Every hour drags on and on. It's awkwardly punctuating by musical numbers that will not be appealing to most viewers with frequent cuts back and forth which simply interrupt the consequential moments of each episode instead of accentuating them.

The villains are too weak for the season to drag on as it did. Cage is very overpowered in this series (far more powerful than in Jessica Jones) and there's no plausible reason he doesn't mop things up by the end of the first few episodes. To account for this, much of the show is filler. Some of the reviews I've seen remark how much character development there is on the supporting cast as one of the show's strengths. Honestly, it seems to be a glaring weakness. Not only is this too, filler, the character development is poor. It not only doesn't explain who these people really are and in fact detracts from the characters as you see how weak and ineffectual the rest of the cast is.

In reality, Cage could have pimp slapped the villain out of Harlem at any point in the entire series and they could have moved on to a new and better story line.

She Stoops to Conquer (2008 TV Movie)

Stoop to Low Expectations

[4/10 · 1 October 2016]

She Stoops to Conquer is a witty and hilarious play. If you have not seen it before, please don't let this version be your first time.

Mr. Hardcastle (Ian Redford) and Kate (Susannah Fielding) do great jobs. It's a shame I haven't seen them elsewhere. Unfortunately, they aren't able to carry the production themselves. The tone, pacing, casting and acting are all a bit off. Some of the performances are quite grating at times. Hastings seems as though he would have made a better Marlow. Marlow is not at all sympathetic. Mrs. Hardcastle delivers her lines in cringeworthy fashion. Constance started with a strong performance but later began to sound as though she were one of the Chippettes (imagine a rat drowning in a bathtub if all the air was replaced with helium). On the other hand, I watched some of her scenes at double speed so that may have had something to do with it.

Despite this being one of my favorite play, I had to watch this particular production over a three night period. It wasn't enjoyable enough to sit through and there are better things out there to see.

Supergirl (2015–2021)

I'd rather my daughter grow up to be General Zod

[3/10 · 22 September 2016]

This is a terrible show. It's disheartening to see so many people regard Supergirl as a positive female role model. She's exactly the opposite.

Supergirl is not heroic and not someone to look up to or emulate. She constantly requires that everyone around her make enormous personal sacrifices on her behalf. She continually relies on the men in her life to do all of the smart stuff and hard work. She incessantly complains that everything in her life isn't handed to her on a silver platter even though she's SUPERGIRL and therefore deserves it. She doesn't want to earn people's respect, she believe she's entitled to it. She's a taker, not a giver. She falls to pieces at the drop of a hat. She repeatedly gives up when things don't go her way and everyone has to practically force her to go back to doing super things. She does not care much for the other people in her life. Even when she does help people, her motives are purely self aggrandizing. Her greatest ambition is to continue making coffee for someone who actually does want to make something of herself.

The other characters are shallow and vapid. They're not people in their own right. It's almost as if they're marionettes dancing around Supergirl, their entire existence is solely for the purpose of...well, it would just look awkward if Supergirl was the only character in the show.

Any normal mundane person is more heroic in their real life than Supergirl is in her own show. Look to Peggy Carter or Katniss Everdeen for your positive female role models. When life doesn't give them what they want, they don't rely on their male friends to make things better. They step up, take charge, not only make their own situation better, but make things better for everyone around them, especially the people who aren't able to do so for themselves.

If it wasn't for her powers, Supergirl wouldn't even be buying coffee for her boss. She'd be an unemployed delinquent smoking pot all the time with absolutely no direction to her life as her friends and family desperately try in vain to get her life back on track.

Teach your children to study and work hard. They should aspire to be doctors, nurses, engineers, scientists, teachers, mathematicians, artists, poets, writers, fire fighters, law enforcement, social workers, builders and countless other professions. They should be thinkers, leaders, people who serve their communities.

They don't need to be self-pitying, self-aggrandizing, shallow, selfish, needy narcissists.

Witch Hunt: A Century of Murder (2015– )

A Poor Documentary by a Poor Historian...Wikipedia is More Credible

[1/10 · 22 September 2016]

The actual facts and history behind this documentary are unfortunately polluted by Lipscomb's unsubstantiated opinions and inconsistent interpretations. Rather than present an objective, or at least, supported view of the events, Lipscomb relies on her imagination treating "history" as "historical fan-fiction."

For example, Lipscomb would have you believe the entire series of events was initiated by one man's deranged sexual proclivities."I don't think Seaton's actions had much to do with witch hunting," she says. "I think his motives were sexual." She continues, "perhaps he lusted after her for a long time and felt that, as master, he had a right to have her." She then argues, "it doesn't take a huge leap" to believe he had an "obsession" with her. Yet, no evidence exists to support this interpretation. What about the dozens of women AND men who were tortured in similar fashion by Courts and Kings over the following years? Were their actions sexual, too, or just this one man's and why?

To think, less than a year before this aired, Lipscomb published an article promoting a "rigorous code of professional practice" for historians.

The first rule? "Use evidence to support your interpretation." Other gems include, "Do not allow assertions to move from 'possibly' to 'probably'" and "Do not build more elaborate layers of interpretation on a foundation that is rocky." She also admonishes historians from giving credence to unsubstantiated claims and not to promote ideas without first considering the evidence against them (or lack of evidence for them).

Truly embarrassing. With regard to her credibility as a historian, Lipscomb's work in this documentary is on par with "Ancient Aliens."

If you would like to learn about the topic, Wikipedia, of all things, provides a more objective view. Or you are welcome to read many of the fine books on the subject.

Warcraft (2016)

World of Snorecraft

[2/10 · 25 June 2016]

It isn't the worst movie I've ever seen. It isn't even the worst movie I've seen lately. But it is one of the most boring movies I managed to sit the entire way through in recent memory. The magic effects are done well. I had no problem with the acting. But I could not get invested in the story. They didn't develop the world or the characters sufficiently for someone who has never played the games to care about. Every character is a cardboard cutout. The action scenes are unthrilling and leave *a lot* to be desired. Obviously everyone has their own tastes, but I can't even figure out what it was the people who liked this movie (who did not play the games) saw in it. It has no other redeeming qualities.

Gods of Egypt (2016)

Stay Home. Pet a Porcupine. Do anything other than see this movie.

[2/10 · 5 March 2016]

I'm going to keep this short because I don't want this movie to waste any more of your life than it has to.

Garrish, oversaturated, blindingly horrendous CGI effects. It's so bad a cartoon would seem more realistic.

Much of the acting is less than stellar with wooden delivery at times. The story is tired, cliché, boring and predictable. It never feels as though there is anything at stake. The characters were poorly developed. Not only did I not feel any connection with them, I didn't WANT to have any connection with them.

I loved some of Proyas' other films (Dark City, The Crow) and really wanted him to succeed. It was only out of support for him I went to go see this film and had extremely low expectations given the negative reviews. Unfortunately, after seeing it, many of these negative reviews gave him way too much credit. It's obviously not the worst movie ever made, but it's so difficult to sit through I don't care about the difference.

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (2016)

Seriously Fantastic...Not Camp, Not Humor

[10/10 · 18 February 2016]

I absolutely loved this movie. Unfortunately, I think the bad reviews are because many people were expecting a different movie (something akin to Zombieland or Evil Dead). That is unfortunate.

In short: If you are looking for camp or if you are looking to laugh out loud, this movie is not what you want.

The film is a serious take and very well done. The story is compelling, the characters are interesting. It is both suspenseful and thrilling.

There are lots of strong female characters who are portrayed in an admirable, but believable way. The movie is intelligent and appropriately paced with numerous action sequences.

I have not seen or read any versions of Pride and Prejudice nor have I read the Pride and Prejudice and Zombies novel. As such, I have no idea if having read Jane Austen's book will make the story more predictable or less. Either way, the film is masterfully done and enjoyable in its own right.

Just keep in mind that while it is a spoof (and is fun), it is not meant to be funny.

The Shannara Chronicles (2016– )

Whiny Characters Who Never Grow Out of Whining.

[1/10 · 3 February 2016]

IMDb is forcing me to be charitable by giving it 1/10. It deserves -10. I actually made an account just so I could warn other people away.

The Good: The scenery and shots are nice. Also, that Druid guy has a wicked cloak.

The Bad: The acting. The three main characters are some of the worst actors I've seen on screen. It's cringe-worthy.

The characters: Everything about them. Every episode is a non-stop whine fest. It hasn't gotten better 5 episodes in. Whine whine whine. Whine whine whine. Now they've even got me doing it! There's nothing heroic about whining. Thrust any Tom Dick or Sally into the same scenario and they would be more heroic. If I grew up in this world, I would want the demons to destroy it because none of those people deserve to live.

The characters never learn, ever. There are clearly lessons to be learned when the characters make mistakes--running away from duty, not being honest, being too trusting...but they just make the same mistakes over and over and over as if they have some rare form of amnesia.

The characters don't behave like real people. The dialogue is forced (compounded by the atrocious acting) the decisions they make are intensely idiotic and everyone seems to be preoccupied with the least consequential things at any given moment. It's incredibly difficult to suspend disbelief.

The pace. This does not need to be 40 minute show. There is not enough happening in the episodes to justify it. It seems to be a problem with the series itself. The characters waste tremendous amounts of time and keep coming back to where they started. It boggles my mind. I'm a few hours into this and the plot has yet to advance much beyond the first few minutes of the show. I've never read the books, but I wonder if MTV ordered X number of episodes and the writers are passive-aggressively refusing to advance the plot since they don't have much material. That's what it feels like.