witster18 Reviews

Incendies (2010)

Unrelenting Overachievement

[9/10 · 9 May 2024]

A surviving video store(in 2012 no less) offered this dvd rental to me over a decade ago, setting the stage for future payoffs, becoming the first of many excellent films from Director Denis Villenueve, I was never one to shy away from subtitles, and saw Radiohead was attached for some of the music. I was in. Sometimes the game of movie watching pays-off, and this nugget led to a goldmine. You can read more, but the less you know about this one, the better.

The effort here is clear departure from the subsequent films in the Denis Villeneuve filmography. Just saying that it's one of the director's best, Is saying a lot. After all, Dune 2 was the first 10(93/100)I'd awarded in a few years. Sicario 83/100 was excellent, and Prisoners 87/100 was one of the best crime thrillers of the last 2 decades. Incendies is the biggest over-achievement of the lot. It's also the heaviest. The director typically paints in social macabre, or more recently, artistic science fiction. Incendies is an unrelenting, disturbing(yet undeniably impactful) drama about a mother, torn from her three children amidst civil and religious unrest in Lebanon.

I really don't wish to dive further into Indendies' plot, because in this case, the journey is more impactful and engrossing when the viewer goes-in knowing little more than, "this is going to be a serious war-torn drama". The source material, direction, cinematography, editing, acting, music, style And ending are all top-notch. I wouldn't doubt that some may consider this his best work. As I write, I'm questioning what could be my own genre-biases in that regard. Is the film the equal to Prisoners or Dune 2? Can a film made for 6 Million pack that much punch? The answer is Yes.

Those few years at that video store showcased many young directors' high-potential, like Duncan Jones' "Moon", or Nimrod Antal's "Kontroll", and Morten Tyldum's "Headhunters"; all gems from that period, but Villeneuve's "Incendies" was the best of the impressive lot of upstart directors' early work, and it is, undoubtedly, one of the best "unknown" films of the millennium.

Wear your headgear for this one. This is absolutely Not for the kiddos, or faint of heart.

The only flaws in Villeneuve's Incendies come in the form of liberties taken by the director in terms of the languages in the film, and the european appearance of the twins. For some, these issues will be glaring turn-offs, for others they may go unnoticed. For me, one or two scenes could have been reshot, and the language and congruence issues were more of a discovery, than a distraction.. Post-being-blown-away, the language and "appearance" issues are somewhat valid, and perhaps just a byproduct of the only thing that Villenueve lacked at this period in his career, time, money, and resources. Neither the appearance of the twins or the language congruency/accuracy seriously affected my first two viewings, or my score here. That could depend on the viewer, or just the awareness of the ever-so-slight shortcomings going-into a viewing. 87/100.

Dune: Part Two (2024)

Thank You Slur Can I Have Another

[10/10 · 25 April 2024]

I became a fan of this director when I saw the film "Incendies" in 2011. Denis Villanueve's little film packed quite the punch. It was stylish, powerful, and more than enough to flag the director for future releases.

He kept on delivering.

As an '80s kid, raised on the likes of Blade Runner and the original Star Wars trilogy - I had higher expectations for Dune Part One than most. I knew the material was a nightmare to capture, but also, that if anyone could possibly pull-it-off, that if anyone could do-it, it was Denis Villanueve.

Part One looked and sounded spectacular(86/100), but seemed like it was simply setting a tone(and a storyline), albeit with a beautiful backdrop. At its' conclusion, I felt as if i had found a shot of water in the desert. It was fantastic, satisfying, but not enough, and it left me wanting more. The expectations for the second film went even higher; for what Part One dangled and developed, had the potential to be as good as the greatest, and it had been over 35 years since the true greatness of science fiction had surfaced, since new worlds had truly come to life, and hero's of the universe were forged.

I could see the future of what Part 2 could be. The first film, in hindsite, made what I just saw make sense, and made it even more powerful. To build something up - it has to be torn down. That is what happened from the start of Part 1 to the 25-minute mark in Part 2. Then Denis and Dune hit "Go", and the visual epic actually became epic.

Dune Part 2 is a science fiction masterpiece. Timothy Chalamet's performance is spellbinding. It is satisfying in every sense of the word. Javier Bardem is my favorite actor, and perfect in a key supporting role.

Of course the film looks incredible and it may be the best sounding film ever made. The film delicately and adequately holds the audience in suspension in terms our heroes' legitimacy(and ultimate power), and then it makes believers out of us all. Kneel at the feet of the greatest science fiction film since The Empire Strikes Back. The ridiculously high IMDB score is deserved. Perhaps the best thing about this was the subtle first 25min; if only because it made me question(for the last time) if this was going to be as good as I dreamt it could be, as good as it appeared it was here, and then It decided, in "Christine" fashion, to show me.

Amazing film. I love the shifting nature of the lead. I love the powerful climactic scenes, fulfilling every prophecy and every expectation, leading me only to wonder when(or if) it will ever happen like this again.

Part 2 is not just a prophecy of greatness, but true greatness, worthy of the director, source material, and your time.

The 48th 10/10 I have awarded m(out of 4k+).

93/100

You might like this if you liked: Blade Runner, Empire Strikes Back, Ex Machina, Planet of the Apes, and The Two Towers.

Knox Goes Away (2023)

Sharp-Edged Storyline Constantly Delivers

[7/10 · 22 April 2024]

..will be put on my B-movie-Marathon List, and it is a shoe-in for top-25 of the year. That's saying something because Keaton's direction is meh, and the film lacks a little style. It's a gem though, and tbh, it could have been a diamond.

Where the film excels, is in it's storyline and subject matter. What first appears as your run of the mill crime mystery, is consistently providing nuggets that take it to the next level. Michael Keaton and James Marsden are rock-solid, The last half hour of storyline is more tightly woven than a bulletproof vest. The film offers some moments of laughter and heartbreak. There are many well-thought-out and unexpected turns.

Knox Goes Away is undeniably clever, and despite its' deliberate pacing, it's steady and never stops getting better. Keaton's camera is nothing to harp about, but the screenplay and performances more than offset its' average aesthetics. .

I teetered on 8/10 here and may go back to it, because the film just does such an excellent job of covering its' bases. 2/3rds of the way through I had hoped it would do a good job wrapping up the mystery/storyline, and in that regard it far exceeded my expectations.

Keaton's film will be pure joy for unsuspecting fans of the genre, and above-average for most anyone that doesn't need nonstop action to enjoy a movie. A little more style would have gone a long way, but its hard to complain when the acting and storyline are as good as they are here.

Kudo's Mr. Keaton. 75/100.

The Truman Show (1998)

Flight.

[8/10 · 16 March 2024]

Peter Weir's "Truman Show" is a heartfelt and tightly-woven examination of the human spirit. Some birds are not meant to be caged, and Truman's feathers are, indeed, too bright for the tiny town of Seahaven.

The films' score is fantastic, and the absurdity of it all, is tempered by its design elements, brilliant cast, and brisk pace.

Jim Carrey fans (and detractors alike) may be surprised by this performance. He perfectly captures Truman's sincerity, naivety and curiosity; slightly toning-down his physical comedy, capturing the characters' expressiveness, and sublimely (in)human condition.

The film is so tightly structured and entertaining, that it feels like an hour long. It packs-in more life lessons than a Sesame Street episode, and is the perfect cross-genre, multi-age, and multi-faceted crowd pleaser for any movie-night.

If someone asks, "what are we watching", just reply, "I'm being spontaneous", you get the credit, and the satisfaction: Thanks for reading. In case I don't see ya, good afternoon, good evening, and good night.

81/100.

Die Hard (1988)

The Greatest Action Film Ever Made

[10/10 · 14 December 2023]

It's a bold statement. I've seen over 4600 films(or so), and believe me when I say that I didn't come to that conclusion quickly. It has been a few years since I moved Die Hard from 9/10, to the 44th 10/10 that I had ever awarded. Last night, I was treated to the 35th Anniversary Edition on the BigScreen, and never have I left an action film with such resolve as I did last night.

Fittingly, the re-release was launched with little fanfare(much like the first wide release). There were no commentaries, added footage, or enhancements. The film stood there, just as it did when I saw it in 1988. This film plays very big on a very big screen. Framed like a work of art, paced like a Derby Winner, and Directed like THE Ohio State Marching Band; Die Hard is an explosion of precision, art-form, and unapologetic escapism.

Willis was perceived as a miscast-lead, and the film finished it's first wide-release weekend in 3rd place behind "Coming to America" and "Who Framed Roger Rabbit".

Word of mouth, viewership, and dollars started to mount because movie-goers couldn't keep their action-starved mouths' shut. I remember my brother coming-home from the theater and exclaiming, "you have to go see Die Hard(because he just had)". The film was more of a fast-moving airborn virus, than a Blockbuster release. It sputtered out of the gate and then paced with various leaders for 3-months. Even Malkovich would agree that DIe Hard kept "hanging around".

The best thing about the film is McTiernan's direction, which is deft beyond description. The film is clever, grand, well-written; it's also perfectly and efficiently paced. It is shot with an eye for impact, realism; shot with the sheer understanding, not meerly an illusion, of its' grandeur. It's practical alright - and it's almost practically perfect. The cinematography and well-fashioned practical effects provide an impervious, believable, violent, and still-not-dated aesthetic. Sure, the cell-phones aren't there, but the well-groomed cinematography, heart and characters are there, in spades. The film still feels modern because of it's sleek backdrop, lighting, reflections, framing.. and it's well-fashioned, biggest moments.

Die Hard encapsulates the pure-definition of what an action film should be, while not being anything more than it needs to be. It combines old-school underdog and cat-and-mouse concepts, with powerful and soulful characters. Alan RIckman's Hans Gruber is the perfect villian; cold but rational, smart and refined, perhaps only flawed by his slight over-confidence. McClain is the perfect adversary; a grisled cop from New York. He wouldn't know a good suit if he saw it, but he also wouldn't be caught dead in one.

The film screams 80's action-cool with it's opening title, and true-to-form, it doesn't waste any time. The audience gets an effective but brief glimpse into a complex dynamic between John and Holly, when gunfire erupts, and our barefoot hero escapes into the heights and elevator shafts of Nakatomi Plaza.

Speaking-of, my other half turned to me as McClain dangled in the elevator shaft, "my hands are sweating", and they were. Watching-it on the big-screen, again, for me, really made me appreciate those suspenseful moments. Walking to the car we both talked about how the film, other than being set in the '80s, holds-up so well in terms of its' big action sequences, the realism, and the films' overall look/design. The cinematography throughout DIe Hard is, in a word, Superb. If Marvel, Pixar, Lucasfilm, and computer-generated imagery would usher in the new millenium, DIe Hard would be Old Hollywood's Alamo. "Nobody Does it Better" by Carly Simon isn't on the soundtrack, but it should be. Artificial Intelligence and future filmmakers alike, will struggle to re-create a True-American Action Film, as good as Die Hard.

Bruce Willis, ironically, became the films saving grace, in that I believe many other fine actors would have butchered this role. The hero and the filmaker seemingly talk themselves through the plot quite effectively, entertainingly, thoughtfully. The film favors it's look and characters, and the assumption of "just another unbelievable action plot", is rendered moot by its' look, its' characters, and the films' superlative- direction, storyboards, and attention to detail. The film moves like a metronome - on time, every time. It seems almost inhuman. The film makes almost too much sense. It does a great job of covering its' tracks/holes, and progresses the storyline in such a fashion that the film is truly never, not for one single second, boring.

The film is also loaded -with sarcastic/egotistical/testrosterone-infused comedy. Willis delivers in more ways than one. McClain is the ultimate combination of physical, smart and skillful, heartfelt and genuine, machismo and confident; while still being mortal, fallable, identifiable, observant, loving and root-worthy.

The film is clever. The storyline gains more depth and impact from some unsuspecting sources; mainly Reginald Johnson's Sgt. Al Powell, Hart Bochners' Harry, James Shigetas' Joseph Yoshinobu Takagi, and Bonnie Bedelias' Holly. All the supporting roles contribute greatly to the storyline, heart, and impact of the overall film.

John McTiernan's film is a masterpiece. It is equally infused with a keen visual sense, heartfelt and charasmatic characters, non-stop action, and superb music. My only gripe is the final 2-minutes, and even then it almost feels as if McTiernan is bringing us all back down to earth/reality.

It is a Christmas movie btw. IMHO opinion it qualifies because of the sheer volume of Christmas themes and references. It just so happens to also be the best action film ever made. It didn't start as that. Obviously the film had higher aspirations.

10/10

I love Raiders and George Miller's Road Warrior, but after much consideration, the greatest Action film of all-time, is John McTiernan's Die Hard.

The Man from Earth: Holocene (2017)

A Worthy Outrage?

[6/10 · 5 December 2023]

Man From Earth Holocene is getting a bad wrap. Hear me out.

We can't sit here and act like we should be expecting high-production value. The first film lacked that, and this film is similarly molded with campy-production values and hallmark music. If we're going to give the first film a pass for that, then the same needs to be done here.

It's been 10-years since the first film, and I for one was excited to see a follow-up. I didn't even know it was released. I just recently discovered that it was, 6 or 7 years after the fact mind you(dec '23), and of course, I immediately sat down to watch-it.

Yes, those production short-comings were still there, but having seen the original, they were no surprise or distraction.

There are two types of viewers that will, specifically, loath this follow-up. The first are those that did not see the first film. For them, the campy production and concept will fall short, they will be an unpleasant surprise, but for me, overall, this is a worthy follow-up. Watching the first film is not a requirement for understanding any of the concepts, but some of the relationships carried-over have more impact if you have viewed the original.

The second group will loath the film for the same reason I like it, and that is that Holocene asks even more serious and critical questions about Christianity. The first film doesn't tackle the absolutes and strong emotions involved with devotion, faith, and the broader religious impact of the original idea, like Holocene. Much like films with political undertones are divisive - the same can be said about the political and religious undertones of Holocene. Do NoT pass on the sequel due to the current 5.2 rating. That rating is likely skewed for those reasons. Where the original safely dabbled in the "misinterpretations" of Christianity, the second film here hits the subject head-on.

Sterling Knight deserves some props for his supporting role as Philip, a devout Christian college student who feels both intrigued and seriously conflicted by this new revelation. Mr. Knight deserves some bigger roles in bigger films.

I also liked Vanessa Williams and Michael Dorn in their supporting roles. Both give solid performances, although, the break-up scene missed an opportunity to add even more emotional complexity to the film.

Overall, Holocene is a worthy follow-up. It isn't as good as the original, but it is as daring as the original. I think the film has two scenes that could have been even more emotional and more well-written; the break-up, and the basement scene(the films best), both could have really elevated this film to the heights of the original, but fell just a bit short. The tazer concept would have been more believable if Philip would have pulled the trigger.

I still enjoyed the film. It did just about everything I could have expected from a follow-up, progressing the story, concepts, and characters, while presenting even more questions and new interest; perhaps, similar to what this film did with the religious quandary, to be later expanded-upon. In that way, and with the final scene, I would watch and anticipate a third entry. I hope the rating here doesn't discourage that prospect.

Holocene is better than it's 5.2 rating here. Don't pass on this if you enjoyed the original. Devout Christians probably left "Man From earth" puzzled or intrigued, but they also might leave "Holocene", outraged. That's the only thing that could explain watchers of the original, giving this 1 or 2 stars. It's too much like the original, and also not far-off in overall quality, to be critiqued so harshly, unless many are outraged by its' religious undoing. I think this is a solid follow-up, that would also serve as a nice connector for a final film of a trilogy, or at least that's my hope. The original concept is so intriguing that it glosses-over the production short-comings of the original. If you afford the sequel the same considerations, it's nearly as good. Watch it.

It would be interesting to see the ratings broken down by religious groups.

59/100.

Lou (I) (2022)

A Limp "Shoot to Kill". Pass.

[5/10 · 28 November 2023]

This is, at heart, an action adventure film. Janney and Marshall-Green have been standouts in other films/work. It was only a couple years ago that I was watching the low-budget sci-fi-action flick "Upgrade"(8/10) with a smile on my face that made Jokers' look small.

I started "Lou" with little-to-no anticipation, but felt a little more comfortable when I saw J. J. Abrams name attached. I thought, "well, at the very least it will look good", and it did.

This film has some really big issues. Almost all of them are based around a skeleton script and many terribly implausible moments, and I'm really not the kind of guy to nit-pick that kind-of stuff, especially in an action flick.

The characterizations are all extremely shallow, under-written, contradictory, and puzzling, and it makes the emotional impact the same. The plot is a serious mess.

One of the biggest lines, or at least seemingly-so, is "I left this world a more dangerous place", and be absolutely prepared for that statement, and it's impact, to fizzle, but not like wet wood in a fire.

And that leads me to the pantry of implausible and ridiculous scenes. The entire premise doesn't even make sense. The more I think about the film the more I think i'm over-rating-it here, but hey, I didn't turn it off. The scenery and settings were great. The '80s music doesn't hurt, but this feels very blah to me considering it's action, it's not poorly acted, and it's a JJ Abrams production. Tbh, I've had similar issues with a couple recent jjabrams productions(Annihilation 5/10) comes to mind.

Action films can be mindless, but they need to have heart. If you're gonna attempt a back-story like this - you need to give the viewer more, otherwise we just do not understand who these people are, why they're here, and why they do what they do, and in that way, "Lou" fails miserably.

The ending is predictable, but less predictable than it is stupid and implausible.

Please Netflix do NOT make a sequel. It's not terrible, but it's much worse than I thought it would be. Messy film.

You "might" like this is you liked: Shoot to Kill(slightly better than Lou), Ava(about even), or No Time to Die(better).

Dune (2021)

Thank You Sir, Can I Have Another

[8/10 · 15 October 2023]

I started to take notice of director Denis Villeneuve following 2010's "Incendies(my #7 film for 2010). Since then, he has littered my annual Top-25 lists with good-to-fantastic films: Prisoners(#1 for 2013), Sicario(#6 for 2015), Arrival(#13 for 2016) and Blade Runner 2049(#8 for 2017). He is one of a few living Directors that will get a "watch" from me, every-time.

That said, Arrival and Blade Runner '49, while good, even visually fantastic.. felt just a bit ostentatious, lacking-in linear storyline, needing more character development. Ultimately, they weren't as spectacular as his 4 previous films. Even more-so the case for Arrival; it sounded amazing, looked amazing, but could also be described as a slightly overrated snoozefest.. more of a 65/100 for me, not the 8.0 as shown on here. My "also movie-buff" cohort, the Siskel to my Ebert at that time, liked Arrival even less than I did.. Similar to other stylish works like "Only God Forgives(73/100 - #26 for 2013) or "Under the Skin(71/100 - #27 for 2013), Arrival was art that I could certainly appreciate, but perhaps never love, own, or wholeheartedly recommend.

My only knowledge/experience of THIs source material was waiting in line (around-the-theater/ as a 12-yr-old) to see Lynch's mid-80s version(52/100) I certainly hoped to finish Dune(2021) more satisfied, perhaps even blown away. Even with "Arrival" and "Blade Runner2049-esque", slightly-tempered expectations, it's still Denis Villeneuve, with 100 Million dollars. Bad never entered the equation.

I would say this met my expectations. It's got more spice in the characters and story than '49 or Arrival, and that's a very good thing.

2021's version of Dune is in the top-half of this directors' work, so it's definitely good, 83/100, and it's a virtual lock for my top-5 for 2021(though Im only about 30 films into '21s watchlist).

The film is grand. The cinematography, use of locales, led to an "even better" visual Villeneuve. That look, combined with some truly incredible sound/music, costumes, art direction, all-star cast, more-than-sufficient character development, more linear storyline(though does feel only 50% complete), depth, leave this viewer truly salivating!

Dune is an extremely good science-fiction film, that could potentially be made even better if the nuances, prophecies, and performances blossom in Part 2. This is, more than anything, a single character-arc saga, or that's what it needs to be, that's what it's set-up to be, what I hope it continues to be. Chalamet and his co-leads performance in Part 2 could be the difference between this saga being merely good, or elevating-it very near-to hobbit-or-empire-like status. There goes the useful ratngs, easy, its not THAT good.

I scored Star Wars 91/100, Empire 93/100, and Two Towers 88/100(my fave of that trilogy). It is good overall, but undeniably less entertaining than those masterpieces.

It IS way up there with this milleniums' best of genre - Maybe just behind Machina, D9, C. O. M, and Duncan Jones' "Moon", which I love. The first-25 minutes could use a couple more cuts, but there's simply not much here to complain about.

Highly recommended. Better uninterrupted, and viewed where the visuals and audio can truly be appreciated. Serious, but seriously good, flashy, but certainly no flash in the pan.

Assault on Precinct 13 (1976)

Movie for the Price of a New Pick-Up

[7/10 · 29 September 2023]

John Carpenter's second film, "Assault on Precinct 13", is an exercise in over-achievement; a true coming-out party for the director. In concept, it is little more than a short story on a shoe-string budget, but nonetheless, trailblazing.

Carpenter's score transposed '70s-pulp into '80s-cool. The minimal cast, save 25 gang-members that are both mute and moot, does a superb job. The film is strange, dark, witty fun from start to finish. It draws inspiration from Rio Bravo, and Night of the Living Dead, but Carpenter, having put his own stamp on every aspect of the film, is far from simply retreading here. He developed the score in 3 days, and shot the entire film in under 3-weeks. He wrote, directed, edited, and scored the film. It may borrow and be influenced by other films, but it still reeks of originality and style. The director's budding talent here could be compared to Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs(9)or Scorcese's Mean Streets(8.5), only Assault, admittedly, isn't as good as those films; but it's still good. Without AOP13, the great iconic horror films of the '80s may not even exist. It is as important as Friedkin, Romero and Hitchock's work, in that regard. Carpenter started to create a template for '80s horror and sci-fi right here, in 1976.

Hollywood wasn't prepared for a film this dark to explode at the time, and the director didn't have quite the resources for it to be that either, but it would open the door for Halloween to do just that(2 years later). Carpenter's signatures that made "They Live", "The Fog", "Christine", and "The Thing" so enjoyably tense, are all here.

The film is simultaneously simple yet dynamic, as are its' characters. The short run-time doesn't hurt it's re-watchability, and the moments of brevity, balanced with the tension, would become yet another staple of this under-appreciated and talented director.

73/100

What it lacks in scale -it makes up for in style. Recommended.

A Good Person (2023)

First Hour is masterclass!

[9/10 · 5 August 2023]

"A Good Person", at the surface, is a nothing film. An indie drama with little-to-no buzz, all-too familiar subject matter, and no action or CGI.

I remember when I saw David Schwimmer's film, "Trust". I didn't know much about the subject of internet/sexual predators(especially the depth of its' impact on families), but it became very obvious to me that the filmmaker DID! It wasn't until after I finished the film, that I found-out that Schwimmer had a lot of experience/knowledge of the subject matter, and that is what elevated the drama/realism to a level you don't often see in film. This film does the same thing.

The first hour of "A Good Person" is about the best hour of any drama that I have ever seen. That's a bold statement from a guy that's seen about 4500 films, but I'm sticking to-it. I have been affected by both addiction and major car accidents, so in this case, I know the subject matter quite well. Perhaps that skews my opinions about the film, but it also qualifies me in some way to critic the writing, acting, and subject matter(realism); under a more powerful(and watchful) lense.

Zach Braff's writing and Florence Pugh and Morgan Freemans' acting make this, undoubtedly, one of the years best.

An hour-in, I had to stop the film after a couple different scenes, at that point, I was befuddled and truly shell-shocked by the effectiveness and realism of the first 2 acts. Scene after scene it was just so well done. I went from going-into the film quite blind, to realizing I was watching something VERY special. I felt like Indiana Jones in THe Last Crusade, "You have chosen, wisely". I also realized, that if the last act was as good as the first 2, that I would undoubtedly be rating the film as the 48th 10/10 that I have awarded. At the halfway point, definitely a 10 out of 10! Each scene in the films' first hour is realistic, completely engrossing and impeccably written.

I knew Braff had an impossible task. To finish the film on as high of a note as the films' first hour, would be difficult for any director. Its not that the final act is that bad, it's that the first two are just simply that good.. The only problem is that the film gets so many subplots involved, that it stood no chance of timely and adequately resolving each of them. Therefore the final act is slightly convoluted, rushed, and overdone. IF the final act were as strong as the films' first hour, literally removing one-less than perfect 5-min scene, I would have nudged-it onto the exceptional shelf with my favorite dramas of the last 2 decades; films like Whiplash, There Will Be Blood, The Descendants, and Short Term 12. As it sits(or finished), it will rank at or near the final film, "Short Term 12", in overall quality(9/10), and most akin to that comparison in genre and scope. Zero doubt that this film will hold a top-5 spot for 2023, and it currently sits at #1.

This is one of the best films I've ever seen in terms of tackling multiple dramatic subplots like addiction, grief, rehabilitation, friendship/support and hope; and by simply doing-it so well. It literally has the potential to save real peoples lives, and i don't think too many films can say that. It understands the subject matter. It realistically portrays serious family dynamics(maybe minus one scene), but is mostly, uncomfortably, realistic and dynamic.... Zach Braff moved way up the drama-director to watch list, if there is one. The writing of the entire film, the extremely well-fashioned scenes of the films' first hour(in particular), and those incredible performances, are what truly sets this film apart. It's a little more restraint in one particular scene away from 10/10 for this reviewer.

Guy Ritchie's the Covenant (I) (2023)

Guy Switchie.

[8/10 · 31 July 2023]

The Covenant is easily Guy Ritchie's most serious work. Detractors will likely describe-it as unrealistic; perhaps predictable, formulaic, or even "propaganda".. All of which may be true(or certainly arguable). I still think it's one heckuva good movie.

The closest comparisons would be Lone Survivor(8.5) Outpost(7.5) and Traitor(7.5). At worst, it's better than the last-two, and those are 3 good films. At best, Ritchie's film may be as good as Wahlberg's more decorated, more realistic, true story. . Sure, Covenant may have more faults/suspension-of-belief than Lone Survivor; though I wouldn't know on the military accuracy/nuance tbh(but I can imagine - if only because Lone Survivor IS certainly a much "safer"film. That's the irony, is that Ritchie will take "sell-out" criticism for this film because its not in his usual style, but the film is actually incredibly daring and impactful....

I'm also not one to nitpick through that detailed stuff, some are, so if u do that, u may not like it.

Accuracy-fiction-or-not-stuff aside - many aspects of this film are superb. It looks ridiculously good. The acting is top-notch. It has more heart than all three of the films I mentioned, combined!

This film is more psychologically complex and dramatic than those other films. It's an emotional war film centered sround two central characters. Ritchie's protagonists are bound by respect, debt and honor. They are men of conviction.

I think a bit more restraint from Ritchie in certain scenes, snd perhaps a longer(and even More epic) runtime, would've gone a long way.

As it sits, we have a lock for top-25 of '23.

This is a film about debt and respect. It includes some really good dialogue and deep emotions. The action and cinematography are truly superb. Gyllenhaal is great, but his counterpart, equally as good.

Another superb Ritchie film. I'd never guess he directed-it, not because it isn't good, but because it isn't as stylized, British, or dare I say Elmore Leonard as his previous work. I'll be watching this again.

79/100

For the record - I rated Lone Survivor a smidge higher(83/100) - even though this film looks better and strikes more of an emotional-chord for me. Like I said- it's almost too big for itself. Ritchie will take criticism, but I consider this quite the achievement for the director. No one will be able to say it lacks serious aesthetic and emotional punch. Highly Recommended.

Air (I) (2023)

Shoe-in for top-10 2023 lists.

[8/10 · 22 July 2023]

GXer here. This first note here is a personal opinion. I happen to agree with the films' late claim, that Michael Jordan would go on to become the greatest basketball player of all-time. I know those Goat arguments oft include Kobe, Lebron, Magic, Bird, Wilt(and others), but for this guy, 100% agree.

That thought DID mesh well with many nuances within the film. "Air" is more of a business and sales film than a sports film, , but what it lacks in action, it more than makes-up-for in writing, acting, heart, and glorious music/pop-culture.

Damon's "Sonny Viccaro" is a seemingly-forgotten sales-closer, gambler, and talent-acquisition guy at Nike, and the CEO "Phil" is played by lifelong friend Ben Affleck, in a rather subdued performance. Damon and Viola Davis are the stars of the acting-show, but it's the pacing, music, and heartfelt moments that make the film work. The conversations between Damon and Davis, and the moment Viccaro takes-over a failing NIKe pitch are superb. Sales-oriented viewers willl looooove this movie.

The music is flat-out amazing. The film is jam-packed with a soundtrack that seems endless, with nods to classics from the era, plus retro-blips from all sorts of cool stuff; the pino donaggio telescope cut from Body Double, Tangerine Dream, and it is all superbly-pieced together.

The film constantly drops interesting side-info that may be heresay or may be true, but the storyline keeps landing back in Sonny Viccaro's lap. This time around, Viccaro is gambling-on something he knows well, and it pays-off for everyone, including the viewer.

Air defies gravity by hitting heartstrings, capturing an era, providing a killer soundtrack, and being consistently entertaining. Sales stuff, design stuff, sports stuff, all well-acted and engrossing; what's not to like? Accuracy? Pffft.

Solid. Very good overall, but admittedly more references and check-it-out moments for genXers-up, though any adult with a 80 IQ should enjoy this.

83/100

You'll like this if you liked: The Big Short(about even or an eyelash better), Middle Men(not as good but decent) or The Founder(not as good but decent).

Afflecks performance may be subdued, but his directorial improvement from "Live by Night" to "Air" deserves a nod as well.

Annihilation (I) (2018)

Well.. Ex Machina It Ain't

[5/10 · 2 July 2023]

Alex Garland via Ex Machina led me to this viewing. Oscar, Jennifer and Natalie's attachment certainly didn't deter-me, and the 6.8 ranking didn't either. I was anxious - sometimes i take a while to find something to watch. Ive just seen a lot of films, and i don't like to waste time. Haha, says the guy who spends 20minutes shuffling through movies to watch. Annihilation checked quite a few boxes going-in, and I was eager to start-it.

I'll be honest - I was disappointed. All of the fantastical ideas are fresh, interesting.. truly original, and thought provoking... It's conceptually awesome, And aesthetically pleasing .......but it's also tedious, emotionless, under-and-poorly scripted, unnecessarily violent, and ultimately disappointing. I wanted ex machina - I got Adam Project Meets Maze Runner, only with more horror aspects, and not as average. Eeek.

There's no one(and nothing) to root-for -all the characters are dull and unlikable. The subplots are scattered about without any real impact. Another reviewer mentioned the poorly executed "government" operation, and that critic is also accurate. To take this idea, these actors, and combine sci-fi and horror aspects, make it look good, and then somehow dumbfound me as to how I didn't enjoy watching-it.. wew.. Ex Machina is a polished, damn-near masterpiece - Annihilation is a film I will watch once in my lifetime.

Is similar-to, and unfortunately, as average as: Adam Project, Maze Runner, No Escape(Liota), another Jennifer Jason Lee stinker and slight director disappointment the likes of Cronenbergs' "Existenz", Schumachers' "Blood Creek",Duncan Jones' "Mute", and Antals' Predators. Didn't love it.

I mean some people might like it, but I'm just not one of those people. Still gets a near average score for look, concept, and because the set-up(first 30-min) is pretty good. From the moment she arrives at the base, till the end, this is an average film.

Extraction (2020)

Arnold or Sly Would Approve

[7/10 · 15 June 2023]

Check-in your brain; then just sit-back and enjoy the Extraction.

I had zero expectations the first time I saw this. Figured-it for a formulaic Netflix actioner, but for what the film lacks in plot, it packs-one seriously violent and frenetic punch. The action sequences are superb. The films' 2 hr run-time moves at breakneck pace, and for Netflix and viewer alike, Extraction is a surprising, entertaining, home-run.

Hemsworths' Tyler Rake is a bit of a mystery, but has just enough downtime to make him a likable hero, Most of the time - he's doing what he does best.

Now, it's no John Wick, but it's close in terms of volume and choreography of its action scenes, and that's saying something for a Netflix movie.

My first-thought upon completion was, "wow, that was good, too bad it's not big enough to get a sequel", so needless to say, I'll be checking-out the sequel the night of release.

Good job to all the stuntmen and visual effects teams. I'm sure it'll catch all sorts of flack for it's violence and portrayal of the city, but tbh, i could care less. I'm in it for the action. If you are too - you won't be disappointed.

Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)

2nd to only Die Hard, above Road Warrior

[10/10 · 10 June 2023]

..for best pure-action/adventure film of all-time.

It could not have been made at any other time, nor by any other director.

Raiders of the Lost Ark is a masterclass of filmmaking. Spielberg has created a love-song to action films of yesterday, with incredible scale, sets, stunts, storytelling, ANd sound! It comes together in the climactic heyday of '80s - perhaps the only time it could have all come together; a time where practical effects, money, artistic expression, and time itself, were in abundance.

Ford is the quintessential casting/lead; having perfected a balance of serious machismo, and sarcastic comedy. It's the same Solo-formula. If Solo was the cool and sly-fly-guy, Indiana is the American Treasure; as iconic as any hero in action/adventure history.,

The film opens with a fantastically thrilling jungle sequence, but instead of losing steam, it gains steam with the incredible development of the main characters and storyline. Right from the start, the film hints of God-like powers, And the occult. Spielberg creates scenes that build on the fantastical/other-wordly undertones; creating a treasure that is worth more than mere money, if unearthed, it could cost everyone their lives. From the maproom, to the well of the souls, to the climax, Raiders' mythic(or if you prefer historic) charm is undeniable.

The cinematography is incredible, the overall pacing is perfection, and the humor is spot-on. John Williams' music is simply amazing! The ending truly could have been a disaster, but it's deftly handled, throwing in some intrigue, fantasy, and horror aspects. I could kick myself for not seeing the re-release at the theater last week. Everything about this is as grand and fun as movies get. The film and sequels hint at the power of the prize in this first film, "if you believe in that sorta thing", "are you sure? Pretty sure". In an era today where nothing is believable, we yearn for films that truly make us believe in something bigger, an adventure film that is gritty, tangible, with exciting characters, and none has ever done it better. Thank you Mr. Spielberg.

Okja (2017)

Ja-ok

[7/10 · 14 May 2023]

I have long been a follower of directors throughout the years. There is no surefire way to avoid disappointment as a viewer, but it certainly helps to follow good directors. If you truly love a film- it is unlikely you will truly dislike another film from that director. Good directors rarely make terrible films. Maybe if the director is very early in their career, and:or vastly underfunded. Boon Joon Ho splashed onto the scene with the monster mash "The Host" in 2006; another inventive and artistic vision, exquisitely brought-to life.

"Okja" is not a masterpiece on the lines of some of the directors' other work(Memories of Murder / Parasite, come to mind), but it is still an entertaining mash-up of tones and genre, in typical Korean fashion.

The film is basically a satire about the disgusting, inhumane food industry, and our greed as consumers, coupled with an effective child/pet storyline.

It's good, but it missed out on an opportunity to be great. The biggest gripe is the tone that is inherently adult. One particular scene goes way too far, in fact, so far that in and of itself, it docs my score by a full point, and simultaneously wipes-out a huge swath of potential viewers/fans. Not that the films claims to be made for kids, but it certainly had the opportunity to be accessible for most age brackets. The scene makes it inappropriate for the 14 and under crowd, and really tarnishes the film imo.

All that said, the film is incredibly well put together, especially in terms of cgi and action. It is loaded with style and jaw-droppingly well done action sequences. The film has heart, albeit torn and upended by the grossly overdone disturbing scenes. Paul Dano is good, but Jake Gylenhaals' Character is a little to over-the-top. I did find the film entertaining and funny, and can still recommend it to adults. A little more restraint from the director here could have made this fantastic. Artistically, this is actually a true masterpiece.

It reminds me a lot of "Don't Look Up", but is more akin.to CJ7. While it artistically is better than CJ7 - it's not as good as CJ7. If you liked Okja and haven't seen CJ7, well, then there's your recommendation.

Good movie, but could have been great.

Fall (I) (2022)

Below Descent. The Desert "Frozen"

[6/10 · 30 April 2023]

No major spoilers.

The opening 25-30 minutes is cringeworthy. Luckily, the film rallied late to salvage a passable grade.

The film starts to gain steam as the ascent begins. While the set-up was sloppy, the tense, gruesome latter half is undoubtedly better. Perhaps the focus on the acrophobic aspects takes us away from all that disastrous fluff, or perhaps this film just thrived in that little box(or set); nearly to the point of recommendation, but I still hesitate.

Aside from the three comparisons in the title - the film that this reminds me the most-of is Wolf Creek. "Fall" similarly takes its time to get to the meat of the action; it also features two girls and a guy, in a desert setting, with a harrowing latter half. Definitely a smash-up of Wolf Creek, The Descent, and Frozen, though to be completely honest, this would probably be the weakest of those, or at the very best it's close to even with Adam Greens' Frozen. You know what, nah, it's not as "above average" as Frozen. It's close.

There are two surprisingly effective and welcome twists.

58/100

Worth a single watch if you can stomach the terrible set-up. Possibly a little more unnerving for people who are scared of heights, but from the midway-point when the ascent begins, till the end, it's actually quite entertaining.

My scores for the already mentioned "you might like this if you liked": The Descent 8.5 Wolf Creek 7.5 Frozen 6.5-7 Fall 6

This really isn't bad IF you're patient, but considering it was the latter-half of a double feature with Aronofsky's "Whale", it felt like the acting went from Acura TLX to Honda Civic tonight. Bottom line: if you liked the movies I mentioned here, you'll likely give it a passing grade, if not, pass.

Kingsman: The Secret Service (2014)

Mannersth Maketh-it Merely Good

[7/10 · 19 February 2023]

Mathew Vaughn's Kingsman roars out-of the gate. It finely tailors its' characters, and has enough genuine flair and entertainment to fill 3-Good spy movies.

Samuel Jacksons Valentine lacks the humor and villainousness, and the film gets a little sloppy and careless in the final act. It definitely earns it's r-rating, and has it, so I'm not going to knock it for that. Buuuut, I still think it's the that over-the-top nature that goes ever-so-slightly too far in certain aspects, especially in the final act. Maybe it just feels that way because the slightly restrained, more PG-13 elements of the film, ARE sheer brilliance. They also compose as much or more of the films' first 90-minutes. That's why i can have so many complaints about this near Top-200 of the millennia, and still give it a 7.. The car theft, parkour, and training scenes are fantastic. The entire set-up, the first hour, is incredibly solid. The over-stylized amputation frenzy is fun, but feels a bit tone-deaf(and heavier-handed as the film moves-on).

It's the storytelling segments, and the restrained action sequences, that are the films' strongest, and when it's good, it's really, really, really good. The development and the relationship of two starring Kingmen, the human elements, the emotional elements, and the solid turns from Firth and Edgerton, make this worth, not just watching, but owning. The soundtrack is awesome! 7's still a good score, especially from me, but this film really could have been a 9. The great aspects are great, but the cloying aspects are bit too cloying, and Im speaking specifically about the over-stylized violence, and the over-cooked villain. Damn, this could have been truly great. Good movie.

73/100.

You People (2023)

Starts funny. Ends Rushed and Flawed.

[6/10 · 28 January 2023]

The start of "You People" is great. Extremely funny opening 20.

The film obviously has a lot to say about racism. Most of the content on that front is(for the most part) an accurate, poignant, and critical look at racial stereotyping.

Some characters work and some chemistry works, and some doesn't. Most of the time it's working, especially in the films latter half, is when Eddie Murphy is involved.

The chemistry between Amira and Ezra isn't great. The bachelor party scene is a mess. Everything about it needs fixed. We don't hear anything from the friends that make the trip, and the entire cocaine subplot just ruins-it for me. The downplaying of such a serious subject and dangerous drug is alarming, and off-putting. Ezra is already a little hard to like, but that's because he's awkward, but the cocaine-bit ruins that plight.

The film also loses a lot of steam down the stretch. A brief break-up and reconciliation seems rushed and under-written. Eddie Murphy, and the films opening 20-30min, make this film passable for me, but I won't be recommending or rewatching this soft-6 anytime soon.

I think the film is occasionally on point in terms of the racial dynamics, but the film lacks the emotional-chemistry-punch to provide a backbone. The writing is hit and miss throughout, but unfortunately, most of the time Lauren London and Jonah Hill are sharing the screen, the writing wanes. The comedy often works - the drama often doesn't.

Not terrible. Better than most of these(netflix big star comedies), anyway. It's definitely better than "Do-Over", "Me Time", and "Murder Mystery", but not as enjoyable as "Don't Look Up" or "Hustle", for example.

It may be worth a view - especially for Eddie fans.

58/100.

The Menu (2022)

Cheeky Burger

[7/10 · 9 January 2023]

I knew what was on the menu tonight, because my wife had been wanting to watch this for a while now. "The Menu" stars Ralph Fiennes as Chef Slowik, an overly-seasoned, bitter Chef(but not owner) of a exclusive(and surely expensive) culinary destination, Hawthorn.

Slowik's life has slowly led to this perfect Menu. He's assembled a seasoned palate of diners too, to judge his food, redeem his passion, and more importantly, to make a point. Each course is better, (and more stunning) than its' predecessor.

The film is a visual feast. Stylistically, it reminds me of kenta Fukasaku's "Battle Royal", with a "Knives Out" feel to the story. It's good but not quite as good as those comparisons. The best hidden morsels come in the form of what the film has to say about greed, gratification, and innocence.

In Slowik's world, no one is innocent. Someone is going to have to flip the bill, or the script, to change his mind.

Catch it while you can streaming. It's brisk, truly beautiful, and fun at best; not everyone's cup-o-tea, at worst. I personally dig how the film does let the audience fill-in some of the holes. It's best taken with a few grains of salt. There's a bit for everyone, or at the very least, a little bite.

70/100

You might like it if you liked(or also try): Battle Royale(subt/better), Burnt(better), Shallow Grave(better), or Knives Out(slightly better). Wild Tales(subt/much much better).

Definitely Above average, entertaining, and stylistically and aesthetically appealing. I say watch it.

Emily the Criminal (2022)

Promising Can of Corn

[5/10 · 26 December 2022]

I dig Aubrey. She's fresh, she's cute and she can act. I saw this title for a couple weeks and just knew I'd eventually give it a spin.

Didn't I just see this thing, only a touch better, starring Sandra Bulllock 6 months ago.? This turn may actually be more realistic than that one, but it's also less entertaining.

Aubrey does fine in the lead here, but the ending is too predictable and anti-climactic. The stakes aren't high enough, the love story seems pointless and non-impactful. To me, the entire film took the safe route. Every scene seemingly well-designed but lacking the gumption and extra-kick to make it effective. The scripting is too minimal, the ending too cookie-cutter, and overall, it's all a bit of a waste of time for me. There are better films in the genre to venture upon than this.. try "Disorder(6.5)", or "the Wrestler(9), or either of the 2 last Saffie brothers' turns (Uncut Gems(9), Good Times(8))if you're looking for an effective drama, with a more fleshed out scripts, lead perfomances, and lasting impact. Like I said earlier, even Bullock's' "Unforgivable(6.5)" is better.

Emily the Criminal isn't terrible, but it certainly wan't very memorable either. I want the seriously pissed off version of Aubrey. I never felt like this character was pushed over the edge, at least not hard enough or far enough. Lacks the criminal empire or villain to make it work. The film also seems to lack emotion. I'd pass tbh.

I saw one reviewer incessantly comparing Ford's work to Michae Mann, and 3 more comparing it to Nightcrawler. As a film guru, i can say, unquestionably, that those comparisons deserve no place here. This is no "Thief", or "Collateral", and certainly no Nightcrawler. Lacks the style, lighting, overall direction, powerhouse leads, impact, climax, post-viewing intrigue, and entertainment value of those comparisons. I'd check them at the door.

Very. Average. Flick.

Christine (1983)

Gordon's Turn and Genre-Originality, Rewards

[8/10 · 18 September 2022]

Christine is segmented and paced efficiently. This allows the film to pack-in the back-story, develop its' protagonist perfectly, and never bore the viewer. It's quite simple in concept. Besides, I'm not gonna listen to "far-fetched" complaints from Marvel fans.

Christine, the car that is, is a one man, or I mean one girl show. She's vengeful, yet occasionally forgiving. She's deadly, but breathes life and strength into Arnie. She may be immortal.

This is an undeniably entertaining horror film. It doesn't rely on many of the tired cliche's of the genre, and really shines like a detailed finish in terms of originality. You should revisit or watch for the first time this Halloween Season.

77/100

Has actually gotten better with age.

Dudes (1987)

Dude, This is Not Good Dude

[2/10 · 31 July 2022]

No, seriously, it's not dude.

"Dudes" is perhaps the least satisfying of many similar, average b-comedy/adventure-types from the decade. The writing is cringeworthy, and the entire films' only saving grace, is that it may very well be the worst of it's guild.

If it's a comedy, it isn't funny. In fact, the film seriously struggles to have any meaningful or emotional impact on the viewer at all. The characters are all unlikable. Aside from decent music in select parts(cringeworthy in others), and some occasional, nice western scenery, there are virtually no redeeming qualities to this film, dude.

24/100.

Ive seen and reviewed 100's of '80s films, maybe 1000, and I have an affinity for the decade, and these low-budget comedy adventures(think Hiding Out/cryer, Run/Dempsey, or even stuff like 3 O'Clock High). I've always liked these types 80s flicks, but not this one. Avoid. Conversely, this could be a MST3K/Rifftraz Gem, because it. Is. Bad. Dude.

Did I say it was bad? That is, quite convincingly, one of or THe worst film(s) I've seen from the decade.

Summer Days, Summer Nights (II) (2018)

Can I Rate Each Half?

[5/10 · 24 July 2022]

In the same vein as Richard LInklater's ""Everybody Wants Some", with a dash of "The Way Way Back", "Dazed and Confused", or "Adventureland", but not nearly as good as the last 3 of those. It's about even with "Everybody Wants Some", which I didn't love btw. That's all to say that this is a slice of life flick with multiple characters and no central plot. It's a time capsule.

Unfortunately, most viewers will give-up on this before the midway point. The films latter half is much better than the first half. I read a review that was harping about the climactic original song being terrible and poorly written. The reviewer basically claimed it was so bad that is was clearly the worst aspect of the film. Personally, I found the song to be about the most redeeming quality, and encompassed one of the strongest moments of the film. It's not among the greatest "original to film" songs ever-written, but to say that it's the single biggest issue isn't doing the song, or this very average film justice:)

The film basically centers around the relationships between 3-20ish couples during a summer on the Jersey shore.

The last 40-minutes and the fantastic soundtrack make this passable/average. The film would have been stronger if it were based solely on the relationships involving the main protagonist. Burns and his onscreen son needed more screen-time here. I cannot recommend this one, even with the bangin' soundtrack. The time capsule aspect isn't great either(look, feel of '80s). There are just too many relationships here to develop. The first 45-min will be pretty tough for most to get through. I got an idea! Forward-it to the midway point. There's my recommendation.

I've seen much worse, but very average flick.

54/100.

Charlie Countryman (2013)

Flawed But MUCh Better Than its 6.3 score!

[8/10 · 17 July 2022]

Dumbfounded by the rating here. One complaint is Evan Rachel Woods' accent, but she's so damn hot that she could be speaking pig-latin here and I wouldn't care.

Charlie Countryman was a longshot. Director Fredrik Bond spent his entire career making commercials, and hasn't made a feature film since. The film grossed 7K in America but 400K in Russia.

I'm a pretty big fan of the two male leads here(Shia Lebeouf and Mads Mikkleson), so despite not seeing a shred of marketing, I started this film with cautious optimism.

This longshot comes flying out of the gate! The first 30-minutes of the film is what justifies the chaos(or some might argue, implausibility) of the films last hour. There are some very dramatic and effective scenes, early, that in my opinion, makes the the whole thing just work.

Bond has an eye for the camera. THe film looks amazing! Apparently, making 1-minute car commercials really helps a filmmaker make quality action sequences, with loads of style.

I imagine this film will be hit or miss with very little middle ground for most viewers. The film balances three aspects that aren't normally combined:Grief, Love-story, Chase/action sequences. It's a little scatterbrained to be honest, but isn't that what grief does to people?

Mikkleson is aces as usual, and Shia is about the only actor in Hollywood that could play this part effectively. Evan Rachel Wood's performance is fine minus the accent, but my biggest gripe with the film is the lack of connection that Gabi(Wood) has with Charlie(LaBeouf) in the end, which should have been the whole point. Her character is being rescued, but at times seemingly doesn't want to be, and that, for me, is one of the films' bigger issues. It makes sense in the middle of the film, because of the futile/oppressive relationship she is in, but by the end, i felt like I wanted Gabi to melt(more completely)into the loving arms of our protagonist. Gabi's aloof tone is the films biggest drawback. I think the film would have been a 9 with one more "happily-ever-after" scene - something to soften Gabi's touch, and justify the hell that Charlie went through to get her.

In terms of style, pacing, and overall entertainment; Charlie Countryman is a gigantic success, worthy of more like 6.9-7.9 on IMDB. I'm going with 76/100. Rewatches have me seriously appreciating the films' set-up, and the action sequences. Everyone that I have turned-on-to this, have come back with appreciation and positive feedback. Highly recommend this under-rated, stylish, action-love-story. The music is great too. Turn the lights-out, turn the volume up, and go watch-it.