sajpratt-82-265277 Reviews

2067 (2020)

Garbage Science-Absurd Premise

[2/10 · 12 March 2022]

How would one go about producing oxygen and then call it "artificial"? You can have 'artificially-produced oxygen', which results in the same oxygen as that which plankton, plants and trees give off, but there cannot be anything called "artificial oxygen". Oxygen is a very basic, very simple molecule-altering an oxygen molecule could never result in an 'artificial' form of an oxygen molecule, it would result in a 'not oxygen' molecule, let alone a 'poisonous oxygen molecule'. You can 'pollute' oxygen by allowing it to mix with other gasses, of course, but that's not what we're talking about in this film. This is high school-level chemistry. Just that simple truth destroys this film's entire premise.

Oxygen is remarkably easy to produce through artificial means-a lack of oxygen in a spaceship or Mars habitat could be a relatively easy problem to overcome. Water, on the other hand, would be an impossible problem to solve-we'd need a local source of water-ice, since to actually produce just one cup of water takes the equivalent energy of the Hiroshima bomb-a blast from a fission, or better yet, a fusion reactor. Science' is important, people!

It makes one wonder what kind of vetting process producers/directors go through with their scripts and plot devices, and begs the question, how does even a modestly-educated person sit through such a film while trying to find it believable? The producers of this film should have gone with some sort of 'alien magic pixie dust' as the culprit in Earth's demise rather than trying to use such laughable pseudo-science in an attempt to devise a realistic science-fiction plot.

Were I an actor of some renown and acted in this film, believing the plot devices had all been researched properly, I would sue the producers for making me look like a fool. Still, I can't imagine mouthing the words, "Oh my God! They've been giving us corrupt artificial oxygen and that is why we're all dying!", without bursting into hysterics.

Black Mountain Side (2014)

A Wasted Mess

[2/10 · 5 October 2021]

Strangely disconnected direction on top of adequate acting and great scenery. DOP work is a slight cut above indie-normal.

You can't be shy about critiquing Indie productions-if you are, they'll never get any better. Neither can you give it a 'pass' because it's an Indie production. I see low-budget SF Indie Shorts on Dust and YouTube that blow this film away and just can't understand how that happens. Regardless, in this film they have all the needed, mostly good, constituent parts, yet the effort is hollow like a scarecrow.

They have a good DOP and machinery, great scenery that really works for the storyline, fairly decent acting talent, and obviously enough of a budget to print it. So what's wrong?

The writing. The writing is just terrible. Just about everything one can critique about a screenplay is there in spades--the gaping plot holes and the tiresome, uninspired dialog are gut-wrenchingly disappointing when you consider all the plusses they have going for them.

The Directing. Can anyone reveal what it is that the Director was after here? What was he up to? His beat-by-beat goals? Was he trying to work around the script?

Whatever. Such a waste.

Sharknado 3: Oh Hell No! (2015 TV Movie)

I'd Rather Have Driven a Nail Through My Skull

[1/10 · 27 January 2020]

I saw the first one--I was relatively entertained during a snow-in. but this?

There must be hundreds of good writers, directors and actors out there that deserve jobs--these people obviously do not.

Sad--do yourself a BIG favor and avoid this needless, embarrassing pain.

Car Masters: Rust to Riches (2018– )

Awesome Show!

[10/10 · 26 January 2020]

Lots of personality and a true reality car show. Love it and love the cast! Netflix--if you don't do another season then sell the show to Motor Trend! We need more!!!!

Extraordinary: The Seeding (2019)

OH.....MY......GOODNESS!!!

[1/10 · 4 January 2020]

You have to love this: " The Seeding explores alien hybridization programs, why they're happening and their impact on humanity."

So 'Alien Hybridization programs' are happening and they are "impacting humanity"?

What humans are they impacting outside of the local psych wards and Kentucky?

The producers use a plethora of old clips to tell us 'who and why'.

What is truly sad is that the military has even admitted that they are seeing craft flying through our skies that defy known physics--there are even live videos--yet people would rather spend their time and money on this kind of lunacy.

Trust me--an advanced interstellar-traveling species would categorically NOT travel lightyears from home and then want to interbreed with a species of clever chimps who are turning their planet into a cesspool and believe that cloud-fairies will clean it up for them afterwards.

Here's a thought: Why do these 'Greys' and other alien archetypes all look uncannily similar to unborn human fetuses?

E.M.P.: 333 Days (2018)

Sad, Garbage-Science Premise

[1/10 · 4 January 2020]

Here we go again--a film based upon an ignorant, ridiculous premise simply because either the writers are oblivious to basic science or they believe the majority of their audience is--or a combination of both.

A hefty atmospheric 'EMP burst' would probably blow the fuses in a bunch of power grids (easily replaced shortly afterwards), fry a few unshielded circuit boards in various things like your TV set, radio, iPhone, etc., but the effect would be over a very short time after the burst 'burst'.

To sustain any kind of EMP effect longer than a few minutes (and that's pushing it), you'd need to fire off megatonnage nuclear blasts in the atmosphere every ten minutes or so, which would eventually destroy all life on the planet anyway.

The other event that could cause such a phenomenon would be a massive, sustained bombardment of Cosmic Rays--possibly from a nearby supernova--also destroying all life on the planet anyway.

In either scenario, no one would be around to complain that their iPhone stopped working.

But hey! It's the 'belief' that counts! Not stupid old reality! Right?

Sound & Fury (2019)

Decent animation but...

[3/10 · 13 October 2019]

Too bad about the music--mundane, standard rock licks and pedestrian lyrics. Decidedly not a suitable music track for the animation sequences. I applaud the effort to promote one's music using interesting animations, but other than that, this is a very long 'music vid' that becomes tedious after the third song.

Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party (2016)

Right-wing propaganda from a convicted felon

[1/10 · 7 July 2019]

....Dinesh does it again---and shows us all how to make a fortune off the gullible by non-stop misinformation!

Ruben Guthrie (2015)

Another Writer-Director Yawn Fest

[4/10 · 8 December 2015]

Suffice it to say, Australian actors are almost always, in the least, competent.

But after seeing this, the only thing I can say about it is--it's competently made, is Australia-centric, allowed some decent, professional actors to make a living, and is as predictable as tomorrow's sunrise.

"Writer-Director" Cowell appears to prove, once again, that good writer-directors are extremely rare. In Crowell's case, I'd say that it's the writing part that fails here. The script is competently (yet predictably) paced, but the premise itself is about as original as a corporate ad--plenty of time to 'hit the loo', knowing that you'd miss nothing of importance no matter how long you took (sorry but it's not very much about missing any actor's glowing moment-- moments usually only recognized if the film itself is a worthy vehicle for such).

As for Cowell's direction, the danger here for any Australian film- maker, I think, is over saturation a la the 'Luhrmann Effect', in that, the wreckage Luhrmann made of Gatsby (offensive to virtually all those above the age of 'twenny sumpthin') is invisible against his previous success to any wannabe writer-director--while Cowell avoids the gaudy baubles and annoying soundtrack irrelevancies, the source of his inspiration is obvious. There are two likely outcomes for W/D's suffering from this: you either manage to pull off a unique, quirky, original film, or, in failure (as is most always the case), you mill out another ad-carrying vehicle for late-night TV.

To me, one thing I've always liked about Australian actors is their ability to provide an absorbing level of depth to their characters, juxtaposed to what I've recognized as a profound, inexplicably acute dearth of originality coming from the Great Down-Under. Give me an Australian Actor and/or DOP any day--leave the writer/directors at home.

Ultimately, perhaps it is best to view this film as a bit of worthy self-reflection for a country that still has an enormous problem with alcoholics, and that this such relevancy may be lost on outsiders, but other than that, I would never willingly pay to see this film, (I saw it for free through my streaming account) nor have wasted my time seeing it had I known what I was in for.

But in the end, what drives me to critique this and other similar films so energetically is the exasperation I feel when witnessing the waste--so many good scripts out there by competent writers will be consummately ignored by so many wannabe do-it-alls with-- unfortunately for all of us--nice-sized production budgets.

Thanks for providing a living wage for yet another film crew and decent local actors though. If this was merely something done to fill up the contract calendar while working on The Big Thing, then I can better understand.

4 Stars--for the acting and production work. .

Harbinger Down (2015)

Actually Enjoyable

[7/10 · 8 August 2015]

Yeah, it's OK--certainly worth seeing if you like the genre.

The premise is good and the acting is competent and believable. Henricksen lends his usual 'heavy' presence which helps to anchor the plot and juxtapose the day-to-day working man's reality with the suddenly other-worldly.

The non-CGI FX are tried and true and work well--especially considering the pedigree of the FX artist--some of which were fairly impressive.

I think though this is another prime example of why 'direction' should be done by 'directors' rather than writers/others who have no real directing experience but nonetheless lust for the opportunity. The pacing is off--occasional skipped beats slip by or run by too fast but never seem to sync well with the scene. Still, it's not that bad, overall.

Camera work is good when it stays away from the 'found footage' headache-inducing carnage we see way too much of lately, but the little of it there is is not as nauseating as most these days. For the most part it's good solid camera work.

Again, if you like the genre it's a good flick to watch when out with your besties or otherwise yearning for a good old 80's style shock fest. .

The Gallows (2015)

Another 'found footage, writer-director travesty

[3/10 · 4 August 2015]

. The summary says it all. .

I give it 3 Yawns for, * Inexplicable camera abuse; * 0.05% originality; * lackluster, predictable acting; * confused and confusing direction; * script designed to 'sell' rather than inspire.

Why oh why? There are probably ten thousand scripts out there by *real* writers that know how to pen a film script and don't entertain a lust to direct what they write.

And what is it with this 'found footage' thing apart from an excuse to abuse a perfectly good, cheap camera and save on decent editing? This could never be another Blair Witch--the scares are cheap and predictable.

.

Thanks go out to the producers for helping yet another film crew to make their mortgage payments.

.

The Water Diviner (2014)

Exactly how I imagined it would be...

[4/10 · 15 April 2015]

I went to see this based upon my feeling that somehow a Russell Crowe- directed film would lift the typical Australian melodrama out of the boring, ocker-centric, shallow-universe drudgery it's so famous for.

Well, it didn't do that, sadly, and appears to be a very transparent attempt to appeal to a wide swath of vacant minded yahoos--easily-entertained action junkies and weepy romantics using all the cheap tricks you can think of to get there. . Sorry--no dice, but, I did find some of the Turkish acting to be genuine and uniquely refreshing--but not enough to pull the movie up to any quality standard. No way is this a "10"--far from it.

Kudos for giving some film crews a salary though. A very generous "4".

Beyond (III) (2014)

Another convenient use of the 'It's a Sci-Fi Movie!' ploy...

[3/10 · 22 December 2014]

I am a sci-fi fan and enjoy the amazing 'what if's' that good sci-fi movies postulate.

Sadly, this is yet another movie that calls itself a 'sci-fi drama' but literally has nothing to do with 'science', and merely uses the 'sci-fi' label as both a marketing hook and an excuse to use an otherwise inexplicably desolate landscape to help stretch that meager production budget.

There are no unique or inventive 'what if's' in this film at all-- just a two-person emotional drama that could have taken place anywhere at anytime using an alien war as a prop to explain-away the apocalyptic low-budget setting.

So, if you're looking for real intriguing, thought-provoking science-based fiction, you won't find it here.

That said, the acting is good and, if you can swallow your disappointment and loathing of the cheap marketing tricks, you might be able to enjoy it from the Greek Tragedy angle--or, you could always spend your time watching any of the much better written, much better produced and better filmed TV dramas available at the touch of a button on your TV box (which I would recommend).

God's Not Dead (2014)

Oh no...

[1/10 · 31 August 2014]

**SPOILER** At the end of the film we are asked to message everyone we know stating that God is not dead.

OK then. Well, as someone once said, "If there weren't any believers, then there would be no religion, and God would be free to be whatever it wanted to..."

Everyone is stereotyped, replete with intolerant, child-bashing Muslim father and unhappy, troubled, spiritually-bereft 'non-believer' loser- types.

Atheism is portrayed as a 'belief' when in fact it is simply the absence of belief--this meme will apparently never die no matter how nonsensical it is.

Obviously, this film is all about American Christianity--one of the most confused (and confusing) religious sects ever to exist, and one that, in practice, has no idea what Christ was supposedly all about, let alone practice what he preached.

We are painfully reminded that blind faith and illogic comprise the 'true path to enlightenment', even though (if history is any guide) this kind of superstitious thinking has unceasingly failed humanity--often miserably and violently.

Superstitious non-thinkers out there will no doubt revel in this film-- awash in that warm fuzziness that religion offers as long as you don't question any of it.

Acting is competent--no real *star moments* here. Sorbo seems to have graduated from Fantasy Hero one-liners to Acting School B, but throughout the film, I felt myself wanting to burst onto the screen and yell "Wait a minute! Knock that crap off and get real!"

The only decent thing I can say about this bit of predictable, shallow, mostly offensive 'Christianism' is that, at least another film crew, a caterer and a couple of insurance and equipment companies made some money.

Svengali (2013)

Hackneyed & Gimmicky = Boring

[3/10 · 10 April 2014]

I've heard it said that British humor doesn't always translate that well beyond the island's shores, often leaving many non-British audiences scratching their heads in contemplation, "Well, they said it was supposed to be hilarious, so what did I miss?"

Like many of the British and Australian movies for the last two decades (I hesitate to say 'Commonwealth' in light of the superb efforts coming from NZ lately!)--made worse by inexplicable plot holes, kitschy lines, worn-out gags and predictable, stiffly-staged buffoonery--it's hard not to label this as yet another yawn fest.

A fractured, ludicrously fashioned story line cobbled together from webisodes cannot be made whole by using atmospherics and poll-tested giggle gimmicks--various formulae mostly pushed by nervous producers and sponsors; 'if it doesn't make old what's-his-bob larf then it ain't on' still won't win an audience.

I won't fault the acting here because it appears to be actors doing exactly what they have been instructed to do--admirable in the shallows that their various stereotypical, story-hobbled character development allows.

I'll add that I believe it's possible that John Hardwick could have done better with more time and a better writer--the theme itself is fertile enough fodder for a decent writer.

But, comedy or drama, theater is theater folks, as Will Shakespeare has endlessly demonstrated in transition from stage to screen to web. Seemingly lost within its own confusion and often distracting, pointless meandering--this just isn't good theater.

It may have been a touch better had they included a laugh track.

Heartless (I) (2009)

A Fine Film--Why all the Angst?

[7/10 · 28 February 2014]

I really do not understand all the negative comments toward this movie and Philip Ridley, but judging from most of them, I'd be tempted to say that those people wanted some sort of Exorcist re-hash with a brainless plot and lots of gore, guns and action--forget any sort of metaphoric nuance, pace or subtlety.

Although Heartless doesn't quite come up to the level of Ridley's weirdly beautiful, often brilliant 'Reflecting Skin'--a film I enjoyed immensely--it nonetheless has it's moments, providing us with that surreal feeling of being in someone else's skin rather than just part of an audience.

Even so, there is nothing so complicated about the plot that you can't understand what is happening toward the end, when delusion fails and reality is ultimately revealed--there is nothing more horrific than the torture one's mind can inflict upon oneself and, again, from what seems like Ridley's desire to place us firmly in the shoes of his protagonists, we are left feeling exposed and vulnerable, yet somehow whole--message delivered.

To me, that 'message' seems meant to be like a slap in the face--a wake- up call. In effect, Heartless is a sinuously-delivered character study of the extremes which many humans may actually suffer in real life, which is, to me, far more chilling than trying to evoke absurd myth and superstition.

I give it a "7" because I'd like to help encourage more such exploration from Ridley--he is definitely on to something, and with so many films these days lacking any sort of originality or creative desire beyond Box-Office dictates, such directors are treasure. Though I don't really think this movie suffered due to budget issues, and could only find one actor I felt didn't quite deliver in what was a very minor role, I believe if given a larger budget Ridley has the potential to blow our minds.

If you are on the fence about seeing this, then I would suggest seeing Ridley's stunning 'Reflecting Skin' first, then see 'Heartless'.

No I am not Philip Ridley--get a life--though I would no doubt take it as a compliment if so accused.

The Taking (2013)

Time better spent sleeping...

[1/10 · 9 February 2014]

At what point does the Film School professor say to the wannabe writer- director-filmmaker, "Look, you're a nice kid and full of energy and enthusiasm, and I know being able to make films can be both lucrative and cool and so forth but, well, like any other art-form, it takes at least a modicum of creative talent. Have you thought about transferring over to the MBA program?"

Sadly, we won't hear this very often these days, largely because, in their desire for funding and patronage, universities today will welcome any jock who has ever fallen in love with casting-couch porn and has the cash up front.

The only possible redeeming quality this movie might possess--in fact, the only reasonable explanation this project ever got off the ground--is that it allowed yet another film-crew to earn a living, and I think that is exactly what *real* producers these days, between *real* projects, have in mind when they allow such a tragedy of a film to actually make it to the editing suite.

Play this movie while napping or out shopping to make the burglars think you're awake/at home. If you could somehow roll it up and shred it, you couldn't find a better use for it than lining Felix's litter box.

A Cold Day in Hell (2011)

A tragic waste

[1/10 · 16 June 2011]

I love Westerns, so when I saw that a recent film release had Michael Madsen in the lead role of one, I was excited.

Sometimes there are low budget films in which a budding director's talents can be seen and appreciated. Such directors need encouragement and guidance, and when they get it, we are often rewarded with truly inspired film making.

There are also people who, by some miracle or fortune of birth or happenstance get to produce, write and direct a movie, but who we hope will try another occupation for their own sake (and ours).

Try as I might, I could find no scene that wasn't victimized by poor camera angles, horrible writing, and just plain bad acting. We can forgive the cheesy sets and amateurish sound editing -- these are the first things to suffer in low budget films. But the Director Forbes (who is also the DOP) handles the camera like a news reporter (apparently there was only one camera in use, so it is doubly important to use it well, have a longer shot list and apply more energy to filming each shot), with strait-on-face closeups that make you expect a journalist to pop up with microphone in hand. This indicates an impoverished shot list and subsequently is just plain agonizing to sit through.

There is evidence that some of the unknown actors have talent, but the moments one might see this are rare, and they are often victims of a shot that sidelines them to favor the lead or some burdensome, unnecessary background ambiance -- and lack of directing talent has these supporting actors actually diminishing the lead's scenes, rather than actually supporting them. So, as a result, we don't know if Forbes was just too timid to support aggressive retakes and make manifest what might have been a more creative shot list, or he didn't buy enough camera time, or he's just lazy and uninspired.

About 30 minutes into the film, we find ourselves begging Madsen to pull the thing out of it's hole with sheer force of personality, but no dice. If someone told me Madsen was ordered to do this film as some sort of community service penance, I'd be willing to believe them. Still, with such horrific writing, he sometimes manages to deliver his lines as well as any decent actor could, given the awful material he had to work with.

We must heap responsibility on a director for a film's worthiness, because even a director that has been given a horrible script can make at least some of it shine if he/she is talented enough. That's not the case here with Forbes, however, since he is also one of the writers -- making this appear to be exactly what it is -- a vanity project by someone who got/had some money and wanted to do a movie (he also is a producer, writer, DOP, editor and songwriter for the film). What fun! In short, this is a dreadful, annoyingly bad film made by One-Man-Band Forbes who appears to be not so talented in any one of the roles he's assumed here -- even his tedious, predictable soundtrack seems to be garage-band inspired and is consequently weirdly out-of-place. My advice to the director is to attend film school from year one if he insists on pursuing a career as a film maker.

I've vigorously thrown this movie into my "Tragic Waste of Time, Energy, and Money But At Least The Crew Got Paid" file.