A local channel has been playing this film like every Sunday lately. I put it on out of boredom one day, knowing nothing about it, and was slowly drawn in by Anna's journey towards her 30th birthday, a journey about much more than turning 30. It starts off as a bit of a sleeper, but once you start piecing together what's really going on, it's really quite moving. I've seen it twice more, and each time I spot more layers of foreshadowing and double meanings. Perhaps the film is an acquired taste, or perhaps it is finding me at an emotionally vulnerable moment in life and is saying something to me. The British dialect was hard for me to understand sometimes, and I took off one star because of excessive vulgarity. But the characters are quirky and memorable, I love the cinematic feel of the country scenery, I found the music to be on point in a contemporary pop way, and apart from the vulgarity the dialogue can be quite witty in that inimitable British style.
Reviews
21 Reviews
Adult Life Skills
(2016)
Quirky, offbeat, very emotional, occasionally awkward, quite moving film.
31 August 2020
X-Men: Apocalypse
(2016)
I'm with Colonel Stryker
23 June 2019
Warning: Spoilers
This movie sums up everything that is wrong with the X-Men universe (as far
as I understand it from the movies). Unlike the Avenger-style movies, where the
superheros are clearly dedicated to defeating unambiguously evil villains (hence, putting the *hero* in superhero), these X-Men mutants are a pretty unlikeable, angsty, and morally questionable lot.
We're supposed to feel sorry for the mutants as some kind of loathed, persecuted minority group, but this has yet to be believable in any of these movies, especially this one. The mutants have *superhuman* powers, for crying out loud, how can they be afraid of or in danger from anybody? In fact, whenever there is a straightup showdown with humans, it's a complete massacre by the mutants. So, in fact, they actually are the Nietschien ubermensch who we humans deservedly should fear, and nothing they do ever disproves this.
Worse, we humans are routinely, obsessively, and one-dimensionally presented as hateful, fearful, petty, and murderous caricatures. Nothing shows this better than when Magneto saves a guy's life in a steel mill, and not one - not *one*! - human thanks him, sees the goodness in the act, takes his side, etc. That is just not credible.
We're supposed to feel compassion for the mutants, yet scores and eventually millions of humans are wiped out, without so much as a moment of silence. Are we supposed to somehow masochistically enjoy these revenge fantasies? Last I checked, I'm a human being, not a mutant. Why would I side with the mutants against my own kind? Who am I supposed to root for here?
There are many reasons to watch a movie, but having shame and guilt and self-loathing rubbed in your face for over two hours is not one of them.
We're supposed to feel sorry for the mutants as some kind of loathed, persecuted minority group, but this has yet to be believable in any of these movies, especially this one. The mutants have *superhuman* powers, for crying out loud, how can they be afraid of or in danger from anybody? In fact, whenever there is a straightup showdown with humans, it's a complete massacre by the mutants. So, in fact, they actually are the Nietschien ubermensch who we humans deservedly should fear, and nothing they do ever disproves this.
Worse, we humans are routinely, obsessively, and one-dimensionally presented as hateful, fearful, petty, and murderous caricatures. Nothing shows this better than when Magneto saves a guy's life in a steel mill, and not one - not *one*! - human thanks him, sees the goodness in the act, takes his side, etc. That is just not credible.
We're supposed to feel compassion for the mutants, yet scores and eventually millions of humans are wiped out, without so much as a moment of silence. Are we supposed to somehow masochistically enjoy these revenge fantasies? Last I checked, I'm a human being, not a mutant. Why would I side with the mutants against my own kind? Who am I supposed to root for here?
There are many reasons to watch a movie, but having shame and guilt and self-loathing rubbed in your face for over two hours is not one of them.
Bridge of Spies
(2015)
What Red Sparrow wishes it was
24 August 2018
Honestly, after having just watched the film, I'm struggling to find anything I didn't like about it. "Inspired by true events", I'm confident there were artistic liberties and shortcuts taken in order to tell the tale, but I'm sure other reviews have parsed the details. What I appreciated was the gripping and suspenseful storytelling, and when I realized after the fact that Spielberg was the director, I wasn't surprised. I'm not a Tom Hanks fan at all, but I can say he knocks it out of the park with this one. Everything felt genuine and period correct. The film is thoughtful and makes you think about some higher themes, while making you want to concentrate on what is happening so that you don't miss anything. It covers a lot of ground, and it probably helped that I didn't really know much about the events in question. The dialogue is witty and on point (see, Hollywood, you can still do it when you want to), and some scenes are quite moving. This movie is proof that you don't need sado-masochistic torture scenes and embarrassing soft porn to have a gripping spy movie. The *only* reason I am not giving it 10 stars is because the f-bomb gets dropped twice and completely unnecessarily. This is a film that children could watch, but that mars it unfortunately.
The Last Jedi.....let's hope so!
19 August 2018
Warning: Spoilers
You would think that for a Star Wars film, with all the money at stake, that Hollywood would sequester the very best writers they could find and would not let them out of the room until they came up with a home run, no, a grand slam script worthy of the epic series they were writing for.
But alas, we're stuck with modern Hollywood, where the only answer to big money and big reputations at stake is to rip off earlier films. When I watched the Farce Awakens (sorry, Force Awakens), I realized I had seen that film before (it was from 1977 and was called Star Wars). Man, I felt pretty duped, and I bet you did, too.
Well, I thought, they wouldn't do that again...would they? Then I watched the Last Jedi. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. Yes, I have seen this film before: parts of it are from a 1980 film called the Empire Strikes Back, and parts are from a 1983 film called Return of the Jedi.
Consider:
Well, let's not belabor the ripoffs, because there are *other* bad aspects to this movie. Snoke, for one, is unbelievably powerful, but we are never told one scintilla about him. Who is he? Where did he come from? Is he one of the much balleyhooed Sith Lords??? Opportunity wasted. Same for the First Order - zero light is shed, and no one really cares, because we all know it's just the old Empire rudely dragged out of its grave to try and make some money.
The characters...who cares. Actually, the lady who plays Rey isn't bad, but she can't save this horribly written mess. Kylo Ren is still all over the map and totally unconvincing as a new archvillain (so much for completing his training). Rose, who appears to be the new Jar Jar Binks annoyance factor, suicidally stops Finn from sacrificing himself to save his fellow resistance fighters, all so that she can kiss him. That's not selfish, right? Then there's the purple dress blondie general who looks like she's more prepped for the runway than the bridge (seriously, is that how military officers dress in far, far away galaxies?). Benicio del Toro acceptably does his squinty loungy thing, but ludicriously convinces Finn and Rose that he can break the First Order flagship's security system when he unlocks some jail cell doors (I'm pretty sure they're of the same difficulty level, right?) C3PO has like three lines, none of them remotely funny or original.
And on and on. Honestly, there's so much wrong with this film that one review cannot capture it all (read the other user reviews to see what I mean). The humor lines are horribly out of place and ill-timed (the very opposite of what made Han Solo great). Everything is overly loud and in your face.
Perhaps to best sum it up, just remember that Luke Skywalker's last living lines will now forever be: "Seeya 'round, kid".
But alas, we're stuck with modern Hollywood, where the only answer to big money and big reputations at stake is to rip off earlier films. When I watched the Farce Awakens (sorry, Force Awakens), I realized I had seen that film before (it was from 1977 and was called Star Wars). Man, I felt pretty duped, and I bet you did, too.
Well, I thought, they wouldn't do that again...would they? Then I watched the Last Jedi. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. Yes, I have seen this film before: parts of it are from a 1980 film called the Empire Strikes Back, and parts are from a 1983 film called Return of the Jedi.
Consider:
- The film opens with the Rebellion, er, sorry, Resistance, having to escape their base by going through an Imperial, er, sorry, First Order fleet. You know, exactly how Empire opened.
- Later in the film, the rebels are pinned on a white icy-looking planet in a cliffside base that is being attacked by AT-ATs, complete with trenches and towers. It looks exactly like Empire's Hoth scene. Oh but wait, it's not ice, it's...red salt? Oh ok, that makes it not a ripoff then (wink wink).
- Rey goes to train on an isolated planet with a grumpy but wise Jedi master. Exactly like Luke and Yoda. She even has a dark side temptation hole in the ground that she goes into, where she ends up seeing...her own face! (Ring a bell?)
- There's the whole throne room scene, where the Emperor is now Snoke, Vader is Ren, and Luke is Rey. Ren, like Vader, kills Snoke. Saw something like that in Return of the Jedi.
- The casino scene opened with a montage of different (CGI) aliens and eerily familiar music that basically said yeah we're copying the cantina scene from Star Wars. (Oh wow, my bad, they actually ripped off all three films of the original trilogy).
Well, let's not belabor the ripoffs, because there are *other* bad aspects to this movie. Snoke, for one, is unbelievably powerful, but we are never told one scintilla about him. Who is he? Where did he come from? Is he one of the much balleyhooed Sith Lords??? Opportunity wasted. Same for the First Order - zero light is shed, and no one really cares, because we all know it's just the old Empire rudely dragged out of its grave to try and make some money.
The characters...who cares. Actually, the lady who plays Rey isn't bad, but she can't save this horribly written mess. Kylo Ren is still all over the map and totally unconvincing as a new archvillain (so much for completing his training). Rose, who appears to be the new Jar Jar Binks annoyance factor, suicidally stops Finn from sacrificing himself to save his fellow resistance fighters, all so that she can kiss him. That's not selfish, right? Then there's the purple dress blondie general who looks like she's more prepped for the runway than the bridge (seriously, is that how military officers dress in far, far away galaxies?). Benicio del Toro acceptably does his squinty loungy thing, but ludicriously convinces Finn and Rose that he can break the First Order flagship's security system when he unlocks some jail cell doors (I'm pretty sure they're of the same difficulty level, right?) C3PO has like three lines, none of them remotely funny or original.
And on and on. Honestly, there's so much wrong with this film that one review cannot capture it all (read the other user reviews to see what I mean). The humor lines are horribly out of place and ill-timed (the very opposite of what made Han Solo great). Everything is overly loud and in your face.
Perhaps to best sum it up, just remember that Luke Skywalker's last living lines will now forever be: "Seeya 'round, kid".
The Wolf of Wall Street
(2013)
Soft porn version of Wall Street, minus all the interesting stuff
2 July 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I am so glad I rented this from the library and didn't waste one red cent on it!
This "movie" is basically Girls Gone Wild on steroids in a corporate office setting. I suppose they intended to make an updated version of Wall Street, but one that was "edgier" and "harder" for contemporary audiences, loaded to the gills with profanity, full frontal nudity, and endless obsessive drug use. Unfortunately, all of that extra shock and titillation came at the expense of any plot or storyline.
Belfort himself starts off as apparently trying to be an honest stockbroker, but is instantaneously seduced to the dark side by Matthew Mcconaughey, and with that, his character development is done. Literally. For the next three hours, you get to see him and his equally irredeemable cohorts do drugs and hookers, drugs and hookers, more drugs and more hookers.
You're never told how he makes his fortunes. Actually, he starts to tell you how his nefarious schemes worked, and you actually start to pay attention for once, but then he literally stops mid-sentence and says awww you're not interested in that, it's too complicated anyway (seriously!). Along the way, you are treated to at least 3 or 4 Gordon Gecko pep rally-type speeches (but not as good), which eventually just become repetitiously boring. Literally, if you story-boarded this "movie", it would look like: drugs and hookers - speech - drugs and hookers - speech - drugs and hookers - speech, et cetera.
In the end, he gets caught, but you're not sure how, or for what, but at least you can breathe a sigh of relief that the "movie" is almost over. In the last scene, Belfort becomes a Zig Ziglar type, not only not ashamed of what he's done, but exploiting his past to keep on exploiting the present. The guy is a convicted fraudster, and yet people supposedly pay money and pack lecture halls to learn from him how to "sell"? I seriously hope the filmmakers just made that part up.
There's no story to remember, no lessons to be learned, no characters that get their comeuppance, no victims who see justice done. If you watch this "movie" all the way through, you'll feel as used up as a hooker and as wrung out as a drug addict. If this "movie" is a comedy, the joke is on us the audience.
Post-script: Scorsese is supposed to be a great director, but I'm sensing a theme of his 'greatest' films: constantly upping the shock factor. Whether it's blood and violence like Taxi Driver or Goodfellas, or now this soft porn garbage, I'm starting to see this guy as nothing more than a self-absorbed shock artist.
This "movie" is basically Girls Gone Wild on steroids in a corporate office setting. I suppose they intended to make an updated version of Wall Street, but one that was "edgier" and "harder" for contemporary audiences, loaded to the gills with profanity, full frontal nudity, and endless obsessive drug use. Unfortunately, all of that extra shock and titillation came at the expense of any plot or storyline.
Belfort himself starts off as apparently trying to be an honest stockbroker, but is instantaneously seduced to the dark side by Matthew Mcconaughey, and with that, his character development is done. Literally. For the next three hours, you get to see him and his equally irredeemable cohorts do drugs and hookers, drugs and hookers, more drugs and more hookers.
You're never told how he makes his fortunes. Actually, he starts to tell you how his nefarious schemes worked, and you actually start to pay attention for once, but then he literally stops mid-sentence and says awww you're not interested in that, it's too complicated anyway (seriously!). Along the way, you are treated to at least 3 or 4 Gordon Gecko pep rally-type speeches (but not as good), which eventually just become repetitiously boring. Literally, if you story-boarded this "movie", it would look like: drugs and hookers - speech - drugs and hookers - speech - drugs and hookers - speech, et cetera.
In the end, he gets caught, but you're not sure how, or for what, but at least you can breathe a sigh of relief that the "movie" is almost over. In the last scene, Belfort becomes a Zig Ziglar type, not only not ashamed of what he's done, but exploiting his past to keep on exploiting the present. The guy is a convicted fraudster, and yet people supposedly pay money and pack lecture halls to learn from him how to "sell"? I seriously hope the filmmakers just made that part up.
There's no story to remember, no lessons to be learned, no characters that get their comeuppance, no victims who see justice done. If you watch this "movie" all the way through, you'll feel as used up as a hooker and as wrung out as a drug addict. If this "movie" is a comedy, the joke is on us the audience.
Post-script: Scorsese is supposed to be a great director, but I'm sensing a theme of his 'greatest' films: constantly upping the shock factor. Whether it's blood and violence like Taxi Driver or Goodfellas, or now this soft porn garbage, I'm starting to see this guy as nothing more than a self-absorbed shock artist.
Everly
(2014)
Horrible, repulsive, no redeeming features
1 July 2017
Warning: Spoilers
What can you say about this repulsive, mindless film?
If you liked Boondock Saints, you'll love this. Have we become so desensitized to violence that we now need films like this to titillate and shock us? On what planet would a decent person be *entertained* by this bloodbath? You've heard of food porn? Well, this must be death porn, or gore porn.
The plot is...are you kidding me? There is no plot. Just cold, unfeeling, dehumanizing death, torture, and destruction.
I felt numb after watching this film, like a little part of my soul died with every thud of a corpse.
If you liked Boondock Saints, you'll love this. Have we become so desensitized to violence that we now need films like this to titillate and shock us? On what planet would a decent person be *entertained* by this bloodbath? You've heard of food porn? Well, this must be death porn, or gore porn.
The plot is...are you kidding me? There is no plot. Just cold, unfeeling, dehumanizing death, torture, and destruction.
I felt numb after watching this film, like a little part of my soul died with every thud of a corpse.
Passengers
(I) (2016)
This voyage goes off course and shipwrecks
1 July 2017
Warning: Spoilers
NON-SPOILER SECTION
I want to give this film a higher rating, but the more I think about it the lower the score gets. Jennifer Lawrence as Aurora Lane is, not surprisingly, the bright spot, entertaining as always. The special effects are well done. The setup is intriguing: colonists on a 120 year flight to a new planet, two passengers (hence the title) wake up a tad too early (90 years too early!), and they discover something's wrong with the ship, and it's a race to fix it before everyone dies. How could Hollywood mess that up? Well, trust me, they do. In a science fiction film like this, there will be scientific inaccuracies and implausibilities, but that's forgivable. What's not forgivable are obvious and distracting plot inconsistencies and oversights and logical lapses that will occur to laymen like you and me during a first viewing, oversights and lapses that ultimately undermine my ability to suspend my disbelief. The characters offer some forced rationalizations to explain away some of the problems, but it feels more like someone realized late in production that there were major problems and attempted a band-aid or two. But more importantly, the film introduces a moral dilemma, a moral crime really, that could have a number of possible resolutions, yet takes the most insulting and unbelievable path to a 'happy ending' that I've seen in a long time. This could have been a profound journey that launched promisingly; but ultimately this movie founders.
SPOILERS
Two main issues.
The first main issue that undermined by suspension of disbelief was the lack of failsafe redundancy on this ship. The ship will be traveling for *120 years*, with no hope of any outside help, but the designers failed to have backup parts, plans, and procedures for the most critical components? After an asteroid collision, the computer starts to go haywire, but nothing about that awakens the crew? Seriously, the computer is not designed to awaken the crew if there is a fatal error that it cannot resolve? And really, no one ever foresaw a hibernation pod malfunction? There is no way to put someone back into hibernation if they wake up? Did all these people sign up for a potential suicide mission? If everyone is asleep and there is no chance of a hibernation malfunction, why exactly then is the crew locked away like Fort Knox? Why isn't there a backup reactor or two on the ship? And, of all things, the ship can't figure out there is a hull breach? A hull breach!? But perhaps the most grating of all: we find out there is only one Autodoc for a ship with over 5,000 people on board, with no backup parts or replacements! Seriously, these logical lapses occurred to me on a first viewing...I'd hate to see what else I missed during a second viewing. How did this film get past pre-production?
The second, and even worse, issue is Chris Pratt's character Jim. I think we can all follow along as he wakes up early, freaks out at his predicament, and tries everything he can think of to find a solution, and after a year gets depressed. Got it, check. But then!....in true Hollywood fashion, he 'falls in love' with Aurora and wakes her up. Of course we are hit in the gut with the moral depravity of this action, we clench our stomach as he leads her along, and we all hold our breath for when she finds out the truth. But then we start thinking about how implausible this all is. First of all, if he can figure out how to wake someone up, why doesn't he wake up a fellow mechanic? Or engineer? Or doctor? It's the most obvious thing to do, but of course in Hollywood-land, he doesn't do that. Second, hello! Once Laurence Fishburne wakes up, the bridge is now open! You know, the bridge, *where the crew is hibernating*. Even though Fishburne dies, Jim could now wake up one or more of the crew to get help. Hello!?
But let's talk about that "romance." I'm a lenient movie guy: I can play along with a lot of things. But *not* to the point that Aurora ends up truly loving this sick obsessive stalker who basically doomed her to a life of kidnapped isolation. Stop putting a happy face ending on this situation. The correct ending was for her to get back in the Autodoc and go back into hibernation. It was the only way for Jim to make up for his sin and salvage something from this shipwreck of a film.
I want to give this film a higher rating, but the more I think about it the lower the score gets. Jennifer Lawrence as Aurora Lane is, not surprisingly, the bright spot, entertaining as always. The special effects are well done. The setup is intriguing: colonists on a 120 year flight to a new planet, two passengers (hence the title) wake up a tad too early (90 years too early!), and they discover something's wrong with the ship, and it's a race to fix it before everyone dies. How could Hollywood mess that up? Well, trust me, they do. In a science fiction film like this, there will be scientific inaccuracies and implausibilities, but that's forgivable. What's not forgivable are obvious and distracting plot inconsistencies and oversights and logical lapses that will occur to laymen like you and me during a first viewing, oversights and lapses that ultimately undermine my ability to suspend my disbelief. The characters offer some forced rationalizations to explain away some of the problems, but it feels more like someone realized late in production that there were major problems and attempted a band-aid or two. But more importantly, the film introduces a moral dilemma, a moral crime really, that could have a number of possible resolutions, yet takes the most insulting and unbelievable path to a 'happy ending' that I've seen in a long time. This could have been a profound journey that launched promisingly; but ultimately this movie founders.
SPOILERS
Two main issues.
The first main issue that undermined by suspension of disbelief was the lack of failsafe redundancy on this ship. The ship will be traveling for *120 years*, with no hope of any outside help, but the designers failed to have backup parts, plans, and procedures for the most critical components? After an asteroid collision, the computer starts to go haywire, but nothing about that awakens the crew? Seriously, the computer is not designed to awaken the crew if there is a fatal error that it cannot resolve? And really, no one ever foresaw a hibernation pod malfunction? There is no way to put someone back into hibernation if they wake up? Did all these people sign up for a potential suicide mission? If everyone is asleep and there is no chance of a hibernation malfunction, why exactly then is the crew locked away like Fort Knox? Why isn't there a backup reactor or two on the ship? And, of all things, the ship can't figure out there is a hull breach? A hull breach!? But perhaps the most grating of all: we find out there is only one Autodoc for a ship with over 5,000 people on board, with no backup parts or replacements! Seriously, these logical lapses occurred to me on a first viewing...I'd hate to see what else I missed during a second viewing. How did this film get past pre-production?
The second, and even worse, issue is Chris Pratt's character Jim. I think we can all follow along as he wakes up early, freaks out at his predicament, and tries everything he can think of to find a solution, and after a year gets depressed. Got it, check. But then!....in true Hollywood fashion, he 'falls in love' with Aurora and wakes her up. Of course we are hit in the gut with the moral depravity of this action, we clench our stomach as he leads her along, and we all hold our breath for when she finds out the truth. But then we start thinking about how implausible this all is. First of all, if he can figure out how to wake someone up, why doesn't he wake up a fellow mechanic? Or engineer? Or doctor? It's the most obvious thing to do, but of course in Hollywood-land, he doesn't do that. Second, hello! Once Laurence Fishburne wakes up, the bridge is now open! You know, the bridge, *where the crew is hibernating*. Even though Fishburne dies, Jim could now wake up one or more of the crew to get help. Hello!?
But let's talk about that "romance." I'm a lenient movie guy: I can play along with a lot of things. But *not* to the point that Aurora ends up truly loving this sick obsessive stalker who basically doomed her to a life of kidnapped isolation. Stop putting a happy face ending on this situation. The correct ending was for her to get back in the Autodoc and go back into hibernation. It was the only way for Jim to make up for his sin and salvage something from this shipwreck of a film.
Godzilla
(2014)
Just wanted more, that's all
14 May 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Reading some of the reviews, you would think this was the worst movie ever made. Exactly what expectations did people have of a Godzilla movie anyway? Contrary to some, I thought the story line was interesting enough: they give the background of the monsters, and I found the characters and acting good enough to create some tension and interest. And they don't just throw the monsters at you in the first twenty minutes - they build up to the reveal gradually and with good pace, and what you think you are going to see at first isn't what you see (nice move there, movie makers, you got me).
My only complaint is that the filmmakers didn't do enough with the setup and foundation that they laid. They do spend a little too much time watching the monsters walk and fly around. The acting is wooden sometimes because the human characters aren't given enough to do, and some of their missions are kind of moot in the end. But hey, ultimately you came to see the monster, right? And as the film progressed, I got excited that I would get to see a real knock-down, drag-out monster fight. And I did!...sort of. The fight just doesn't go on long enough, for one thing. But worse, it is literally hard to see the fight. You often see the monsters from over someone's shoulder as they are running away, or out the window of some car, but rarely just a straight on camera view of Monster UFC. And the fight scenes are dark...literally dark with smoke and clouds. OK, I get it, if monsters tore up a city while venting themselves, that's probably what it would look like, but that makes for a poor cinematic viewing experience. BUT, Godzilla ultimately delivers the goods.
So, I thought the film would be horrible, given all that I had heard about it, but I found it an enjoyable popcorn film that just visually comes up a bit wanting. (Far better than that Star Wars: Farce Awakens debacle. That was gratuitous, I know.)
My only complaint is that the filmmakers didn't do enough with the setup and foundation that they laid. They do spend a little too much time watching the monsters walk and fly around. The acting is wooden sometimes because the human characters aren't given enough to do, and some of their missions are kind of moot in the end. But hey, ultimately you came to see the monster, right? And as the film progressed, I got excited that I would get to see a real knock-down, drag-out monster fight. And I did!...sort of. The fight just doesn't go on long enough, for one thing. But worse, it is literally hard to see the fight. You often see the monsters from over someone's shoulder as they are running away, or out the window of some car, but rarely just a straight on camera view of Monster UFC. And the fight scenes are dark...literally dark with smoke and clouds. OK, I get it, if monsters tore up a city while venting themselves, that's probably what it would look like, but that makes for a poor cinematic viewing experience. BUT, Godzilla ultimately delivers the goods.
So, I thought the film would be horrible, given all that I had heard about it, but I found it an enjoyable popcorn film that just visually comes up a bit wanting. (Far better than that Star Wars: Farce Awakens debacle. That was gratuitous, I know.)
I think I've seen this movie before...in 1977
15 April 2016
Warning: Spoilers
****spoilers here******
I'm sure I'm repeating what others must be saying, but if you want to watch a paint-by-numbers remake of the first Star Wars, then this film is for you. Consider: it opens on a desert planet, our protagonist escapes on the Millennium Falcon, there's a star destroyer overhead, the bad guys build a bigger death star (death planet, I suppose), the good guys attack it with a small group at a vulnerable spot, complete with a trench chase scene. There's even a cantina scene, in case you are nostalgic. I liked the set designs reminiscent of 70s sci-fi and the visual throwbacks to the original film (like the chess game), but visual nods of the head shouldn't bleed over into regurgitating the same plot.
Not that there wasn't some originality. A defecting Storm Trooper with a conscience garnered some interest, and I found Kylo Ren engaging enough as a villain. The name "Snokes" however does not inspire dread - it sounds like a boardgame, and he is too reminiscent of the Emperor. The political situation is confusing, to say the least: there's the Republic, the Resistance, and the First Order, and that's about all you get to know: not even a clue about the relationship amongst them. I did like the build up to Luke, and thought that last scene was well executed.
Unfortunately, for all the big talk about how awesome a story JJ Abrams was going to come up with, the best he could do was navel gazing in movie history. You know you've struck out when you make the prequels look more original and interesting.
The cardboard ads at Walmart call this the "movie event of a generation" - Millennials should feel insulted to think they would aim so low.
I'm sure I'm repeating what others must be saying, but if you want to watch a paint-by-numbers remake of the first Star Wars, then this film is for you. Consider: it opens on a desert planet, our protagonist escapes on the Millennium Falcon, there's a star destroyer overhead, the bad guys build a bigger death star (death planet, I suppose), the good guys attack it with a small group at a vulnerable spot, complete with a trench chase scene. There's even a cantina scene, in case you are nostalgic. I liked the set designs reminiscent of 70s sci-fi and the visual throwbacks to the original film (like the chess game), but visual nods of the head shouldn't bleed over into regurgitating the same plot.
Not that there wasn't some originality. A defecting Storm Trooper with a conscience garnered some interest, and I found Kylo Ren engaging enough as a villain. The name "Snokes" however does not inspire dread - it sounds like a boardgame, and he is too reminiscent of the Emperor. The political situation is confusing, to say the least: there's the Republic, the Resistance, and the First Order, and that's about all you get to know: not even a clue about the relationship amongst them. I did like the build up to Luke, and thought that last scene was well executed.
Unfortunately, for all the big talk about how awesome a story JJ Abrams was going to come up with, the best he could do was navel gazing in movie history. You know you've struck out when you make the prequels look more original and interesting.
The cardboard ads at Walmart call this the "movie event of a generation" - Millennials should feel insulted to think they would aim so low.
Redemption
(I) (2013)
Hollywood just can't help themselves
10 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
You know why I am giving this film one star? Because the creators of this film, in true Hollywood fashion, just can't help but show us yet another nun have a sexual affair. After Christina and Joey kiss, I thought the filmmakers might actually do something different, you know, like respect Christianity and show the characters come to their senses. But of course not, how silly of me. True devotion to Christ cannot ever, EVER, be shown in a Hollywood film. Sister Christina *of course* has to have a background of sexual abuse, because no one would ever *really* join a religious order without having "issues," right? Life just isn't complete unless one has sex, right? I mean, we can't *possibly* ever see Christians, and *especially* Catholic priests and nuns, actually living faithfully to Christ, right? Of course Sister Christina has to give in to temptation, because no one can resist sexual intimacy for a transcendent calling, right? Because sex is love, right? So if Christina and Joey have sex, then it's true love, right?
But of course, why did I ever expect godless producers to produce anything but godless results? It simply couldn't compute in the Hollywood head that they could have made this film *without* the fling in the bedroom with all its emotional violins, and it might have actually been a decent (if very slow) film. Silly me again, thinking you can make a movie without depicting everyone as conflicted, cynical, and downright hypocritical.
Amazing how one scene can ruin a whole movie.
But of course, why did I ever expect godless producers to produce anything but godless results? It simply couldn't compute in the Hollywood head that they could have made this film *without* the fling in the bedroom with all its emotional violins, and it might have actually been a decent (if very slow) film. Silly me again, thinking you can make a movie without depicting everyone as conflicted, cynical, and downright hypocritical.
Amazing how one scene can ruin a whole movie.
Mad Max: Fury Road
(2015)
Settle in...and buckle up!
9 October 2015
You know you just experienced something special when you feel drained, exhilarated, and awed all at the same time. This movie, like the featured rig, comes roaring at you from the first frame to the last. Do you want death-grip intensity that clamps on you like a vise? Do you want apocalyptic violence and mayhem? Do you want a surreal, repulsive, entrancing world imagined on hallucinogens? Do you want a music score that bludgeons and maxes out your nerves? Then get this film.
Look, if you want deep character development, an intricate plot, and subtle social commentary, then why are you even renting a Mad Max film? Seriously, this film is more like a crazy death-defying roller coaster that you just hope to hold on through. With the relentlessness of Aliens, the somber dread of Dredd, and nary a smile to be seen in the whole film, this reboot is a very worthy installment of the Mad Max franchise.
Look, if you want deep character development, an intricate plot, and subtle social commentary, then why are you even renting a Mad Max film? Seriously, this film is more like a crazy death-defying roller coaster that you just hope to hold on through. With the relentlessness of Aliens, the somber dread of Dredd, and nary a smile to be seen in the whole film, this reboot is a very worthy installment of the Mad Max franchise.
Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit
(2014)
Slick, but confusing and unconvincing
3 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
***Spoiler alert****
For a spy thriller, this film tries to punch way above its cerebral weight, and ends up tangled and confused.
The film starts off well, with a 9-11/Afghanistan back story of how Jack gets into espionage. He works undercover as a financial analyst, and follows a trail of financial clues to possible nefariousness in Moscow. In one of the better action scenes of the movie, his bodyguard is revealed as an assassin, but Jack prevails and suddenly realizes he has stumbled onto more than financial skulduggery.
Up to this point, I enjoyed the film and was curious to see where it would go. Well, it ended up getting confused in its own details. Instead of a nuclear threat or something easily understood, somehow the audience is supposed to be convinced that the Russian government, acting through the company Jack is trying to audit, is going to somehow sink the dollar and cause the second Great Depression. This elicited but a groan. Russia has nowhere near the resources of any kind to sink the American dollar (this might have been more credible if the villain was Chinese). Moreover, the movie claims at one point that Russia has more oil reserves than we do, and will prevail in the chaos as the new world power. Either Hollywood is trying to pull a fast one, or the moguls truly don't know the extent of oil (and gas) reserves in North America. The whole threat is simply incredible, and the film begins to stumble.
The sinking of the dollar is supposed to be tied to a terrorist attack, which leads to the worst part of the film. They can't stop the villain from selling assets (why not? just close the exchanges and put a public message out...), but they can thwart the terrorist attack. Which leads to standard chase scenes and last minute neutralizing of the attack (yawn). The worst scene was on the plane flying from Moscow to New York, where Jack, almost by his lonesome, does a whirlwind tour-de-force of instant analysis and connection-making to unravel where the attack will be and who will do it, aided by a lightning fast Internet that just pulls together the most coincidental information with blinding speed and a team of analysts who, with tons of spare time, somehow couldn't make all these connections themselves. Sherlock Holmes would blush.
Chris Pine is OK as Jack Ryan. Nothing in particular stands out about his performance, other than he frequently appears to be imitating Matt Damon. Kevin Costner seems bored, like he was drugged through the whole film. Keira Knightley has a wonderful turn at the dinner table with the villain, but otherwise she comes off as whiny and petulant. Kenneth Branagh as the villain is quite good - seeing him stare with rage at the dinner table was memorable. He has an intensity and iciness that makes him the most memorable character of the movie.
Lastly, you can just see that Jack's fiancée Cathy is going to get sucked into the plot, and you just groan at how it all goes down. Seriously, who flies to Moscow because they are worried their boyfriend might be cheating? And then she just gets 'recruited' by the CIA right there? Facepalm.
The film has some good scenes, but overall it tries too hard to be too clever, and can't seem to get out of its own cerebral way.
For a spy thriller, this film tries to punch way above its cerebral weight, and ends up tangled and confused.
The film starts off well, with a 9-11/Afghanistan back story of how Jack gets into espionage. He works undercover as a financial analyst, and follows a trail of financial clues to possible nefariousness in Moscow. In one of the better action scenes of the movie, his bodyguard is revealed as an assassin, but Jack prevails and suddenly realizes he has stumbled onto more than financial skulduggery.
Up to this point, I enjoyed the film and was curious to see where it would go. Well, it ended up getting confused in its own details. Instead of a nuclear threat or something easily understood, somehow the audience is supposed to be convinced that the Russian government, acting through the company Jack is trying to audit, is going to somehow sink the dollar and cause the second Great Depression. This elicited but a groan. Russia has nowhere near the resources of any kind to sink the American dollar (this might have been more credible if the villain was Chinese). Moreover, the movie claims at one point that Russia has more oil reserves than we do, and will prevail in the chaos as the new world power. Either Hollywood is trying to pull a fast one, or the moguls truly don't know the extent of oil (and gas) reserves in North America. The whole threat is simply incredible, and the film begins to stumble.
The sinking of the dollar is supposed to be tied to a terrorist attack, which leads to the worst part of the film. They can't stop the villain from selling assets (why not? just close the exchanges and put a public message out...), but they can thwart the terrorist attack. Which leads to standard chase scenes and last minute neutralizing of the attack (yawn). The worst scene was on the plane flying from Moscow to New York, where Jack, almost by his lonesome, does a whirlwind tour-de-force of instant analysis and connection-making to unravel where the attack will be and who will do it, aided by a lightning fast Internet that just pulls together the most coincidental information with blinding speed and a team of analysts who, with tons of spare time, somehow couldn't make all these connections themselves. Sherlock Holmes would blush.
Chris Pine is OK as Jack Ryan. Nothing in particular stands out about his performance, other than he frequently appears to be imitating Matt Damon. Kevin Costner seems bored, like he was drugged through the whole film. Keira Knightley has a wonderful turn at the dinner table with the villain, but otherwise she comes off as whiny and petulant. Kenneth Branagh as the villain is quite good - seeing him stare with rage at the dinner table was memorable. He has an intensity and iciness that makes him the most memorable character of the movie.
Lastly, you can just see that Jack's fiancée Cathy is going to get sucked into the plot, and you just groan at how it all goes down. Seriously, who flies to Moscow because they are worried their boyfriend might be cheating? And then she just gets 'recruited' by the CIA right there? Facepalm.
The film has some good scenes, but overall it tries too hard to be too clever, and can't seem to get out of its own cerebral way.
The November Man
(2014)
Serviceable spy thriller
2 October 2015
OK, it's not a "classic" spy film that you will want to watch over and over, but it's a decent thriller that has some interesting plot twists that kept me guessing. Pierce Brosnan tries to act like a jaded tough guy, but despite all the cussing he can't hide the urbanity and sophistication that made him the perfect Bond, so perhaps he was a bit miscast here, or he tries too hard to get away from that character. The David Mason character has perhaps the most development, someone with a heart that we can relate to. Like most films, there's lots of cannon fodder (how do these guys get their jobs if they're that bad?). Ultimately, the good guys come through and the bad guys get their comeuppances one way or another. My main complaint is that the right-hand henchman of the film doesn't get a proper Hollywood showdown; in fact, it's a major letdown. The top henchman should be the keynote fight for the protagonist, no? The ultimate test? Maybe the film makers deliberately tried to be different in this case. If so, they shouldn't have, as the viewer gets robbed of something you are naturally looking forward to. It's like the WWF without a main event. And also, one scene is more in-your-face than we need. We get it, stop hitting us in the head with a sledgehammer. (You will know what I mean.)
Panic Room
(2002)
Excellent, very worth seeing
4 September 2015
This was everything I hoped it would be. I'm sure if I'm a security expert, I can probably find some security or logical errors to nitpick at, and one little thing could have been done better, but come on, it's a movie, and 99% of this film held me engrossed. A tit-for-tat cat-and- mouse game, it has many twists and turns, some of which you guess at, some of which you don't see coming. Best of all, the film is very suspenseful without being over the top (are you listening Hollywood?). Indeed, this shows how a film can be a pleasure to the mind and not just to the eye. The acting is good, and of course Jodie Foster as Meg Altman drives the whole thing. I could easily watch this again.
Quarter this Soldier in your House!
30 August 2015
Warning: Spoilers
This film is one of those pleasant surprises: the sequel that is better than its predecessor. Not that Captain America (1) was bad, but it somewhat underwhelmed and the villain was a bit goofy. But this film has all the engrossing action and witty dialogue of the Avengers, with a dash of Bond-esque adventure, and is easily viewable more than once.
The Winter Soldier himself virtually steals the show. Someone give an award of some kind to the director for taking his time to slowly introduce the Winter Soldier, and even more slowly reveal who he is. The Winter Soldier is a textbook case of how you do a villain. He's dangerous, effective, doesn't mess around, and is equal to the Captain. Perhaps the most telling scene is when he knocks the Captain down and we see him standing there with Cap's shield, like a boss! The music score also enhances the Soldier with an accent of horror film dread and Matrix-esque insuperability.
To him, I would add Robert Redford's Secretary character, who lends the film a Bond-esque debonair villain who overseas a credible global threat. Redford brings class to his character, to the point that you kind of like him despite his evil plans.
There are probably some foibles to this film, but come on, it's a summer popcorn film that kept me engaged from beginning to end, so who cares!
The Winter Soldier himself virtually steals the show. Someone give an award of some kind to the director for taking his time to slowly introduce the Winter Soldier, and even more slowly reveal who he is. The Winter Soldier is a textbook case of how you do a villain. He's dangerous, effective, doesn't mess around, and is equal to the Captain. Perhaps the most telling scene is when he knocks the Captain down and we see him standing there with Cap's shield, like a boss! The music score also enhances the Soldier with an accent of horror film dread and Matrix-esque insuperability.
To him, I would add Robert Redford's Secretary character, who lends the film a Bond-esque debonair villain who overseas a credible global threat. Redford brings class to his character, to the point that you kind of like him despite his evil plans.
There are probably some foibles to this film, but come on, it's a summer popcorn film that kept me engaged from beginning to end, so who cares!
Tolkien turning in his grave
29 August 2015
Warning: Spoilers
This is the only one of the three Hobbit films that I watched, and only because I wanted to see what they did with Smaug. Well, what they did was over-do absolutely everything. Smaug makes a pretty cool appearance, and then slowly morphs into a laughable cartoon character. We last see him flying towards Esgaroth proclaiming "I am fire, I am death," even though we just spent forty-five minutes watching him incompetently failing to kill or even injure even one out of fourteen dwarfs in a ludicrous, blushingly over-the-top, Scooby-Do video game series of scenes. Oh, did I say video game? Well then I shouldn't neglect the tedious, endless, infamous river sequence, where the Dwarfs race down the rapids of a river in barrels, but Orcs somehow manage to keep pace just running along the banks, only to be slaughtered over and over like hapless teddy bears. We even get to see Legolas balance on two Dwarf heads...forwards and backwards! Peter Jackson and crew should do public penance and allows us to dump ashes on their heads for this debacle.
Kingdom of Heaven
(2005)
Insult to the Crusades
29 August 2015
Dreadful. Couldn't even finish watching it. Hollywood is a complete disgrace and should apologize for this insult to Christians and the Crusades. Anyone who has a scintilla of knowledge about the Crusades will be appalled by this anti-Catholic propaganda film that slanders the Crusaders and whitewashes the Muslims. Every Christian is a hypocrite, the Muslims are just peace-loving folk until the Christians come along, everyone just wants to live in peace if the Pope will just leave them alone. Completely bowdlerized theology on a first grade level extolling the loner American standing up against it all. Embarrassing. Accurate historical context? Forget it. Accurate portrayal of medieval Christians? Try degrading cynicism instead. Please, whatever you do, don't waste your time with this joke of a film. Complete disappointment.
Interstellar
(2014)
Worth seeing, visually beautiful (Spoiler alert!)
28 August 2015
Warning: Spoilers
I was skeptical, at almost 3 hours long, that this would be any good. But overall, it is worth seeing. Visuals are beautiful, even awe-inspiring. Mcconaughey as Cooper holds the film together. The robots got a groan from me at first, but grew on me over the course of the film. Following the consequences of relativity is the real driver of the film.
Spoiler here!
In the end, don't think too hard about this film. For one thing, there's no way he could have survived even approaching a black hole. But more importantly, if future humans are so advanced that they move on to the fifth dimension, can control gravity, and create 3-D spaces inside black holes and communicate backward through time, surely they can eradicate a spore or whatever it is that is eating up the earth? Surely they can terraform the earth's atmosphere to drive up the amount of oxygen and kill the blight, can't they? For that matter, why couldn't the humans of Cooper's day do that? The film needed a more credible threat, like the sun unexpectedly going supernova or something, and not this lame environmentalist trope.
Spoiler here!
In the end, don't think too hard about this film. For one thing, there's no way he could have survived even approaching a black hole. But more importantly, if future humans are so advanced that they move on to the fifth dimension, can control gravity, and create 3-D spaces inside black holes and communicate backward through time, surely they can eradicate a spore or whatever it is that is eating up the earth? Surely they can terraform the earth's atmosphere to drive up the amount of oxygen and kill the blight, can't they? For that matter, why couldn't the humans of Cooper's day do that? The film needed a more credible threat, like the sun unexpectedly going supernova or something, and not this lame environmentalist trope.
The Equalizer
(2014)
Bad, really bad (spoiler alert)
15 February 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Wow...this was bad, just bad.
McCall has zero character development. I mean literally none. By the end of the film, we know nothing more about him than we do at the start. He's trying to read a hundred books, and obsessively keeps time of things (why?), and... The garbled explanation about his wife was so confusing that I have no idea what was said. I thought at least Nicolai would give an interesting story about McCall in the same way that McCall did about him, but no, we get nothing. So, how am I supposed to care about this robotic assassin?
And the action violence...sigh. Hollywood just needs to stop. The scenarios are so ludicrous anymore as to be embarrassingly laughable. I mean, we see McCall in a room with four or five Russian gangsters, and we just *know* what's gonna happen. The scenes are either so predictable that they're boring beyond belief, or so far-fetched as to be unbelievable. How many times are we gonna see bad guys with guns feeling the need to get within two feet of the hero so that they are vulnerable to Hollywood kung fu? Or how about minions just bringing the protagonist right to the key leader? I just can't suspend my disbelief anymore. In the real world, assassinating a mafia don would be extremely difficult, requiring a lot of planning and luck. McCall just waltzes in and does it in an hour. That's not believable!
And the villains! You know, you need your villain to be credible and effective, or there's no urgency to the threat. Unfortunately, these Russians, despite how tough they look, are powderpuff buffoons! Seriously, McCall dispatches them so easily that they can't be taken seriously. The only one who actually threatens McCall in any way is the bald guy with the tweaked mustache - that was the only point in the whole film when it felt like McCall was in any danger. Other than that, the bad guys just fall for one obvious trick after another.
This truly was a paint-by-numbers, ludicrous, boring waste of time. What did it have to do with the original Equalizer anyway?
McCall has zero character development. I mean literally none. By the end of the film, we know nothing more about him than we do at the start. He's trying to read a hundred books, and obsessively keeps time of things (why?), and... The garbled explanation about his wife was so confusing that I have no idea what was said. I thought at least Nicolai would give an interesting story about McCall in the same way that McCall did about him, but no, we get nothing. So, how am I supposed to care about this robotic assassin?
And the action violence...sigh. Hollywood just needs to stop. The scenarios are so ludicrous anymore as to be embarrassingly laughable. I mean, we see McCall in a room with four or five Russian gangsters, and we just *know* what's gonna happen. The scenes are either so predictable that they're boring beyond belief, or so far-fetched as to be unbelievable. How many times are we gonna see bad guys with guns feeling the need to get within two feet of the hero so that they are vulnerable to Hollywood kung fu? Or how about minions just bringing the protagonist right to the key leader? I just can't suspend my disbelief anymore. In the real world, assassinating a mafia don would be extremely difficult, requiring a lot of planning and luck. McCall just waltzes in and does it in an hour. That's not believable!
And the villains! You know, you need your villain to be credible and effective, or there's no urgency to the threat. Unfortunately, these Russians, despite how tough they look, are powderpuff buffoons! Seriously, McCall dispatches them so easily that they can't be taken seriously. The only one who actually threatens McCall in any way is the bald guy with the tweaked mustache - that was the only point in the whole film when it felt like McCall was in any danger. Other than that, the bad guys just fall for one obvious trick after another.
This truly was a paint-by-numbers, ludicrous, boring waste of time. What did it have to do with the original Equalizer anyway?
Source Code
(2011)
Doesn't make sense
16 June 2012
Warning: Spoilers
This film becomes less and less sensible as it progresses. At first, it is semi-plausible to believe the "source code" technology allows the protagonist Stevens to enter the last 8 minutes of the teacher's (Fentriss') reality (assuming enough of his brain survived to do so). I can also buy that Stevens is actually a vestigial body being used by a utilitarian government. While the film is pretty solid in facing up to the utilitarian use of this man's life/mind/body for the sake of the greater good, things unravel around the whole "alternative universe" angle. First source code allows Stevens to re-enter the last 8 minutes of Fentriss' memory, but then from there he is somehow able to explore the world, discover a bomb in the bathroom, and even track the bomber to his van and get the license plate number. Really? This was all somehow in Fentriss' mind? How did those facts get there? Or are we to believe that "source code" can actually create alternative realities? I'm sorry, but that is too ludicrous for me to suspend my disbelief. In fact, at the end we are to believe in two, maybe three realities. In one, Goodwin pulls the plug on Stevens, letting him die after his last 8 minute session. But that leads to a second reality in which Stevens "survives" as Fentriss, having foiled the bomber's plot. We also see Goodwin receiving a text message from him, which may or may not be a third reality, as Stevens body is still in a box, awaiting source code's activation. That last bit begs the question: which is the real Stevens then, the one in the box or the one walking around in Fentriss' body? And what happens to Fentriss in that 2nd/3rd reality? Are we supposed to be oblivious to the fact that he has suddenly just been wiped out to make room for Stevens? Are we not supposed to care about him at all? Doesn't that make Stevens just as utilitarian and selfish as Rutledge? It's just too bizarre. The whole cult of technology goes overboard here playing Creater God and just leaves one puzzled.
Centurion
(2010)
Morally confusing, lots of gaffes
16 June 2012
Warning: Spoilers
It's a fun movie to watch, but there are lots of little gaffes, some of which are probably because of budgeting. For instance, 3000 Roman soldiers march into enemy territory....with no supplies. Oh, there are two wagons, haha, but a Roman soldier actually carried a lot of gear. Here, they just stomp around with their weapons; the costume budget probably couldn't provide for all the gear etc... The whole fireball thing mystified me....what were the balls? How did they light them? Smaller details that could have been more accurate: Romans primarily stabbed with the gladius, aiming at eyes, throats, hands, etc; here they swing them about like mighty claymores, slicing off heads and limbs. Or again, Roman armor would have provided far more protection against the inferior Pict weaponry that we see in this film. The *idea* of the ambush, however, seems inspired by the actual historical debacle of Teutoberg Forest, so I get that, and think that was a pretty good idea to link a known incident with the mystery of the 9th Legion's disappearance in history.
More seriously and I think fatal to the film, the plot is morally confused as to whom we should sympathize with. Initially, we're supposed to root for the Roman survivors, who were led into ambush by a traitor. But then we see some of the Romans threatening to ditch others, and one of them does sacrifice his comrade to wolves to save his own skin. Meanwhile, Etain turns out to be a victim of horrible Roman atrocities in the past. So, actually, I found myself sympathizing with Etain and the Picts, not the Romans, at which point I was pretty confused. In fact, I think the plot really missed a golden opportunity at the end. It should have been Etain who killed the Roman that killed the king's boy. Furthermore, I think she should have had an opportunity to kill Diaz but display mercy instead; or vice versa (in which she would experience mercy instead of crime at the hands of a Roman). Indeed, it felt wrong to kill Etain at the end, even if it was in self-defense. (Perhaps this results from the film trying to please everyone and offend no one. The film is a bit too PC, anachronistically inserting female "Amazon" Pict warriors going toe-to-toe with professional Roman soldiers, and a multi-racial Roman force surely calculated to appeal to international theater audiences. Are the Picts good? Bad? Are the Romans good? Bad? It's all muddled, which makes the film muddled.) That wolf scene, by the way, was completely laughable. Why would wolves spend precious energy chasing two healthy, armed humans for hours, even days? Other oddities: How can Etain smell the Romans across a valley, but can't smell them when they are underneath the floor she is standing on? Why do the Romans on the wall shoot the approaching Roman survivor, but apparently don't shoot Quintus? And wouldn't the Roman riding towards the wall *clearly see* that the soldier on the wall was aiming a bow and arrow at him? lol The whole Arianne/witch scene really interrupted the flow of a "chase" movie. The film struggled to transition back to the sense of urgency. But at least they don't get too involved with the romance subplot. Mercifully, there is no lusty, passionate sex scene!
On the plus side, the dialogue, though modern, is rough and tumble, like you would expect in an army. And there are several humorous exchanges, my favorite being when Etain punches a Roman in the crotch, and one of his comrades jokes that she must be a great scout if she was able to find his you know what lol
More seriously and I think fatal to the film, the plot is morally confused as to whom we should sympathize with. Initially, we're supposed to root for the Roman survivors, who were led into ambush by a traitor. But then we see some of the Romans threatening to ditch others, and one of them does sacrifice his comrade to wolves to save his own skin. Meanwhile, Etain turns out to be a victim of horrible Roman atrocities in the past. So, actually, I found myself sympathizing with Etain and the Picts, not the Romans, at which point I was pretty confused. In fact, I think the plot really missed a golden opportunity at the end. It should have been Etain who killed the Roman that killed the king's boy. Furthermore, I think she should have had an opportunity to kill Diaz but display mercy instead; or vice versa (in which she would experience mercy instead of crime at the hands of a Roman). Indeed, it felt wrong to kill Etain at the end, even if it was in self-defense. (Perhaps this results from the film trying to please everyone and offend no one. The film is a bit too PC, anachronistically inserting female "Amazon" Pict warriors going toe-to-toe with professional Roman soldiers, and a multi-racial Roman force surely calculated to appeal to international theater audiences. Are the Picts good? Bad? Are the Romans good? Bad? It's all muddled, which makes the film muddled.) That wolf scene, by the way, was completely laughable. Why would wolves spend precious energy chasing two healthy, armed humans for hours, even days? Other oddities: How can Etain smell the Romans across a valley, but can't smell them when they are underneath the floor she is standing on? Why do the Romans on the wall shoot the approaching Roman survivor, but apparently don't shoot Quintus? And wouldn't the Roman riding towards the wall *clearly see* that the soldier on the wall was aiming a bow and arrow at him? lol The whole Arianne/witch scene really interrupted the flow of a "chase" movie. The film struggled to transition back to the sense of urgency. But at least they don't get too involved with the romance subplot. Mercifully, there is no lusty, passionate sex scene!
On the plus side, the dialogue, though modern, is rough and tumble, like you would expect in an army. And there are several humorous exchanges, my favorite being when Etain punches a Roman in the crotch, and one of his comrades jokes that she must be a great scout if she was able to find his you know what lol
Tell Your Friends