Change Your Image
danbranan
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Rutherford Falls (2021)
Season 1: 10+, Season 2, uhhh 2
If you haven't watched season 2 yet, let me save you some time: don't. Really, I mean it. Just savor how great Season 1 was and let it lie peacefully in your memories.
Season 1 was original, funny, thought-provoking, touching and had meaningful themes about who we are, how we deal both with an imperfect past and with uncertainty about our future, both as individuals and as a society. The writing was top-notch and the acting was, for the most point, amazing. My wife and I loved it so much, we watched it twice! The ending was great and really stood on it's own, leaving just enough mystery to make it interesting, but without needing a cheap resolution to pull all the strings together.
Speaking of cheap, Season 2 is just vapid, meaningless kitch. It literally devolved from a top-notch, unique show to a typical, predictable, un-funny sit-com. Adding a laugh track would have actually /improved/ some of the episodes. I feel so sorry for the actors who had to gut this out. All the returning actors almost seemed to be caricatures of themselves, but with all the wrong qualities emphasized. Oh sure, there were a few funny bits and they made a half-hearted attempt to showcase the beautiful and talented Jesse Leigh, but there was no heart to it - everything was just watered down and empty. Even the fantastic, ineffably cool Michael Greyeyes, who literally gave me chills in Season 1, couldn't pull this one out of the fire. I actually wondered if the writers/producers were actively trying to ensure that they wouldn't get renewed again. It was truly painful to watch after how wonderful the first season was. I truly, deeply, hope there's not another season of this show. If there is, we won't watch it. The only reason we watched all of the second season was because we just kept hoping it would turn around, but the episodes just kept getting worse and worse.
Moon (2009)
Great acting, lazy storytelling
Sam Rockwell does a fantastic job in this film, and if you only focus on his acting (reasonable since it's basically a one-man show) then you might enjoy it. But if you want to enjoy it, you must on no account pay any attention to the actual details of the story. What a stinker! It's filled with inconsistencies as well as just plain lazy filmmaking. The most obvious fault is the complete lack of effort in terms of showing a realistic environment on the moon: everything is portrayed at Earth gravity, except when Sam is on the surface of the moon in his suit. Oh, you say, maybe they have artificial gravity. OK, let's entertain that thought. If they do, then it seems to be portable because it also is in effect when Sam is riding around in the rover. And if that's the case, there should be a pretty significant adjustment going from 1/6 to full Earth gravity (and vice-versa) when entering and leaving the base, but that's never depicted. And in depicting the low gravity on the surface of the moon, they just resort to the "let's film everything in kinda slow motion" effect that every middle-school kid emulates when they pretend to be walking on the moon. Just plain lazy, in my opinion.
But lest you think I'm being overly picky on this one point: there's more! Here are the biggest logical inconsistencies I spotted:
1) Gerty, the computer voiced by Kevin Spacey) is obviously in charge of the station, so when Sam wants to go outside when it's locked down, he must trick Gerty into letting him out. How does he do this? By opening a panel and poking a hose with his Exacto knife. And then he makes the argument to Gerty that there must be micrometeorites puncturing the station! Come on, this makes absolutely no sense at all. And Gerty knows there isn't a meteorite storm, nor is there damage to the outside of the station, yet even after making these statements, he relents and let's Sam outside. This is explicitly against orders and completely NOT in Sam's best interest. Gerty is charged with protecting Sam, and this is exactly the opposite. There's no possible argument for why Gerty would allow such a thing to happen, except that it moves the story along.
2) If the clones begin to break down right at 3 years, why have them on a "3-year" contract? This makes no sense at all. Put them on a 2.5 year contract so they are in reasonably good shape to "go back to Earth". This just introduces needless dramatic tension and grossness with the older Sam falling apart before our eyes.
3) What's with the "suspended animation" chamber (actually an immolation chamber) for the "return home"? For a 3-day trip? Come on, not even a clone would believe that nonsense. Again, just lazy storytelling with no believable support.
4) When new Sam argues with Gerty to convince him to wake up a new clone, he gives this "compelling" reasoning: "If you don't wake up a new clone then me and the other Sam are going to die." Gerty immediately acquiesces because of course he doesn't want Sam to die. REALLY? Gerty has killed multiple Sams already! And what does new Sam plan to do with the newest clone anyway? Wouldn't Gerty want to know that before giving in to this specious argument? Nope, deus ex machina to move the story along once again.
5) The "signal jamming" plot point. First of all, there wouldn't need to be some complex series of towers to jam the comm signal to Earth. All the company needed to do was to program the system to tell Sam the signal was unavailable. But that wouldn't have given our hero the chance to "stick it to the man" by programming the harvester to ram into the tower. For what purpose? Did he think that would permanently solve the problem? No way - he was just being destructive. But now let's look at the bigger picture for a minute: two of the harvesters were already out of commission, putting the energy production at 50% capacity. Now, after this senseless plot point, they're at 25% capacity. So, just to be petty, Sam just endangered the entire population of the Earth by severely limiting the only source of energy they have! Lazy, lazy storytelling.
So yeah, if you want to enjoy this film, just shut off your logic centers and relax. It's all going to be just fine.
Captain Marvel (2019)
OK, listen up all you people rating this as 1-star
You've either got an axe to grind that has nothing to do with the film itself, or you're woefully ignorant of film-making and film history. Either way, you need to face some facts. First - just so you know where I'm coming from I am a 53-year old, retired, disabled, Air Force officer, and I'm a guy. I'm also a big Marvel comics and film fan and I thoroughly enjoyed Captain Marvel. Is it a perfect film? Absolutely not (more on that later), but is it a 1-star film, or even a 5-star film? No way! "Ishtar" is a 1-star film. "Plan Nine from Outer Space" (or any other Ed Wood Jr. production) is a 1-star film. Captain Marvel is a 7-star film at worst and I've erred on the high side to help make up for all these ridiculous 1-star ratings. I'll address the main complaints that people have given for these low ratings and then I'll cover what I think really are the weak points of the film. "The acting is terrible!" Come on now, if you think this is terrible acting, you've never seen actual terrible acting. I know this is subjective, but there are some reference marks we can probably all agree on. Go to your average high school play - that's terrible acting. Watch any Ed Wood Jr. film - that's horrible acting. But Captain Marvel has reasonably good acting that fits the characters quite well, in my opinion. Is Vers stiff and wooden at first? Of course she is. She's been abducted by aliens and brainwashed and told consistently to squelch her emotions. Brie Larson captures this well, IMO. Later on in the film, she loosens up and has several emotional moments that I thought were quite effectively portrayed - especially in her interactions with the Rambeau family. "She's not humble!" Right - this is a standard to which we hold super heroes now? "(fill in the blank) would be such a great super hero if he was just more humble," said nobody, ever, about any male super hero character. Is Thor humble? Is Iron Man\Tony Stark humble? Is Hulk humble? There are a few humble A-list male super heroes, but they're the exception rather than the rule: Captain America, Dr. Strange, Spider Man and, um... That's all I can think of. The point is, there are several notably non-humble male super heroes and this has never been a problem for anyone that I'm aware of. Let's think about this character for a minute and see if this non-humble attitude is appropriate or not: Carol Danvers is a USAF Academy cadet, which is one of the most selective schools in the nation (I taught chemistry there for 10 years, so I know what I'm talking about), and EVERYONE knows this (factors into the next point). Cadets are fed a constant diet of "you're the best of the best", and with good reason. These people are the top of their class, straight-A students, often national-class (if not world-class) athletes, socially active in things like Civil Air Patrol, Search and Rescue and other public services. If they weren't, they would never be one of the 1000 per year students who are selected to attend USAFA. Then, she becomes a test pilot. This means she was among the top 1% of all the pilots in the Air Force in terms of capability and skill. And not just any test pilot, but a pilot for a highly classified program, which puts her in an even higher class of excellence. Now, you can't go through that kind of selection process and training without being, regardless of gender, kind of a jerk. (Q: What happens when you give a fighter pilot Viagra? A: He gets taller.) And I say this with all due respect to my pilot friends. But, like Brie Larson portrays her, and like most of the pilots I've known, Carol Danvers isn't an a-hole, but a humorous, sarcastic, irreverent and highly educated and capable person. So, IMO, it is entirely appropriate for Carol Danvers to be a relatively emotionless, non-humble person at the start of the film. Later, she's brainwashed to believe that she's a force for good in the Universe, and even later, she discovers that she's one of the most powerful beings in the universe. Hmm, does that call for humility? Maybe - but how many people with that background would be humble, at least initially? "There's no character\plot development!" Umm, if you don't see character and plot development then you must need a film that has all the subtlety of a jackhammer on the forehead. I thought the character development was told remarkably efficiently through the effective use of flashbacks. If you're paying attention, you easily pick up on Carol's rough childhood, her grit and determination, her friendship with Maria, her talent and capability as a pilot, etc. What more do you want? I mean, everyone I've ever talked to about the USAF Academy instantly knows that the students there are the top high school graduates in the country, even if they know nothing else about the school. That alone tells you a tremendous amount about the character, much less all the vignettes of her getting knocked down and getting back up again. I found this to be enjoyable and inspiring. And the plot? Even though it was a bit predictable, I thought they did a fine job of showing the hypocrisy of the Kree and the predicament of the desperate Skrulls (helped along by some fantastic acting by Ben Mendelsohn. "She doesn't fight a Big-Bad!" Uhhh, so what? She fights off an invading fleet of Accuser warships. She stands up to her brainwashing captors and helps the people she had been trained to think of as enemies. Are you so unimaginative and dead inside that you need some major monster battle to tell you when the climax of the film has arrived? Last one: "It's a feminist attack on (white) manhood!" If you think it's an attack on white males, then you need to pull your head out of your hidden agenda. The Kree (who are the closest things to "bad guys" are an amazingly diverse group in the film, containing males, females, and several different ethnic groups (so does Kree = United States? Hmmm...) so when their hypocrisy is revealed, how can you think it's a direct slap at white males, unless you are blinded by your own prejudices? And at least two major "good guy" characters are either actually white males (Phil Coulson) or prefer to be seen as a blue-eyed white male (Talos). Bottom line: If you think this film is an attack on manhood, then you're pretty insecure in your manhood. What are my complaints about the film? I do have a few:
- (speaking of the dead Skrull) "Whatever he runs on, it's not on the periodic table." The only elements NOT on the periodic table are undiscovered super-heavy elements that no life form would develop a dependence on due to scarcity, among other reasons. This is a stupid and lazy comment and they should have had a science advisor on staff.
- Adapting an air-breathing aircraft to fly into low earth orbit. If the Skrull are technologically advanced enough to do this, they shouldn't have needed to send Mar Vell to Earth to develop a light-speed engine. Anyway, Pegasus had at least one single-stage-to-orbit vehicle, so they probably had more. Blasting in and stealing it would have made a lot more sense. Again, a science advisor would have been a big help on these kinds of details.
- Several of the fight scenes could have been better choreographed and more interesting.
- Why didn't the Kree just shoot Goose? I'm glad they didn't but that just doesn't make any sense. Especially when the Flerkin deployed its tentacles? I mean, it wasn't super fast, but they just stood there and let themselves be grabbed. Maybe the Flerkin can absorb energy bursts from weapons or something, but they should have at least attempted to fight or even run away.
Gake no ue no Ponyo (2008)
Hey Little Mermaid - you're in Miyazaki's house!
Just so you know where I'm coming from, I think even a sub-par Miyazaki film is better than most other films. Ponyo is Miyazaki's unique take on the Little Mermaid story by Hans Christian Andersen, and in many ways it makes Disney's version look trite. Once again, Miyazaki manages to build a world that is simultaneously strange and yet familiar. With any Miyazaki film, you know it's going to be 1) weird, 2) unpredictable and 3) wonderful. If you just embrace the weird, Miyazaki pays off with the wonderful. Ponyo delivers, mostly, but falters a bit on the finish. The first 3/4 of the film is great, but the ending feels rushed and a bit "cheap". The weaknesses of this story are similar to two other Miyazaki films: Totoro and Howl's Moving Castle. Like Totoro, there is an extremely annoying theme song which thankfully only appears in the closing credits of Ponyo. Similar to Howl, the story builds satisfactorily, only to rapidly come to an unsatisfying close. But overall, Ponyo is engaging, interesting and conveys a sense of childlike wonder that is classic Miyazaki.
Many people have commented on the strangeness of a 5 year-old boy and an apparently similarly aged girl being "in love", as well as the boy having the maturity level and responsibilities of a teen. While this definitely falls in the "weird" category, is it really any stranger than all of Miyazaki's child characters showing respect for their elders and for each other? This is a fantasy, after all, so if you're going to buy into a mermaid type creature becoming human, why not a 5 year-old acting like a young adult? But after watching the film, I think Miyazaki intentionally set the ages of Sosuke and Ponyo well below the pre-pubescent range. Doing so allowed him to portray this beautiful story without any possible hint of sexuality.
TLDR: This is an absolutely beautiful film that is only slightly lessened by some minor negatives like a weak ending and an annoying theme song (that doesn't appear until the closing credits).
If I Were You (2012)
See this film!
I only recently discovered this little gem on Netflix and I was really impressed. This independent film is everything that so many Hollywood films aren't (anymore): complex, interesting, challenging, funny. The acting (especially Marcia Gay Harden and Aidan Quinn) is excellent. Despite its 2-hour run-time and complex plot, it never bogs down. Director Joan Carr-Wiggin does an admirable job of keeping the story moving and relatable through all the twists and turns of the plot and subplots. In fact, the story itself mirrors the Shakespearean structure with intrigue, mistaken or confused identities, poignant subtext, etc. And to top it all off, there's no formulaic development or "Hollywood ending" to ruin the great story! This film is truly delightful and its a shame that it did so unbelievably poorly at the box-office. The critics have not done it justice, either, giving one-line reviews that make me wonder if they even watched it. If you check on Rotten Tomatoes, you'll see that the audience score is around 70%, while the critic's score is at 9%! Definitely a disconnect with reality, in my opinion. It's not a perfect film, and if IMDb allowed it I would have given it an 8.5, but it's certainly MUCH better than its critical ratings and box-office earnings indicate.
Tenkû no shiro Rapyuta (1986)
Not my favorite Miyazaki
I was so excited about this film after reading all the glowing reviews, but it was a real disappointment. It's one of Miyazaki's earlier works, and that may explain it, but I just couldn't enjoy this film even though I really wanted to. I know it sounds funny to say, but it was simply just too "cartoony". The beginning of the film is pure magic and for the first 15 minutes or so, I was engrossed in the story and looking forward to the rest of the film. But soon after that, it degraded to almost Saturday-morning cartoon levels of predictability, relying on exaggerated and typical villains and supporting characters. If you liked this at all, you owe it to yourself to check out more of Miyazaki's films. He is a true artist and is capable of much better than this.
Majo no takkyûbin (1989)
Simple, but beautiful and amazing!
I had pretty low expectations for this film, and perhaps that was a factor in why I ended up liking it so much. I thought the story sounded kind of lame, but I was completely mistaken. It's a simple story, and some people complain that it lacks a sense of conflict and is boring, but I couldn't disagree more. It's true that not a lot "happens" during the film, but it is so engaging and beautifully told that it doesn't matter. Miyazaki somehow manages to introduce suspense, pathos, joy, excitement - a truly amazing range of human emotion - in this very simple story about a young girl striking out on her own. And in typical Miyazaki fashion, he manages to craft a story that is equally effective and engaging for children and adults. He gets several statements across very effectively and subtly: always do good; be kind to others, even when they hurt you; if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all; be true to yourself. In fact, this is one of my favorite films - period.
Mononoke-hime (1997)
NOT the "Star Wars of animated features"
No matter what the New York Post said about it (as is recorded on many of the DVD editions of the film), this is definitely not the pinnacle of animated films, nor even of Miyazaki's own work. I really, really wanted to like this film more than I did. I am a big fan of Miyazaki and this is supposed to be his masterpiece, but I'm just not able to go that far in my own assessment of it. It was complex, and beautifully animated (as you expect from Miyazaki), but it left me a bit hollow. Part of it was the incredible violence in the film (NOT for children under 13, IMO), and part of it was hearing Billy Bob Thornton's drawl as the voice of Jigo, but a big part of my reluctance to rate this film more highly is that it felt a bit like Miyazaki was reaching for something that he had already grasped. I think he addressed almost identical themes in a much better way in Nausicaa. Princess Mononoke seemed uncharacteristically "preachy" and heavy-handed, in contrast with Miyazaki's generally subtle style. I know it's super popular and has a stellar reputation, but I just can't recommend it when there are so many other great works available from this true Artist of Anime.
Kurenai no buta (1992)
The Red Pig for the Win!
If you are a Miyazaki fan, you owe it to yourself to see this film. If you aren't familiar with his work, this might be an excellent introduction. It is less mystical than most of his other works, but contains many of the other main story elements that Miyazaki is fond of including in his films. The animation is gorgeous and the story is really fantastic! In typical Miyazaki fashion, lines between good and evil are somewhat blurry, although he does take a pretty hard stance against fascism (whew!). He masterfully takes a tale which is suitable for children and makes it simultaneously interesting and touching for adults. As a former military member, I actually choked up at one point in the film, which I won't spoil here with any details. It took me a little while to get used to Michael Keaton's voice as Porco (seriously, he's supposed to be Italian!) but it only took about 10 minutes to get past that and get caught up in the story. It has some blatantly silly plot devices, but they are forgivable as a children's story. Miyazaki effortlessly blends these elements with real drama, excitement and emotion that only adults and precocious children will truly appreciate.
Hauru no ugoku shiro (2004)
Worth seeing
I really appreciate Miyazaki's story-telling and the unique perspective he brings to the world of children's films, and Howl's Castle is no exception. Although it is based on a book (which I have not read), Miyazaki really makes the story his own. The world he crafts and the story he weaves are so amazingly detailed and interesting that I was truly spellbound for most of the film. Unfortunately, the ending does not live up to the promise of the film and is somewhat unsatisfying, which is the only reason I could not rate this as a 10. However, it is still worth seeing. As is typical with Miyazaki, he successfully relates the conflict and ambiguity of the world around us in an engaging way, without resorting to the Western ideals of good and evil. His characters really embody the concepts of yin/yang and wabi-sabi. Nothing and no one is completely good or completely evil and nothing is really as it may seem. I think these are concepts that all children (and adults) should be introduced to and I can't think of a better way than through a tale told by Miyazaki.
Night Moves (1975)
Doesn't Add Up
Don't worry - I'll warn you before I reveal any spoilers. Read on in good faith.
Arthur Penn: Great. 18-year-old-naked-Melanie-Griffith: Excellent. Gene Hackman: Awesome. This film: pile of garbage. The acting is great, the filmography is wonderfully dark and moody, most of the dialog is solid. I don't understand how the whole can be so much less than the sum of its parts, but this film manages to pull it off somehow. For context, I am a huge fan of the 1970's European-inspired cinema veritas movement and some of my favorite films are from this time period, and some are by Arthur Penn ("Little Big Man", "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest", "Rocky"). But this steaming pile of a film takes "cinema veritas" to the level of "cinema literal": everything you see is exactly what you think it is. The only reason I gave this film a 5 instead of a 1 is because all the individual parts were so good that it kept me watching.
Before I get all spoilery, let me recommend some films that you should watch instead of "Night Moves" (which you should NEVER watch, IMO). If you want to see Arthur Penn at his best, watch "Little Big Man" and "Bonnie and Clyde". If you want to see a mix of American cinema veritas at the top of its form watch "Chinatown", "Taxi Driver", and "Easy Rider". If you want to see the reason that Gene Hackman is probably one of the best American actors EVER, watch "The Conversation", "The French Connection", "Unforgiven", "Hoosiers", hell almost anything other than "Night Moves".
SPOILERS AHEAD!===========================================
I wanted to point out two specific things that I found particularly terrible about this film.
The Plot: As I said above, everything you see is exactly what it is. Does it seem like a girl is having a sexual relationship with her step-father? She is. Is a guy crawling underneath car just before it crashes messing with the brakes? You bet. Is the greedy mother setting up her daughter to be killed to inherit her fortune? Absolutely! If the plot itself wasn't so dead-simple and obvious, this might have been forgivable. But when you know exactly what happened before it even happens, it's a travesty. For example, "Chinatown", which this film desperately wants to be, did this very well.
The Ending: WOW, I have rarely seen a contrived ending as blatant as this one. It's clear that Penn wants Moseby to pay for his sins, but the behaviors of the characters in the last 15 minutes of the film are completely unbelievable. There was absolutely no reason for Paula to take Moseby to the smuggled loot. There was no reason for Joey to skim the plane along the water and run over Paula. There's no way that Paula wouldn't hear the plane coming! There's no reason that Moseby couldn't have crawled into the driver's seat and piloted the boat. He had one 9 mm bullet wound to the thigh - this would in no way be debilitating enough for his lazy performance at the end of the film, putting the boat into a symbolic circular course and laying down to die. Seriously, this was the worst part of an already terrible film.