Change Your Image
grainonbeach
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
The Hunt (2020)
Cuts Both Ways
I wasn't sure what to expect, but I liked this satirical movie for what it is: it is a spoof that makes fun of BOTH the Left and the Right.
I can see why some viewers would dislike the movie, if they didn't get the hints at the beginning that it was a parody (e.g., the way the man was stabbed in the neck with a PEN was a big clue), or felt the message was delivered poorly.
These lines (toward the end) really hit home:
Crystal: "You don't really care about the truth, do you?"
Athena: "Of course I do. The only difference is that I'm right."
Athena represents the quintessential ideologues' attitude. They claim they care about the "truth," but refuse to look at facts that refute their narrative, and steadfastly believe they are "right."
I am acquainted with people like that, and these people can be seeds of evil, if they have influence, by disseminating half-truths to incite outrage and hate.
The entire dialogue near the end between the two women before they fight epitomize the struggle between rationality and ideology. Here, Athena is the ideologue/extremist while Crystal is the voice of reason. Ideology is deaf to reason. This exchange hit the mark.
As I had accepted that the movie was 'fantasy' from almost the beginning, I found many of the unrealistic scenes amusing, as they were exaggerations of the tropes representing the attitudes of the Far Right and the Far Left.
If the viewer is on the Far Right or Far left, s/he may not like this movie because it probably hits too close to home in showing the hypocrisy, hubris, inaneness, and self-righteousness of their side, be it Far Left or Far Right.
My rating is somewhere between 6 and 7. I'll round up to 7.
Kimi no na wa. (2016)
9/10 rating (the highest score I've given hitherto): Wonder-ful!
A wonderfully-told story -- a fantasy -- grounded in real emotions and feelings. Each character, even the minor ones, feels real and relatable in their own way. The interspersed humor is nice in light of the intensity of the underlying events.
The scene that evoked the most emotion for me is the first part of the flashback, where the mother has baby Mitsuha next to her and names her, the next moment where the father lovingly calls his daughter and wife his "treasures," and the death of Mitsuha's mother, when the daughter asks, "Dad, when is Mom going to come home?" The naming scene makes me think of my late mother, and the intense emotional bond she must have felt at the birth of each of her children. It brings tears to my eyes.
This flashback scene in "Your Name" is at the level of, or even more emotionally impactful than, the first minutes of the Disney/Pixar animation "Up" that summarizes Ellie and Carl's life, beautifully.
When I thought that Mitsuha and many in the town had perished, it made me very sad. Then, a miracle happens because of Taki's perseverence and love. Although a fantasy, this anime has inspirational messages and deep meaning.
Bad Boys for Life (2020)
Bad: Forced and Contrived
I was extremely disappointed with this movie. Nearly everything in this movie seemed forced and contrived, especially the attempts at jokes and humor, which didn't make me laugh in most cases. I was expecting a better movie based on the IMDB score, but this movie is much worse in my opinion. If it were rated 5, I would not have been disappointed because I would have known beforehand not to expect too much. This movie left a really bad taste in my mouth, and I wish I hadn't wasted my time watching it.
1917 (2019)
Impressive cinematography, but...
For me, 1917 was good, but some aspects took me out of the film.
Likes: (i) The cinematography. (ii) The first part the movie, until the German plane crashes.
Dislikes: The German plane literally crashes on the exact spot where the two protagonists (Brit 1 and Brit 2) are. I thought: "What is the probability of that happening?" "Nearly zero," I thought.
The two Brits save the German pilot from being burned alive, and what does the German do? Stabs and kills Brit 1, only to be shot dead by Brit 2.
Why was the milk left in the pail? What happened to the person who milked the cow? Did the Germans do 'something' to that person? Brit 2 filled his canteen with milk -- important for a later event.
Germans killed lots of cows, just for the fun of it. I guess their withdrawal was too hasty to commandeer them for food. Such barbaric people.
A few moments later, Brit 2 kills a sniper and becomes unconscious. Then, the entire movie seemed to become visually surreal, like it was a dream. I thought, "Is this a dream? It must be."
I pondered: "What are the chances of Brit 2 stumbling into the hiding place of a woman with a baby that is not hers? It must be a dream." The baby can't yet eat solid food. Thank goodness for the milk from before!
Brit 2 encounters a German soldier, and the German seems to agree to not shout out, but the German shouts out, leading to the German's death. During the struggle, the German's comrade is literally just meters away, oblivious to what's going on.
Did the British Army have colonial soldiers (e.g., South Asian, African/Blacks) mixed in with regular white British soldiers? Is that true or a rewriting of history?
The way the Germans were depicted reminded of old propaganda movies: they are cruel, murderous, and/or stupid. The booby trap in the cave left the feeling that the Hun was devious and barbaric.
Do people realize that it was the humiliation of the German people (inflicted by the Allies after WWI) that led to WWII? Humiliation is one of the strongest -- if not the strongest -- of human emotions. Have you forgotten the time(s) you were badly humiliated?
1,600 British lives are in peril, and the General sends only two runners to warn them? I am not an expert on WWI, but given that it was a dangerous mission, if I were the General, I would have sent two teams of two, each independently and ignorant of the other team. There were British planes; why not send a runner to the airfield with the written orders, pass the orders to the airfield commander, who would then have a pilot fly to near where endangered troops are, and deliver the written orders? Does anyone have a horse they can spare or commandeer?
How is it that the two guards cannot stop Brit 2 from entering the command post? They don't know his intentions -- he could have been an insane man intent on killing the officers!
I could list many more aspects that gave me pause, but I'll stop here.
Because the movie tried so hard to depict the harsh and brutal 'realities' of war, I would have preferred to not have to "suspend my disbelief" so many times.
Doctor Who: Spyfall: Part Two (2020)
Storage media or vindictiveness? Is that a gigantic plot hole?
I must have missed something.
DNA is in nearly* every living** organism on Earth.
If an entity wants to use DNA (in living organisms) for information storage, they could use any animal! Heck, they could use plants or bacteria! Why use humans? A much smaller organism would be more "efficient."
This seems be a GIGANTIC plot hole...unless the Master just wants to irk and hurt the Doctor by converting the human race (whom the Doctor cares about) into storage media. (This Master seems to like to convert people into objects, e.g., shrunken forms; so, it would be consistent with this behavior.)
I would have preferred if the Doctor had heard the rationale given and said, "That makes no sense! DNA is in every organism! Why are you targeting huma... Ooh, I see. It's not about storage media...is it?"
------------------------
* I added "nearly" because of retroviruses, which use RNA as their genetic material.
** Some/many scientists do not consider viruses as truly "alive" because viruses require a host cell to reproduce.
Doctor Who: Spyfall: Part One (2020)
Boring...until the last few minutes
For this episode,
First few minutes: I thought, "What's going on? Why are these secret agents being killed? What are those creatures that can pass though solid objects?"; Most of middle: boring; Last few minutes: The Master is back...
In more detail:
Convoluted and confusing story: mystery box, mystery box, mystery box, car chase, mystery box, Surprise! The Master is back, "fam" in peril (cliffhanger)...
Not really interested in watching next episode...I may give next episode a shot before I say, "This is too boring! It's no fun. I can't watch this show anymore. Goodbye, my (former) love."
The Kindergarten Teacher (2018)
Sad, pensive, haunting
Here, I will offer my feelings, rather than a pure review.
When the movie ended, I felt sad. I could relate to the teacher (played by Maggie Gyllenhaal) and felt sad that the boy's genius would disappear, unshared with the world. Clearly, the teacher had psychological issues and did inappropriate things in trying to share the boy's talents with the world.
If Mozart were not given the chance to make music or if Michelangelo were deprived his artistic expression, would you feel that the world was less enriched? If you could intervene and change that...
I felt sad for the teacher -- who lacked talent and desperately wanted meaning and validation in her life.
I felt sad for the child -- whose parents were doing what they thought was best, but ultimately were prejudiced by their own worldview.
I felt sad for the teacher as a mother -- as her children seemed very "normal," and she couldn't fulfill her passions through them.
At the end of the movie, when the police officer ignored that the child said that he had a poem, the viewer can see how most people only see or care about things that directly concern them, blinding them to treasures right in front of them, resulting in, this case, the loss of literary gems.
Perhaps because I have no talent in poetry, I could relate to the teacher even more.
When the teacher cheated on her husband, I felt sad, instead of shock or indignation. I felt her loneliness, her disconnection with her children, and the "settled," but not passionate, relationship with her husband.
One aspect that detracted from the movie (to me) was the boy's acting, which seemed artificial. But, I haven't met many child prodigies, so his performance may be spot on.
The movie is about us: we, in our own way, are crazy, self-absorbed, self-centered, desperate, self-righteous, searching for meaning-love-validation, etc. Desperation can drive any of us to do crazy things.
This movie is haunting...when we recognize that it is about us, whether we share characteristics with the teacher and/or some of the other characters.
Alita: Battle Angel (2019)
Heartfelt and Inspirational!
Alita is an amazing movie.
I feel the movie represents different things to different people. For me, I see the love, kindness, and passion of Alita and Dr. Ido. From these come their strength and courage.
The father-(foster)daughter relationship between Dr. Ido and Alita is very touching. The love Dr. Ido had for his late daughter can now find a home in Alita, and through his kindness, Alita has a safe place to find herself, learn, and grow to become the special woman she always was. They help each other fill voids in their lives. There is nothing more special than the love of a daughter for her father, and this movie captures this feeling.
The visual effects are absolutely incredible. I actually thought Zapan was "wearing" his armor, but in fact, his mechanical body was added as a visual effect (which I learned later).
I thought the character development for the supporting characters of Hugo, Chiren, and Vector was better in the anime (Gunnm), which was only about an hour long. Adding 10 minutes to develop these other characters would have made the movie even better.
I'm not exactly sure why, but this movie makes me emotional, and even brings tears to my eyes. Alita is special.
I hope there is a sequel.
Doctor Who: Rosa (2018)
Are viewers asking "Why?"
The first half of "Rosa" intrigued me, but the remainder disappointed me. I wanted to learn about the motivation of the villain Krasko: why did he target Rosa Parks if he could go anywhere in time? Why does he hate Rosa's "kind," if he is from the future? What caused this person (presumably from the future) be become a "racist"? If he is so against equal rights, Krasko could have gone to Civil War America and helped the South win.
As an American, born non-white in California in the 1960s, I know that institutionalized segregation, discrimination, and racism existed in the South, and I too have been a victim of racism's debilitating effects. But, how and why is there prejudice toward people of African ancestry in the future? This episode could have explored the causes of racism, but failed. Also, was Krasko acting on his own or was he part of a larger group? Why was he released from prison when he still was a danger to others?
What Ryan did to Krasko disturbed me. He sent Krasko all the way "back," which could be millions of years and, possibly, to his death. Ryan acted as "judge, jury, and executioner." I think the Doctor should have taught Ryan a lesson to not take justice into his own (teenage) hands. Up until now, I had considered The Doctor a hero, but now I wonder: Does the Doctor condone vigilantism by teenagers? Previously, the Doctor's companions often served as a mirror (and vice versa) to help one another see their blind spots. Without such checks and balances, we all (including the Doctor and companions) are capable of vindictive, maleficent, and/or cruel acts.
I would have preferred Krasko not being in the episode. His presence created too many unanswered questions that ruined the episode for me. Instead of Krasko, maybe the story could have included an impressionable child being taught to be racist by her mother. Nearly all ethnic prejudice is transmitted by adults (male and female) to others, like a contagious disease, and sometimes very subtly or subliminally.
WE ARE ALL PREJUDICED in some way(s) although we may not realize it or admit it; and, we influence others with our prejudices, wittingly or unwittingly.
Doctor Who: The Woman Who Fell to Earth (2018)
Let's try a thought experiment...
I've been a Doctor Who fan since the early 1980s. I thought this episode was okay, but not spectacular.
Some of the plot points seemed a bit contrived and/or underdeveloped. For example, I could not believe that the Doctor could make a sonic screwdriver using parts and tools found in a normal workshop. If it were an ultra-high-tech lab, then maybe I'd be able to suspend disbelief...if the hand-made sonic was several times bigger. That could have been a hilarious reveal: "Ta-dah! I did the best I could with what I had!" and then a "tricorder"-sized sonic is revealed. Also, what is the power source of this sonic screwdriver? Inquiring scientists want to know!
I know that Doctor Who is fantasy (not science fiction), but when the setting is Earth (or the Moon), I prefer plot points that are consistent with the known laws of nature (science).
I am a bit surprised seeing so many ratings of 10 or 1. To me, "10" means the episode was perfect in every way, with no room for improvement; "1" means the total opposite (the worst in every way). My hope that we all try to be like the Doctor, using rational thought to make judgements, rather than just "feelings" or "emotions," so that we can "sort out fair play."
Let's try a thought experiment: Imagine that the new Doctor were played by a white man (of average looks). Would you give this episode the same score? What if he were short, fat, and ugly?
I am looking forward to the future adventures of the Doctor, played by Jodie Whittaker.
The Orville: Into the Fold (2017)
What is the message?
The episode, "Into the Fold," left me very uncomfortable.
I really enjoyed the story - until the moment Claire Finn stabs, shoots, and presumably kills her rescuer/captor. I was taken aback when Finn tells her son Union people value life (after what she had done). What is this episode trying to say?
You crash land on someone else's world, a man rescues you, he provides food. When you beg him that you must leave, he insists that it is too dangerous (which appears to be the case as hordes of diseased cannibals seemingly roam everywhere). You learn that your son is ill, so you decide that you must kill the man to get away and (presumably) take the med-kit that he risked getting for you, and his weapon. After you kill, you tell your son, we value life.
So, what does this all mean? a. It's okay to kill someone if you are trying to save your child's life. b. If someone has detained you against your will (even though you were the trespasser), then you can kill him. c. Lying and deception are okay, when necessary. d. Teach your children that killing is bad, but don't tell them that you just killed someone.
That she is a physician made it worse for me. What is the Hypocritical Oath: "I will do no harm, unless I feel that the other person is bad"?
There should have been non-lethal alternatives for Finn. That's what separates smart (and beneficent) people from average (or bad) people. For example, (1) Talk. She is a physician, and with all of her experience, she should be able to present logical, rational, as well as emotional arguments that are persuasive. She could (a) ask the man if it was her mother that was 'held' and she needed to find you. How would you feel if someone kept her from you? (b) have said that I understand that you are lonely and want a friend; if you help me, I promise you that someone else from my ship or our Union will come to keep you company. (c) have offered to take him away from the diseased planet.
(2) have set a trap to restrain her captor. She had access to some/many of his supplies.
(3) have obtained something to incapacitate/'knock out' the man, e.g, a metal rod, heavy pot, etc.
(4) have just run away. She probably wanted the med-kit (and/or his weapon), so that's probably why she didn't just run.
(5) etc., etc.
Clever script writers could have come up with a way for her to escape (with the med-kit and weapon) without killing the man. So, it seems that killing this man was one plot point of this episode.
This episode taught me that Finn will kill me if I get in her way - even if my intention is to protect her (from dangers of which she knows not). Logically, we can extend this and say that she would kill an entire town/city/society if they were detaining her and that was the only way she knew to save her child.
Again, we should not overlook that Finn is the intruder on that world.
What has been disquieting about "The Orville" is the sense of self- righteousness and the lack of introspection. The Orville crew's attitude is: they are bad/evil, but we are good or our way is better. This attitude is prevalent in other episodes, and is one of the biggest contrasts with ST:TNG, where the Federation seems more respectful of other cultures/peoples/beliefs.
Here's an idea: A future episode should evaluate the conduct of the Orville's crew (e.g., by Admiral Halsey et al.). Oh, never mind, the likely conclusion would be: We are good or our way is better; and, most importantly, they were bad and got what was coming to them. (Spoilers on earlier episode: Wasn't Lt. LaMarr the disrespectful one who inappropriately touched and physically 'assaulted' the woman's statue in public? Etc.)
I just thought of a worse possibility: Finn killed the man out of spite/vindictiveness ("You held me against my will and didn't care about my sons, so you deserve to die.") Or, perhaps the message is: "If you restrict a woman, you should die."
Star Trek: Discovery (2017)
When Things Fail (WTF)
I became a Star Trek fan as a child in the 1970s watching reruns, and have faithfully watched TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager, Enterprise, and the movies.
Thus, it is with a heavy heart that I have decided not to watch STD anymore. The F-bomb in "Choose Your Pain" was the last straw. Many other reviewers have said that STD is not Star Trek for various reasons: odd uniforms, lens flares, strange-looking Klingons, etc.; but, I could live with those anomalies because those are cosmetic.
However, there were some changes that are in such contrast to the original series that I wonder if Gene Roddenberry would approve. Star Trek should be for everyone, including children. But, the F-bomb destroyed that, especially in the context it was used. It was used for fun. To those who say the F-bomb was okay, I politely say, "It is time for me to leave."
I am non-white; I am not Christian; I am not religious. I am for equality, fairness and justice. STD is SJW gone wild, and it is insufferable. In the original series, Kirk, Spock, and McCoy were people I aspired to be like - they were role models; in STD, I don't want to be like any of the characters.
The episode "Chose Your Pain" has forced me to chose my pain: I am divorcing STD, even though I have loved Star Trek for most of my life.
If it were a generic sci-fi show, I would give "Discovery" 6 stars (based only on the five episodes I've seen). As a continuation of Roddenberry's "Star Trek", I would give it 2 stars. So, to compromise, I give it a 4.