fredmelden-1 Reviews

Divorce Attorney Shin (2023– )

Typical of too many K-dramas

[5/10 · 27 June 2023]

Good basic plot idea. But why the childish scenes? Like the camping scenes with adults acting like kids? Complete with rinky-dinky music to let us know, "Hey, this is a cutesy cutesy scene." This could have been a serious romantic drama, but the characters are totally incapable of seeing the obvious: Lee Seo-jin is going to fall for Shin; the ramen cook is going to fall for the divorcee; and Shin is going to easily find a rabbit to pull out of the hat to win each case. No need to show extensive investigations to find the key info that will win the cases. And Lee's child...well who could find a more perfect child. The.paralegal and other outer-office chap always argue over silly things in silly ways - more cutesy-cutesy. Finally, K-drama just has to have background songs to tell us that the plot is so beautiful, it makes us want to karaoke. Real directors learned and set forth the correct principle for background music. Less is better; the scene should convey the meaning and emotion to evoke from the audience.

Jogi (2022)

Plot holes, cardboard characters

[5/10 · 26 January 2023]

Should I begin with the scenes of grieving? They go on and on and on and... The policeman friend's (PF) efforts to smuggle refugees is discovered, and yet, his boss doesn't jail him or even fire him. The truck's out of fuel, and yet they have enough to return to the city and then to the warehouse? Jogi gets shot through the heart (watch the scene), yet dies a slow and lingering death.

And the hero? The acting is decent, but both PF and especially his brother display the most wooden acting possible. I thought the extended (too long) scenes where Jogi's lover attempts to seduce him, were childishly unrealistic. This movie could have been improved by shaving 20-minutes of repetitious and usually song-accompanied scenes.

Sijipeuseu: The Myth (2021)

Dragged on too long

[7/10 · 8 December 2021]

Individual scenes go on and on, whether the romantic, or futilely attempted romantic ones; or the attempt of Seo to escape the bunker (she bangs and bangs and bangs against the door). And the last minute attempt by #2 to take control of the company was superfluous. I feel the whole series could have been accomplished better in 12 episodes, than the 16.

Still, the story held me wondering what would happen next, and that is the ultimate measure of a story. So, I've given it 7 stars.

The Gift (2019–2021)

Two very different season ratings

[6/10 · 16 January 2021]

Season one is good. It kept me curious about the unfolding events. Season two was predictable concerning its ultimate denouement. More important, while the first season had a few minor plot holes, the second season was like Swiss cheese. Example: The inspector does a background check on Atiya, but cannot find anything - no credit card, no birth certificate, no driver's license. However, later on, after the bad guy plants records of her, the inspector doesn't blink an eye, does not notice the discrepancy at all. They attempt to explain it as, the records were from Istanbul - as if the record check would not have included those kept at their capital city. There are many other such plot discrepancies. The ending of the season was predictable approximately halfway through, and the quality of the acting also deteriorated, primarily because the characters were required to be as excitable as in a bad Italian film..

Vice Principals (2016–2018)

Childish

[1/10 · 23 August 2020]

If you like cartoons, you'll love this, though the cliches are delivered with the more modern spice of profanity. I don't mind profanity. I mind the ridiculous situations they use to enable the plot. Not ridiculous in a funny way, but rather, a childish way. Monty Python knew how to do it. Show something inherently ridiculous, but with enough grounding in reasonableness for the audience to identify with it. They get sucked in at the beginning, then are led into OTT land. Adults acting like children, who make no attempt to behave as adults actually conduct themselves, present the viewer with cartoonish characters.

APB (2017)

Interesting tech. Everything else blows

[2/10 · 11 June 2019]

How do you know when you are watching a crappy show? Let's see...how about the constant music in the background - no, not Neil Simon or Leonard Cohen. I'm talking about the bup-da-da, bup-da-da, constantly going to tell us that this is reeeeally exciting! Or perhaps the plot holes - like the bomb that is set to blow up via a cell phone.- even though the bombers are right there, on site. (Cell phones would be used for remote triggers.) And while we're talking about it, the woman who triggers it from the station has to get someone else to call the number - as if she couldn't do it herself. Or there's the guy who gets the billionaire's attention by shooting an ATM - because just visiting the station is so much less effective than firing a pistol. And seizing 60 kilos of cocaine is a failure because they can't pin it on the kingpin. But they do have his (wait for it) 60 kilos, which is not exactly a small-time loss. That would be a serious blow to anyone's wallet.

Grand Slam (1967)

Cheesy

[3/10 · 20 March 2019]

Let's see, a safe with beaucoup money that's impossible to break into. Original? Hardly, though if well done, is still a useful plot for a good movie. Let's begin with production values. The sagging laser lines, cited by another reviewer, is just the beginning. Sound quality is poor, even by 1967 standards. The automatic ramp (in the inner safe room noticeably shakes like the flimsy prop it is, rather than the advanced machine it is supposed to be. And as for plot holes? Yeah, only the secretary would be allowed to hold the key - which she takes home at night and leaves unguarded in her purse (not a safe). And how did the diamonds get from the tan case into her black case? The former never left Klaus Kinski's possession. The playboy's cartoon courting (with flowers) is about as convincing as Kinski removing the suspension cable (the one the thieves used to cross above the street) by giving it a quick yank. And Kinski's stiff-backed German soldier persona is as convincing as the Rigaud's stiff-upper-lip British cliche, or the Italian's, or the...

In short, this is movie was crudely made to fit a plot fashioned from cliches. For a much better example within this genre, see Rififfi, made 12 years earlier on a much smaller budget. In black & white, but sets the standard Grand Slam should have followed.

Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)

What does this say about us?

[1/10 · 8 October 2017]

On a cow pie scale of 1 to 10, this is a 10. Non-stop action to stretch a thin (and ridiculous) plot line to 2 hrs. Early on, Hardy's acrobatics are not simply the stuff of MA fighting. They are childishly unrealistic. He meets Theron, and it's obvious they are both running from the same common enemy - yet both continue to think they are adversaries. Perhaps in the future, all will have forgotten the fundamental principle that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Gas is scarce, yet everyone's chasing them with souped-up racers that burn more fuel in an hour than most of us do in a month. Bullets are prized items, yet somehow everyone's got oddles to spare - enough for Hardy to fire warning shots at the girls.

As some have noted, the CG graphics are amateurish. Plot holes anyone? How about continuing to drive in a sand storm? Or supercharging your engine by pouring gas directly into the intake manifold. Uh, huh. Or on the return trip - presumably a few days later - the bad guys are still there, far from their base, waiting around for...what? Theron's acting is flat, perhaps more because of the script than her own limited range. Hardy is the better actor, but there's little for him to do with his wooden character. Probably more the writer's fault than the director's.

What really bothers me is that so many think this is a really neeto keeno film. It isn't. It's not even good escapism. Character development is minimal for the heroes, and nothing for everyone else; the plot is thin and unconvincing, even if we stretch our credulity to a reasonable limit. The high opinion speaks to the loss of aesthetic judgement so prevalent in this country - perhaps loss of judgement, period.

Scorpion (2014–2018)

Fake science produced by a fake genius

[3/10 · 19 February 2017]

Seas. 1, Cyclone episode a perfect example. Somehow, Happy has enough time to get out of the building in 1-minute, 40-sec.; but at 5-min, they didn't have enough time (yes, they all started at the same location. Also, containing the blast in a hardening substance does not reduce the blast; it increases it. If the producer had an IQ of 120, he would know that; much more at 190+. His personal fakery is as obvious as a certain politician's, whom I'll leave unnamed. I'm always willing to give a plot a little leeway, but this series is childish.

Decent acting raises it from a 1-star to a 3.

Suits (2011–2019)

Really?

[1/10 · 4 June 2016]

Sure, the genius who got kicked out for taking a test for someone else could never find another law school that could ever accept him. Ever. Uh huh.

And sure, first-year lawyers within a firm are always trying to undermine one of their own - how else to be competitive?

But then, we've always got the parents to come along and admonish the kids to get back to work: "Jerry, have you got that Loughton case ready?" And like the kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar, Jerry stops smiling and scurries back to his desk.

And everyone spends a huge amount of time out-snarking the next guy. After all, how are you going to make the day go by without a few awkwardly-veiled threats, criticisms, and more than a little boasting? Even mommy has to threaten to fire someone for underperformance at least once each episode.

Snark passes for wit; undercutting another passes for work; winning at all cost passes for contributing to the firm; and unrealistic interaction passes for drama.

House of Lies (2012–2016)

Infantile

[1/10 · 4 June 2016]

The main characters have a smidgen of depth; the rest are cardboard cutouts. The situations the pod addresses are occasionally realistic, but the 'sell' itself is almost always simplistic. The ease with which the clients succumb to the various 'sells' is ridiculously easy, as if the heads of large corporations don't simply make mistakes (they often do) but make stupid ones on a regular basis. And, of course, the characters all have 'issues' - daddy issues, mommy issues, inferiority issues - a pretense to cover up the shallowness of the characters. It's rather like putting on a layer of icing on a cow pie. Everyone habitually talks about sex, sex, and more sex; the "mine is bigger than yours" mentality pervades every scene, except the ones where actual sex occurs. The depicted snark and chest thumping has become a cultural infection that is today reflected in our politics (I will leave specific names unmentioned). The good life is not depicted not as one of stability and contentment, of family and community, but of fast living, fancy cars, and $1000 sushi bars, and waltzing through life one-upping the next guy.

In my opinion, the depicted ideals reflect a society in decline.

Hot Fuzz (2007)

A waste of time

[1/10 · 2 October 2013]

Good heavens! Why was this parade of silliness rated so highly by viewers? If you like camp, this is for you. If you like witty comedy, this is most definitely NOT for you. If you liked Porky's or one of it's jejune zombie clones, you'll love this. But if you are looking for anything above Dumb And Dumber (British version), you will be as disappointed as I was.

It does have some clever puns and word twists, which I consider the best part of this whole disaster – rather like saying, 'Yes, the Titanic sunk, but the stars in the sky were crystal clear.' Compared to His Girl Friday...well, it can't be compared. Though an old movie, it was both witty and well-acted, which Hot Fuzz is not. The ending was predictable; the main character's decision mere sentimentality – and also predictable. I do disagree with one reviewer who called it a "bomb". No, it's a dud.

I Am (III) (2010)

A truth taco in a tortilla of lies,

[5/10 · 31 August 2013]

I AM reminds me of the Vietnam-era general's quote: We had to destroy the village to save it. I AM has a correct message, but destroys its effectiveness with a lot of new-agey cow pies. (Not sure what the lingo standards are on IMDb.) Lets begin with the big lies. In 1500, the scientists DID NOT say the earth was flat. In fact, 1500 was well into the enlightenment. Even during the Middle Ages the scholars (not "scientists" in the modern sense of the term) knew and said the earth was round. Even during the Dark Ages they knew – and said – the earth was curved. Hemisphere? Globe? They were uncertain, but they definitely knew it was not flat. Yes, they said it was at the center of the cosmos, but it was scientists who proved that wrong. Also, the movie constantly reiterates that scientists have depicted man as separate from the rest of nature, and even parts of nature separate from each other. The statement is true but ignores the science of the last hundred years, which has increasingly changed that view. It was scientists with mathematicians who discovered quantum entanglement (mentioned in I AM), along with quantum physics. And it was a scientists who decades ago stated that the universe resembles less a clock than mind.

It is true, as another commenter writes, that love and cooperation are in our genes. But so is aggression and violence – just read Jane Goodall's account of chimps, or her statements given in interviews. She wrote of seeing one chimpanzee clan literally wipe out another whose members had previously been part of the first clan.

As carlupq points out, the references in the movie (to trees and lions only taking what they need) is ridiculous. Carrier pigeons were once so plentiful in America, that their flocks would destroy a forest by merely occupying it for a month. And biological die-offs are common in nature, the result of natural imbalances building up to collapses.

And yet, clearly, Tom Shadyac is not entirely off-base. We HAVE developed an obsession with money and stuff, and it IS destroying our nation and the world. We are as off-balance as populations prior to die-offs. Worse, we've lost our way spiritually. Commenter carlupq goes a bit too far in his rah-rah for the free market, but we – our society and the world's advanced nations, and advancing ones too – need a new vision. Poverty is not the answer, nor is a mythical touchy-feely view of man as this inherently kind and caring creature – who coincidently happens to have been slaughtering his fellow man and despoiling his environment since the earliest large groupings arose.

No, I AM correctly points to the need for change, a fundamental change in our thinking and our subsequent doings. Unfortunately, it plays off of, and spreads, too many silly ideas to be taken seriously by any except those already in the new-age fold. We need to convince the average Joe and Jane who live in the city and suburbia, and who recognize both the good and the evil in man, that we have to change, and that their children and grandchildren will ultimately be happier by our doing so. We will not convince them with unrealistic views of nature and mankind, but only by the real dangers of continuing on our current paths.

Blast of Silence (1961)

Waaaay overrated!

[1/10 · 7 March 2009]

I find it hard to believe that this was seriously considered at Cannes in 1961, and praised at the Munich Festival in 1987. Let me list a few of its flaws, and giving a wide allowance for the fact that it was an independent film. First, the quality of the video is poor; for an indie, that's probably expectable. Second, the music is heavy and awful - probably cliché even for 1961. Further, the music often adds nothing to a scene, and frequently feels totally out of pace with it. For example, why would it have the kind of music it uses to accompany the stalking of the victim? Third, The walking scenes are far too long, especially those where no stalking is occurring. We see Bono just walking and walking and... We see this at night and in the daytime, and frankly, posing the 'city as a character' doesn't justify it. The director/writer takes no pains to actually explore the city AS a character; he merely displays it, and that is something quite different. Fourth, this is heavily narrated. Narration is normally considered a weakness, a crutch used when the action and dialog do not do their job of fully conveying the what and why of the story - a perfect description in this case. Fifth, the actor displays almost no emotion. Of course, one could say this is congruent with the character - a hit man. However, the narration establishes the 'fact' that Bono gets himself worked up into a hate for his victim. If that's his M.O., it should show on the screen. It absolutely does not, but his bad acting does. Sixth, he fights Big Ralph in an apartment, and in the process pretty much tears the place up. Surprisingly, no neighbors come out to see what's happening. It may be a minor point, but there are several such that destroy the film's credibility. Seventh, so does the silencer. He fires the gun and it makes a fairly loud sound, despite the silencer. Eighth, (going back to Ralph), it's unlikely he would threaten to rat on - of all people - a hit man! 'If I hear he dies, I'll know you killed him, and I'll tell on you, unless you pay me.' Uh, huh. Ninth, the contractor gives Bono half the money and promises the rest later. You don't have to be a mafioso to know it's never done that way. I don't know that it was EVER done that way, but certainly not in 1961. Just a plot device? Maybe, but a pretty weak one. Tenth, the movie is a short hour-and-a-quarter. Perhaps I should consider this a plus! I could go on, but I'm tired of writing, and these cover the main problems. Even allowing for the low budget, this is a poor film. Hearing that he was considered back then a new-generation Orson Welles is ridiculous. Welles might have considered Baron as a gaffer, but little more. As a TV director or producer, he may have been adequate, but not as a movie director or screenwriter.