Change Your Image
sddavis63
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Glass (2019)
Chaotic From The Start
I liked James McAvoy, playing the same character in "Split." He was just as effective in this sequel as Kevin, "et cetera." And his super-hero cohorts (Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson) both offered very good performances. But, overall, I have to say I thought this movie was something of a mess. Right from the beginning it just seemed to jump into the middle of a story - nothing really being set up. The word I used to describe it to my wife after we watched it was "weird." And I stand by that. I just didn't think it was a particularly well crafted or coherent movie.
McAvoy, Jackson and Willis are three men who believe they have super (or at least special) powers, and who are inmates at a psychiatric hospital as a result, with Sarah Paulson playing the doctor treating them. All of them put on good performances (McAvoy, as I said, was standout playing all the various characters embedded in Kevin's head) - but the good performances didn't, for me at least, save a chaotic and confusing movie.
(3/10)
The Divide (2011)
One Of The More Disturbing Movies You'll Ever Watch
Be warned. This is not an easy movie to watch. It's the story of a group of people who have survived a nuclear attack and are sealed up in an underground bunker. Essentially that's the story, with one minor (as it turns out) addition that presents a problem with the movie as I'll note later. It's not pleasant to watch. Basically, the group, suffering from radiation poisoning and closed off from everything except each other, starts to go mad; more and more deranged with the passage of time - turning on each other without mercy, in at least one particularly disturbing subplot, a couple of men using one of the female survivors as a sexual toy. I say again - it is not a pleasant movie to watch. Disturbing and at times quite gory. Not for those easily offended.
However, if you can get over the uneasy squeamishness that the story brings forth - it's not bad. There's even a sort of uneasy reality to it. After all, how would any of us survive or even hold it together in the same circumstances. Nothing that happens here seems beyond the capacity of normal human beings as time passes in this situation. That's probably the most disturbing thing about this. It's not impossible to read yourself into this situation and wonder whether you could handle it any better.
The performances from the cast were decent. I was familiar with Lauren German as paramedic Leslie Shay on the TV show "Chicago Fire" - but in all honesty I didn't recognize her as Eva, who's probably the main character in this movie. But she, along with everyone else in the cast, did a fine job in their roles - perhaps a bit over the top at times, but that seemed in keeping with the basic story and dilemma that characters were facing. The ending of the movie was kind of unexpected and incredibly sobering as well in the last scene, looking out at the nuclear-devastated skyline of the city.
The one part of the movie that confused me and in the end that seemed unnecessary was the "lab" up above and the "soldiers" (if that's what they were) that raided the bunker and carried off young Wendy. I didn't think it added anything to the story aside from a few minutes of suspense that weren't really necessary to add, and, in the end, it was left hanging. What was the purpose of the lab? Who was running the lab? I've seen speculation in some of the other reviews on here, but I don't believe anything definitive was ever stated in the movie. As far as I know it was just left hanging - open to speculation, I suppose, but with nothing definitive to base the speculation on.
Again - it's unpleasant, disturbing, gory. It's a very dark exploration of human psychology. And yet I found it quite riveting. (7/10)
Alien Hunter (2003)
In The Spirit of "The Thing"
There are a lot of similarities between this movie and "The Thing From Another World." It's essentially the story of a strange object that's found buried deep in the ice by researchers at an Antarctic scientific station. They recover it and take it back to the station, the ice melts and the thing within is released and the researchers are left to deal with the consequences. That sounds familiar enough to anyone who's ever seen "The Thing." But there are some important differences, as well. This alien creature seems beneficent rather than malevolent; seeking to communicate rather than to destroy and, ultimately, trying to help the researchers deal with this mess. So, it certainly isn't just a rehash of "The Thing." The story establishes a connection between what's happening in the Antarctic and what happened in Roswell, New Mexico in 1947 - the radio signal that was discovered by these researchers had supposedly also been noted in 1947. And the climax of the movie in the last 15 minutes or so is a kind of psychological study (not that formal, but I can't think of another way to put it) of how the various people at the station respond to the impending catastrophe they face. The story is decent.
I was unfamiliar with the cast, with the exception of James Spader, but they all did reasonably well with their parts. The weakest link to me was maybe John Lynch as Dr. Straub, but overall, I liked the cast.
I certainly wouldn't rate this within the top tier of sci-fi movies (or anywhere close to it) but it's an enjoyable movie - watchable and at times quite exciting and suspenseful. It shouldn't be a disappointment to anyone who likes the basic genre.
(7/10)
Hector and the Search for Happiness (2014)
I Found This Kind Of Shallow
I have to say that this movie accomplished something rather unusual - most of the time it was interesting but also most of the time it came across as kind of tedious. It's the story of Hector (a British psychiatrist) who's unsatisfied with his life, unsatisfied with his career and unsatisfied with his relationship. He finally decides to go on a round the world journey to discover what it is that really makes people happy - research he calls it, but in many ways a personal quest. He visits China, Africa and the United States over the course of the movie, encounters various people with whom he establishes at least fleeting relationships, reconnects with a few people from his past, learns some of their secrets and faces some of his fears.
It's OK - but I honestly can't say anything more than that. I liked Simon Pegg in the role of Hector. He had a certain quirkiness to him that fit both the character and the quest. The rest of the cast was solid and included some familiar names and faces, but the movie was Pegg's and he was good enough to keep me watching.
But there was a superficiality to most of his insights into happiness - none of them came across as particularly noteworthy to me. It's labelled as a comedy-drama. As a comedy it's mildly amusing; as a drama it has its moments. It just seemed to lack any real or sustained depth to me.
What kept me watching was to find out what Hector's ultimate decision was going to be about the future of his relationship with his girlfriend Clara (Rosamund Pike.) I honestly wasn't sure how that would turn out; I felt it could have gone either way.
It's a movie that didn't leave me with any deep feelings - either positive or negative; a very middling movie I'm not sorry to have watched but that I wouldn't choose to watch again. (5/10)
The Unforgiven (1960)
This Suffers From High Expectations
The primary problem with "The Unforgiven" (in fact, to be honest it might be the only problem of any great significance with the movie) is the high expectations caused by the names attached to it. You have Burt Lancaster and Audrey Hepburn as the stars, names like Audie Murphy and Lillian Gish in the supporting cast, and the great John Huston as the director. When you see those names you expect a truly great movie. But what you get in the end is a decent movie - a good movie, even - but it doesn't rise to the level of greatness you're expecting from it.
The first half of the movie is actually quite slow-paced. There isn't a great deal of drama, and really there's not much of a story unfolding. You have two families on the old west prairie (the Zacharys and the Rawlins (neighbours, friends, business partners.) They get along. There's a fair bit of flirtatiousness between various members of the family and there's a generally upbeat feel to this. Everybody seems to get along. Yeah, there's the typical racial stereotyping of native Americans - but you pretty much expect that from this genre, and, from what I understand, the film was actually trying to take a stand against the overt racism that native Americans often encountered. But there's not really much of a story being told aside from being invited into the inner working of especially the Zachary family. Gish plays the widowed mother, Lancaster is the eldest son Ben who is essentially the head of the family and Hepburn is Rachel - the only daughter. She's identified as a "foundling" (one presumes at first that she's an orphan, raised by the Zacharys as their own child. It's not unpleasant or hard to watch - but it lacks any real punch to be frank. The only thing breaking up the positive feel is the ominous presence of the mysterious old sabre-wielding man on a horse spouting semi-apocalyptic religious rhetoric. He seems to know some sort of secret. But overall the first half is a bit of a drag.
There's a major change in atmosphere in the second half - once Rachel's secret is revealed. Unknown to everyone except her mother and the man with the sabre, Rachel is a Kiowa Indian, taken by the Zachary patriarch when she was a baby after he and others attacked a Kiowa encampment. Now, 20 or so years later, we discover that the Kiowa want her back and that the Rawlins want no more to do with the Zacharys because of this Kiowa connection. (The Rawlins pretty much disappear from the movie at this point.) There's a much faster pace to the second half and a lot more drama, culminating in a pretty well depicted final confrontation between the Zacharys and the Kiowa.
I did not understand - nor did I like - the sudden introduction of some sort of romantic connection between Ben and Rachel. I know they weren't related by blood - but they were raised as brother and sister. To me there was a bit of an "ick" factor once that got introduced. Balance that, however, with the wonderful technical aspects of the movie. Huston's direction was superb - ironic, perhaps, since I understand he wasn't particularly happy with the film for several reasons. There's beautiful photography and some spectacular scenes of the prairie landscape. It's a gorgeous film to watch. But the story could have been better. In the end it falls well short of expectations.
(6/10)
Desperate Hours: An Amber Alert (2008)
Decent Portrayal Of The Search For Two Teenage Girls
Personally, I really liked this movie. Others didn't, but we all have our different tastes. I found it suspenseful and I was drawn into the plight of the two teenage girls. The story is about them being kidnapped and the efforts of their families and the police to find them. There really wasn't much about the police work. As one of the moms described it, the basic attitude of the police was "we've done the paperwork, now we wait."
The kidnapper was played by Tom Berenger. He actually accomplished the difficult task of making me a little bit sympathetic to his character. As he put it, he never wanted to kidnap anyone - he just wanted to steal a car and he ended up with the girls. But he never hurt them, and never really touched them aside from tying and taping them. I'm not saying he was a good guy - just a guy who got in over his head and in the end paid a very high price for it.
My biggest criticism of this is that it focuses too much on some family melodrama (even including the family of the police chief heading the search) which didn't really add anything important to the story and was just at the expense of following the plight of the girls. But basically this worked pretty well, I thought.
Frost (2022)
An Adequate Time Waster Goes Dreadfully Downhill As The End Approaches
A movie does not have to be great or a blockbuster to be entertaining, or at least watchable, and to be honest for most of this movie's runtime I thought that's what I was going to be saying about "Frost." It wasn't great, but as a time waster it was passable. And then came the last 10 minutes or so (more, later.) Essentially, we have here a two person story - about Abby and her dad Grant (estranged for five years apparently when she suddenly shows up on the doorstep of his cabin in the woods, pregnant with his grandchild.) But the estrangement seems rather easily set aside, making me wonder why the estrangement angle was even necessary. Abby could have just been visiting her dad. Anyway, that means that (aside from an actress who facetimes with Abby for a couple of minutes at the beginning, and, of course, Shadow the wolf - who gets credited for his brief appearance) the cast is largely limited to Devanny Pinn and Vernon Wells - two actors I have never heard of. But - again - that's fine. Sometimes unknown actors can be surprisingly good. Pinn and Wells weren't surprisingly good, but they were adequate. The story was anything but original - dad and pregnant daughter go off the road and find themselves stranded in the woods with no food and very little hope and a winter storm approaching. That kind of story can be dramatic and suspenseful even if it has been overdone, and "Frost" had its moments. So I was going to rate this as an adequate if unspectacular time waster kind of movie. And then came the last 10 minutes.
Why was there a need to suddenly turn this into little more than a gorefest? Those last 10 minutes were awful. Abby may not have been a memorable character and Pinn's performance may have been little more than adequate, but still after everything I wanted Abby to have a peaceful ending. I didn't need to see her eating her newborn (albeit it dead) baby, nor did I need to see her dying with a sharp icicle falling on to her and through her eye into her brain. Seriously - where did all that come from? And why? Who thought that would be a good ending? It was horrible - just awful. An adequate if unspectacular time waster became just a dreadful, horrific experience as it came to its end - for no obvious reason except somebody decided to throw some gore in. Only because the first 70 minutes were adequate if unspectacular I'll give this a 3/10. But the ending just left me with a feeling of - "Yuck."
Danika (2005)
The Difference Between Fantasy And Reality
I actually really enjoyed this movie. It's about a woman who appears to be a very over-protective mother who is struggling with hallucinations so vivid that they essentially control her when she's in the midst of them. Her family is struggling in many ways trying to deal with her problem and her life is slowly falling apart. The question that's uppermost through pretty much the entire run time is what parts of the movie are fantasy and what parts are reality? Or, when are we inside Danika's mind seeing her thoughts and when are we actually seeing reality?
I thought this moved at a pretty good pace. It was suspenseful at times; some of the hallucinations are very graphic and raw and more often than not I found myself feeling sorry for Danika - the main character - as she struggles with whatever's going on in her head. Marisa Tomei played the part, and she was very good in it, offering a convincing portrayal of a woman literally living life on the edge between sanity and insanity. Is it confusing at times? Yes, it is, but I think that's deliberate. The movie is intended to give the viewer some insight into Danika's psychological struggles. If it was all straightforward it would actually be a failure. You're supposed to be puzzling over this.
The story leads up to quite a dramatic and (to me, at least) unexpected climax and twist at the end which does explain what was fantasy and what was reality. I won't give it away by saying more than that, but suffice to say that the movie doesn't leave any loose ends. A very confusing movie does wrap up quite neatly and efficiently.
I thought this actually worked quite well. (8/10)
Patria (2014)
Long Streches Of Boredom Interspersed With Little Bits Of Action
I would be willing to grant that to some extent this movie captures the essence of the reality of life in the trenches of World War I: long stretches of boredom interspersed with brief periods of drama and action. That actually sums up this movie rather well. It tells the story (supposedly based on true events) of a young Dutch man named Arthur Knapp (played by Timnothy Flohr.) My guess is that he's actually Indonesian - which at the time would have been the Dutch East Indies. He's living in France when the war breaks out and feels an obligation to join the French Army. And the movie depicts his experiences - both the monotony of life in the trenches and the brutality of action, when it breaks out.
So the basic atmosphere of trench life seems to be captured, but in addition to what I agree is the fair enough depiction of boredom I also need to note that I don't speak Dutch, so I watched a version that was dubbed into English. Sadly, the dubbing from the voice actors was awful. It was passionless and stilted; it brought no life to anything we were seeing on the screen. There seem to be attempts at establishing a sense of trench camaraderie among Arthur and his comrades, but at about 77 minutes long there really isn't enough time to do that and there really isn't a great deal of background given even to Arthur - so you don't really get drawn into the fate of any of the characters. Perhaps this sounds harsh, but it's true - you watch, but you don't find yourself caring. Yes, this movie does make a statement about the pointlessness of war - as many have said World War I may be the most pointless war ever fought, especially since it resolved none of the underlying issues that led to the war.
In that sense, the most powerful scene of the movie may be the last scene of the movie. Lying in bed many years later, slowly dying from having breathed in too much poison gas during his years in the trenches, Arthur has the radio beside him turned on. What's being broadcast? A speech by none other than Adolf Hitler - oviously making the point that there was nothing resolved by this war that had cost so much to so many, and looking ahead to the outbreak of yet another World War, where more death and destruction will take place. And so on, and so forth. It never ends, up to the present day.
I liked that ending - it probably raised my estimation of the movie a little bit, but it didn't save just the overall bleakness and dryness of the movie - so that I ended up rating it as 4/10.
Anna Boleyn (1920)
Emil Jannings Stole The Show As Henry VIII
Considering this movie is now 104 years old my first thought while watching it was that it's held up well, and whatever work of restoration/preservation was done to it was done very well because it's a very impressive looking movie. I also thought that both technically and based on the performances from its cast it's actually a better movie than most of what the early Hollywood silent film industry was putting out. This is a German production, telling the story of Anne Boleyn, beginning with her return to England from France through to her execution (although the beheading isn't actually depicted - she's just shown walking from her cell towards her fate.) Anne was played by a German actress named Henny Porten - unknown to me, but who had quite a long career, extending far beyond the end of World War II. Porten was quite effective in the role, but the movie really was stolen by Emil Jannings' performance as King Henry VIII. I'm familiar with Jannings as a name although a quick look at his filmography doesn't reveal anything I would have seen him in. But I thought his performance as Henry was very good. He portrayed Henry - not inaccurately - as a glutton and a lech who was also desperate for a male heir. The film takes us from his marriage to Catharine of Aragon to his budding marriage to Jane Seymour, following Anne (as the title implies) from being the "other woman" in Henry's first marriage to being supplanted by another "other woman."
The movie was directed by Ernst Lubitsch, who had already had a long career in the German film industry and who not long after "Anna Boleyn" made the move to the United States, where he became a very successful director. His abilities as a director are on display here.
I found it interesting that the German movie industry would produce such an "English" movie. I'm just speculating but I wonder if its release not very long after the end of World War I was almost a poke at the English, by offering this story (a very historically loose version, mind you) centering around the excesses of England's most notorious king - a king who long pre-dated the coming of the Hanovers as England's German royal dynasty.
Passing (2021)
Low Key - Interesting And Worthwhile, But Don't Watch For Excitement
Being no expert in the art of movie producing, I generally don't have too much to say about the technical aspects of movies I've watched, but there were a number of things about "Passing" that struck me as notable. First was the simple decision to film this in black and white. Given the nature of the film, black and white was the only appropriate medium to film it in - it makes a stark point. And Rebecca Hall - in her debut as a director - made a couple of very wise and notable decisions. First was an intriguing use of mirror reflections. I still find myself wondering a bit about what was trying to be portrayed with those scenes (sometimes just brief - even momentary - snippets within scenes) that were essentially shot through reflections in mirrors - but the fact that I'm still thinking about it means that it did connect with me. The other thing I noticed was the repeated focus on the crack in the ceiling above the Redfields' bed - and I'm not sure if it was just me or not, but the crack seemed to get bigger as the movie went on. To me at least, it was pointing to something to come.
That promise of something to come (real or only perceived in the crack) was important to me. In all honesty, "Passing" isn't the most dramatic movie you'll ever see and it's not the most interesting or powerful story involving racial themes you'll ever come across. But somehow, in spite of that, it held my attention throughout. It's interesting without being captivating; dramatic without being exciting. It's the story of two childhood friends who re-connect as adults. Irene Redfield (played by Tessa Thompson) is a black woman married to a black man and living what I would think was an upper class black life in Harlem in what seemed to be the 1920's. Her husband is a successful doctor, they have a large home and a maid. Clare Bellew (played by Ruth Negga) on the other hand is a black woman passing as a white woman and married to a white man, who also happens to be an outspoken racist in the few scenes he appears in. Clare and Irene reconnect and Clare becomes increasingly drawn into the Redfields' life, essentially starting to reconnect with her black roots. It's interesting to watch her development and Thompson and Negga were both very good in their roles. There's a bit of reflection on the racial conditions of the country (especially as Dr. Redfield (played by Andre Holland) insists (against Irene's wishes) on describing the racial situation in the country to their two sons - especially an extended scene or two focussing on them learning about the lynching of a black man in Mississippi.
It's a very well put together movie - the atmosphere (added to by the black and white film) is very effective. You wouldn't want to watch this if you want a riveting analysis of racial or social conditions in the era. Large parts of the movie are just Irene and Clare interacting throughout routine parts of their lives, although it does lead up to a very dramatic (and even tragic) climax in the last few minutes. But it was strangely interesting to watch. I think it's worth a 7/10.
Don't Speak (2020)
"A Face Full Of Teeth"
Honestly - I thought this was a lot better than its rating or many of the reviews would indicate. A family shows up at an isolated house close to a small town to help take care of the mother's own mother and they mysteriously discover that no one is around. No one. Anywhere. Not even in town, where everything seems locked up. There is no one - except that here and there they find some blood. There was huge potential for a well paced unfolding of the mystery about what's going on - and why. Except ...
Problem # 1: they gave the whole movie away in the first two minutes by basically showing us what was going on by offering us the fates of two characters that we don't care about because the movie is literally just starting! So there's no mystery from that point on. I was actually disappointed when everything important was revealed right off the top. Who made that decision? It was nonsense.
Still, the movie was frightening enough, and the "monster" was certainly terrifying. That I liked. There may not have been much mystery, but there was a tense feeling throughout and all the necessary "horror" elements are included.
The performances from the cast aren't spectacular, but they're not awful either, and I thought Jake Watkins as Ben was humourously effective in putting on a face dripping with terror. The performances didn't detract at all from my ability to enjoy what I found worthwhile here.
One mystery that did exist - and it bugged me a bit throughout - is that the movie was clearly a British movie (the licence plates on the vehicles, driving on the left and the steering wheel on the right, and the cast seem to be English) but all the characters had American accents? What was that?
It's an OK horror movie. A few problems, but a decent time waster. (5/10)
The Last Voyage of the Demeter (2023)
Good Use Of Setting; Worth Watching If You Like The Genre
For the most part I enjoyed this movie. What I was particularly drawn to was the very effective use of the setting. The story recounts what happened to the crew of the Demeter - the ship that transported Count Dracula from Europe to London. Being set on a ship, it's a very cramped, often dark and isolated environment. It gives this movie the appropriate atmosphere for a story in this genre. It's based on the captain's log of the Demeter, discovered when the ship runs ashore with no one aboard in England, and recounts what happened to the crew on this cursed voyage. The movie is certainly tense - and frightening at times. Dracula here is much more in sync with Nosferatu than the Bela Lugosi character that we all associate with the Count.
The performances from the cast were decent enough. My biggest criticism of the movie is that it's a bit too long - to the point of becoming a bit tedious in its last half hour or so. As I said, the atmosphere and setting of the movie is great but you can only run so far with it. Th movie also ends by setting us up for what seems to be the plan for a sequel. I'm not a big fan of movies that take their success so for granted that the coming sequel is telegraphed this obviously.
Overall though it's a decent movie if you like the genre.
(6/10)
Cobweb (2023)
It's Not Great - But You'll Watch It To The End
I wouldn't say that I'm sorry that I watched this movie - but, at the same time, I also can't say that I particularly enjoyed it. It has a lot going for it. The atmosphere is truly creepy - from the subdued but mysterious and even eerie performances of Lizzy Caplan and Antony Starr as Peter's parents, to the dark feel of the house they live in, to the setting of the movie at Hallowe'en. All that worked to make this a mysterious and vaguely frightening movie for much of its runtime, without feeling the need to resort to anything particularly gruesome or gory.
But the movie changes in what I'd guess is its last half hour or so (I wasn't watching the time closely.) And that last part of the movie really starts to drag. It loses it "creepy" feel and turns into a fairly predictable type of horror movie - blood, gore, etc. That was less effective and less enjoyable than the more suspenseful feel that characterized probably two thirds of the film's run.
Woody Norman - the young actor who played Peter - did a good job as a young boy being tormented and bullied at school and who's becoming very uneasy at home, hearing noises and voices from the walls of his bedroom, and having to deal with his over-protective and unpredictable parents. Cleopatra Coleman as Peter's teacher Miss Devine was all right.
There's nothing incredibly innovative or noteworthy about it. If you start to watch it you'll stick it out until the end (even with that kind of dragged out last third) just because there is enough suspense to have pulled you in, and you need to see how it turns out.
Overall, I'd give this a 4/10.
The Frozen Ground (2013)
The Hansen Murders
I truly appreciated the atmosphere of this film. It was made on location in Alaska, filmed apparently as fall was turning into winter - a deliberate choice to give a certain feel of authenticity to the movie. It worked. It's tense and suspenseful all the way through; there's a wilderness feel to the movie even though much of it is set in the city of Anchorage. And it features some excellent performances - especially from Nicolas Cage as the Alaska State Trooper detective Jack Halcombe, who's in charge of the case.
It's the story of the Robert Hansen murders - Hansen (played by John Cusack) having murdered still unknown numbers of women in Alaska in the 70's through the early 80's, and it revolves around his last victim - Cindy Paulson (Vanessa Hudgens) - the one who survived and eventually helped Halcombe bring Hansen in. The performances all the way through are top notch.
It's produced as a tribute to Hansen's victims. I was expecting when I put it on to find a low budget, slasher type film, but instead found one that was reasonably true to the real story, and it does serve as an effective tribute.
(8/10)
Amber Alert (2012)
The Alternative Viewpoint - I Enjoyed This!
I guess I'm giving the alternative viewpoint here, but I actually really enjoyed this movie. It's a "found footage" style of movie. So, yes, it's a bit cliche in that sense (frankly, it's been overdone) and it's a genre I've honestly never been especially fond of, but I thought this was one of the better ones I've seen.
It's essentially a two-person movie following Samantha (Summer Bellessa) and Chris (Nathan Riley.) They're two BFFs essentially who decide to shoot some videos together. I thought from the start that they both came across as likable characters. They begin a road trip (with a third companion - Samantha's brother) shooting the video of their adventures, and while driving they come across a car wanted in an amber alert for the kidnapping of a little girl and decide to follow it. The story proceeds from there.
Yes, there are a few times when it's a bit tedious - because it is three people out for a drive basically - but you always know what's happening and that was enough to hold my attention. Some think Bellessa's performance was a bit over the top but I'm not sure about that. How would any of us behave or react in the same circumstances? The tension slowly mounts, and the ultimate climax of the movie is sudden and shocking and dramatic.
Bellessa's husband Kerry directed the movie, and Kerry and Summer were also co-producers. I thought they did a pretty good job and I enjoyed the movie.
See You on Venus (2023)
A Classic Definition Of Sappy
This movie careens from one tug at your heartstrings storyline to another, over and over, literally one after another after another. One teen suffering from trauma, one from a lifetime of foster homes who desparetely wants to find her real mother. There are health issues - mental and physical - and, of course there's the requisite love story as the relationship between Mia and Kyle develops over the course of their sudden trip to Spain (yes, this also manages along the way to become a sort of "road trip" movie.)
The story is cliche. You pretty much know where it's going from the moment it starts. Sure there are a few detours and sudden turns along the way, but the basic direction is set out very early and it's just a matter of how the movie is going to get to its inevitable destination. There's no real standout performance in this. Virginia Gardner is likeable enough as Mia, and Alex Aiono does a decent enough job of gradually turning the brooding and traumatized Kyle into a softer version of himself. There's just honestly not enough meat to make this worthwhile watching. (3/10)
Watcher (2022)
Is She Paranoid?
As I watched this film an old saying came to my mind: "Just because you're paranoid it doesn't mean they're not out to get you." That's not a bad summary of the central dilemma of this movie. Maika Monroe and. Karl Glusman star in this film as Julia and Francis - a young American couple who have to move to Bucharest in Romania after Francis gets a promotion from his company. As the movie opens we see them in a taxi heading toward their new apartment and everything seems good. There's a sense of anticipation and even excitement on Julia's face as this new pahse of their life begins. But we're also introduced to one of the problems Julia will face - while Francis speaks Romanian, she doesn't. She's dependent on others being around to help her with the language and if she happens to be alone (which she is a lot, because her husband is working long hours) she's quite lost. Very quickly it becomes clear that this is a very isolating environment for Julia, and she starts to become a bit paranoid (or does she?) when she thinks she sees a man in another building watching her, and then becomes convinced that he's following her. This happens after she and Francis, very soon after their arrival, had stumbled across a murder scene and discovered that there was a serial killer loose, preying on young women. She continues to encounter this man in the brown jacket, and the question becomes whether he's actually stalking her or whether she's effectively become the stalker who follows him.
Monroe was excellent in the role. Having surfed through her filmography it turns out that this is the first movie I've seen her in and I was impressed. She brought an innocence and naivete to the role as she struggled with this environment in which she had few people she could talk to and was dependent on others to translate everything that was being said. If I could compare Monroe to anyone it would be perhaps to a young Amy Adams (think of her role in "Enchanted" - a very different kind of movie obviously, but the same - if exaggerated in the case of "Enchanted" - innocent and naive qualities to the character.) A very good device was the fact that when people spoke Romanian in the movie, the film added no subtitles. We heard the Romanian, which put us in essentially the same frustrating position as Julia - we can't understand what's being said and we have to depend on someone to finally explain it. That helped me to relate to Julia's situation and drew me further into the movie.
I confess I was going to rate this a little bit higher except for the fact that I didn't like the ending. The movie had been mysterious and suspenseful, with a lot of ambiguity and uncertainty (a lot of atmosphere you might say) but the ending was too abrupt and too definitive. I didn't think it suited the rest of the movie. But having said that, it was still on the whole a very enjoyable movie. (7/10)
Wyvern (2009)
Surprisingly Entertaining
I'm not even sure why I was drawn to "Wyvern." I stumbled across it online and something just made me want to watch it. I expected it to be a typical kind of low budget creature feature of no great importance or even quality - and it surprised me. It held my attention throughout, it featured better than passable performances and had a collection of interesting characters who I actually found myself caring about. And, although it has its moments of gore, it didn't depend on blood to make it work. It had a decent story behind it.
It's set in Alaska, and obviously is trying to capitalize on the fears about the consequences of global warming and especially the melting of the polar ice caps. On the outskirts of a small Alaskan town called Beaver Mills, a glacier is melting, and as it does it finally unleashes a terrifying creature that had been frozen within - a flying reptile with a definite taste for human blood that also seems to have a fair degree of intelligence as it hunts down its prey. Meanwhile as the residents of Beaver Mills start to encounter the creature (and as some start to disappear) the townsfolk are skeptical, dismissing the stories they're hearing as mere legend at best - or, even more likely, the result of people going a little bit stir crazy - because, you see, the story is set in the middle of the Alaskan summer when the sun is out and shining 24 hours a day, making sleep difficult and causing people to get a bit off balance. Although Jake and Claire (Nick Chinlund and. Erin Karpluk) are the primary heroic figures in this, I appreciated that while some of the characters were a bit quirky, none were there simply for comic relief. All the characters had a certain heroic feel to them as they banded together to fight this beast, and, in the end, Jake has to overcome some personal demons relating to the tragic death of his brother as the movie comes to its close.
After watching it I did a bit of research and discovered (a bit to my surprise) that the wyvern really is a figure out of Norse mythology, which made me appreciate this a little bit more. The creature was actually fairly well done and overall this movie was better than a lot of similar movies you might find. Very well done; very enjoyable. 6/10.
The Man (1972)
Interesting Movie - But It Could Have Been Better
It's very interesting to compare this movie to the original novel (published a few years earlier) written by Irving Wallace. Wallace's novel was very good but also very long - almost ponderous at times, in fact - offering a much more thorough and very detailed account of Douglass Dilman's experiences as an "accidental" black president at a time when racism was not only alive and well but still very much openly promoted by many politicians in the USA. Wallace's novel revolves to a great extent around Dillman navigating relations with the Soviet Union over an issue in Africa and then defending himself against an impeachment trial pushed by an extremely racist Congressman.
The movie (adapted from the novel by Rod Serling) is quite a contrast. It moves very quickly, almost at a frenetic pace at times. A happy medium between the two might have made for a better movie. The movie is less explicitly racist (especially in its language) and there's no effort at impeachment in this hearing. Instead, the movie's resident racist legislator (played by Burgess Meredith and in the movie a senator) takes the position that Dilman should essentially be left to hang himself politically by being allowed to fuinction as president (which he assumes will happen because he figures Dilman, as a black man, isn't competent enough to be president.) The primary issue here isn't relations with the Soviets but rather relations with apartheid-era South Africa over their requested extradition of a black man accused of an attempted assassination in that country. (Whether in the book or the movie, having the main policy challenge for the first black president focussed on Africa seemed a bit too convenient for pushing forward the racist commentary.) The book leaves it ambiguous whether Dilman will seek the office in his own right in the next election; the movie has him actively seeking his party's nomination.
They both work in their own ways. They're both an interesting reflection on racism in America at the time. The movie has decent performances from its leads - James Earl Jones as Dilman, William Windom as Secretary of State Eaton and Martin Balsam as Chief of Staff Talley, along with the aforementioned Meredith. I would have liked to have seen Windom made better use of. He's an extremely good actor but Serling didn't really develop the tension (and rivalry) between Eaton and Dilman particularly well. (Racism aside the movie also serves as an interesting reflection on a president assuming office who had been elected as neither president nor vice president - which Gerald Ford would do a few years later.)
I thought the most powerful and meaningful scenes were the scenes of Dilman's early presidency, when important discussions are happening in the Oval Office and the Cabinet Room around him, but in which his presence is barely even acknowledged by those present. Jones did a very good job of portraying Dilman's frustration with the dismissiveness Dilman was being treated with.
I liked the novel (although it's a long time since I read it) and I also liked this movie (although I haven't seen it for many years until I happened by accident to find it on You Tube this morning.) I do think it could have been better. Apparently Jones himself expressed some misgivings about it, particularly over the limited budget it had (which does give it a kind of lacklustre feel) and felt it could have been stronger. Still, given the times in which it was made it was a fairly courageous move on the part of ABC, who made it at a time when networks were still very squeamish about tackling controversial social issues and who, interestingly, apparently released it in the theatres instead of on television, although it did end up as a movie of the week on the network. (That's the version I saw on You Tube but I have no idea how long after it was released in the theatre it took to be broadcast on the network.)
Barbie (2023)
A Bit Over-Rated But Still Enjoyable
My daughter came home from university for Christmas break and wanted to watch the Barbie movie so we rented it from Amazon and had a family movie night. It was better than I was expecting but in my opinion still a little bit over-rated. At almost two hours it was a bit long. The first hour was fun and had me laughing; the second hour - to me at least - started to drag a bit. But it's an enjoyable watch for the most part and leaves me shaking my head at the the right-wing menfolk who seemed to think this movie was the end of civilzation as we know it. That says more about their own sense of masculinity than about the quality of the movie.
The cast (Margot Robbie was Barnie and Ryan Gosling was Ken) was likeable and funny. One way of cutting the over-long runtime would have been to cut out most of the scenes involving the fictional Mattel execs. I did not like them, most of their scenes seemed superfluous and it seemed just a way to give Will Ferrell an acting gig.
But overall I'd give the movie a solid 7/10.
Maybe I Do (2023)
Solid Cast In A Pleasant But Sometimes Pretentious Movie
You can't argue about the casting of Susan Sarandon, Richard Gere, Diane Keaton and William H. Macy. They all held up their ends of the bargain well enough as the parents of Michelle and Allen (Emma Roberts and. Luke Bracey.) Michelle and Allen are debating whether or not to get married (Michelle wants to; Allen doesn't - maybe a bit too stereotypically male/female.) Unbeknownst to them their fathers are engaged in separate flings with the other's mothers, and it all comes to a head one night when the two families (who weren't aware of the connection) gather for dinner to help Michelle and Allen figure out their future.
The movie is a pleasant romantic comedy. There's nothing especially noteworthy about it, but it's also not difficult to watch, it elicits a few chuckles now and then and there's even a sort of sweet innocence in the extra-marital relationship between. Sam and Grace (Macy and Keaton) that works as a good balance to the somewhat caustic extra-marital relationship between. Howard and Monica (Gere and Sarandon.)
But while it's pleasant it's also a bit pretentious, especially as it nears its conclusion, and seems to be trying too hard to impart some sort of wisdom or insight about marriage and relationships, which ultimately comes across as irritating rather than wise.
As rom-coms go, it's OK. I've certainly seen worse. (6/10)
Kyss mig (2011)
Very Passionate With Good Performances From The Leads
Mia and Frida (both 30-something) meet at their parent's engagement party. (Mia's father is marrying Frida's mother.) Mia reveals at the party that she is also engaged to be married to Tim. But as Mia and Frida come to know one another they slowly fall in love with each other. Well, "slowly" is perhaps not correct. Their first kiss was actually quite abrupt, and while Mia protested that she loved Tim, as portrayed in the movie her reluctance wasn't that firm. Overall I liked the movie. It dealt with the issue of love and explored what happens when two people suddenly and unexpectedly fall for one another and the complications that can arise as a result. I thought that Ruth Vega Fernandez (as Mia) and Liv Mjönes (as Frida) came across as natural and believable in their roles, and effectively portrayed both the passion and confusion that both felt as their relationship developed and they had to make decisions about how and if to move forward. They were very effective at making their characters likeable, so that the viewer cares about them rather than just watching. I thought the ending was appropriately ambiguous. While you move through the entire film expecting that Mia and Frida would end up together, the ending didn't state that explicitly and perhaps left it to the imagination of the viewetr as to whether they stayed together or whether the challenges of the relationship continued to keep them apart. All we know is that they found each other. What happened after that is a mystery. There were a couple of depictions of lesbian sex that came across to me as a little bit exploitive. It was natural enough in the depiction of the relationship but probably not absolutely essential to the story. It's also a swedish movie, with Swedish audio and English subtitles for those who don't enjoy that. But overall, this is a very good movie about two people that you grow quickly to care about, and for whom you wish happiness. (8/10)
All I See Is You (2016)
Unfortunately Unsatisfying
Unsatisfying. When this was all over, this was the word that stuck in my head. I was left unsatisfied. I liked the premise of the story. A woman blind since a childhood accident regains her sight after eye surgery and can suddenly see the world and all its colours again - and she sees her husband for the first time. While they both seem overjoyed at first, Gina regaining her sight turned out not to be the blessing both apparently thought it would be. Her husband James seemed a little lost because Gina was no longer completely dependent on him, and Gina apparently developed a need to explore what you might call her "wild side." The tensions that developed between the two of them, along with the deterioration of her eyesight as a result of problems with her eye drops, became the engine that pushed this forward.
It wasn't a bad movie. I wouldn't call it "suspenseful." Not at all to be perfectly honest. There was enough uncertainty involved to keep me watching. There were moments when the movie seemed to veer into unnecessary sexual territory that didn't really add very much to the basic story. It seemed included simply to titillate for no reason. I thought Blake Lively and Jason Clarke were fine as Gina and James. Director Marc Forster effectively used camerawork to simulate Gina's newfound but imperfect sight as it gradually came back to her. I could have done without the kind of strange and - again - unnecessary and minor subplot around the dog. But my main concern with this was simply that in the end everything seemed to just be left hanging with no real resolution to exactly what had been happening. The ending left me kind of cold and all I said to my wife as it closed was "that was a strange way to end this movie."
Strange it was. It had some decent aspects to it and an interesting storyline, but it just seemed to me that so much more could have been done with it. (4/10)
Everly (2014)
Violent Action Picture Turn Into Very Dark Comedy!
Spoken several times in this movie, the tagline might as well be "that's a lot of dead w****s." Yeah. There were a lot. And, in fairness, not only w****s - but lots of dead people in general, and at least one dead dog who got caught playing fetch with a grenade! I can't honestly say this was a good movie. It's an extremely and graphically violent movie, juxtaposed against the peaceful Christmas music that often accompanies what's happening on screen. (Hearing "Round yon virgin mother and child" as the movie approaches its end turns you upside down.) Everly is the title character (played by Salma Hayek) who is forced into sex slavery by the Yakuza crime organization and held captive for four years in an apartment who eventually fights back. Hayek was actually ok in this role - probably the only highlight of the movie to be honest. The movie is pushed along by typical unbelievable action-stuff in which Everly takes on everything and everyone against her and still somehow manages to come out on top. Beyond that I'm not even sure it's worth discussing the plot, since the basic point seems to be graphic violence.
And yet - it's a watchable movie. I stuck with it, interested enough in seeing how Everly manages to come out of this (because I assumed from the very start that no matter what the odds against her she was going to come out of this somehow and in some way.) In fact, the action-violence is so over the top in so many ways that I almost started to think of this as an extremely dark comedy of sorts. Parts of it are so beyond belief that you can't help but be tempted to laugh at it even as the bloody body count mounts!
Pretty much every weapon you can imagine is seen in this and you will go through the whole experience of watching it wondering what in the world is going to happen next - and, oh yeah, just how many "dead w****s" are there going to be by the time this is over?
So - no - it's not a good movie. But you will watch it until the very end so it's not a failure and you won't really feel like you've wasted your time with it. (4/10)