soundoflight Reviews

Weird: The Al Yankovic Story (2022)

Way too "Weird" for most people

[4/10 · 10 November 2023]

This film starts off quite fantastic. Seeing the young "Weird Al" was interesting and funny. The film makes you want to see how this quirky kid becomes a star... but that's not the film we get. At some point rather early on, the film essentially "jumps the shark" and launches into this bizarre alternative fantasy-reality that just gets more and more "weird" as the film progresses. By the end, it had totally lost me. It felt like an inside joke that everyone gets but you.

In Weird Al's cult classic film "UHF" (which I love), there was tons of over the top fantasy stuff, but the key difference is that those sequences were not the core of the movie - the core of the movie was firmly based in some semblance of reality. With this film, all pretense of reality is dropped in favor of what seems to be something incredibly self-indulgent. The sad thing is that I think if they had just 'played it straight' and perhaps included a few daydream fantasy vignettes like in "UHF," it could very well have been another smash hit.

Chernobyl: Abyss (2021)

Disappointing

[5/10 · 23 July 2023]

I had really high hopes for this movie - a glossy, well-shot period piece of the disaster that helped bring down the Soviet Union made by Russians. I wondered what new insights might be brought to light by those who would know best. Would it confirm the portrayals of the HBO Chernobyl series, or deny them?

What I was not expecting is that it would not touch on those topics in the slightest. This film is mostly a melodramatic romance between a fictional firefighter and a fictional hairdresser that uses the Chernobyl disaster as its backdrop. The political ramifications of Chernobyl are merely hinted at in a few brief moments. So we are mostly left with a hammy romance story.

What makes the film watchable/tolerable is that it is extremely well shot and the 1980s USSR really comes to life in full blazing color. If one is into romance flicks set in the USSR, this one might be for you.

The Card Counter (2021)

Watchable, but a bit of a letdown

[6/10 · 7 January 2023]

Like most Paul Schrader directed films I've seen, there's a better story lurking in the material than the one we ultimately get presented to us on the screen. It's unfortunate, because the first half of the film or so is quite compelling. The performance by Oscar Issac is outstanding, and premise of an ex-military interrogator with a dark past, turned into a 'card counter' is a very interesting one, as are the portrayals of that sort of casino-lifestyle. But it quickly gets thrown away, as the film stops paying attention to the gambling aspects, showing us the act of gambling without bothering to show us the cards or show us what's happening. Why not? Does Schrader think the viewer is too dumb to follow along? Or perhaps he didn't want to make a "gambling film" but that's an odd choice indeed for film where 75% of the shots are inside a casino.

Schrader's direction style also takes something away, as it always comes across to me as "cheap," for lack of a better word. He shoots digital, and his films LOOK digital, whereas better directors are able to at least mimic film (for which there's no real replacement, Tarantino is correct there). And everything is so basic. Basic fadeouts on scenes, standard dialogue shots, etc. I think his craft is slowly improving over time, but I really wish he would hand this material over to a director who could do so much more with it, or perhaps partner with a really good DP.

The ending of the film feels rushed, and ultimately left me feeling unsatisfied. However, I still recommend it to people who like genuine film, as it is miles better than any of the trash Netflix is churning out these days.

The Pink Panther (1963)

One of the most fascinating movies of all time

[7/10 · 3 January 2023]

The original "Pink Panther" movie is something that a lot of people today dismiss and gloss over, particularly in the wake of the many overdone sequels that repeat the same slapstick gags over and over and quickly get tiresome (to some people anyways). Even many fans of those later films dislike this first one, because it's not really about the Clouseau character. This first one is something else entirely. It's a fascinating artifact of its time and place, beautifully shot and filled with that unmistakable 60's style. So for me at least, it's more of a very interesting film than an objectively good film. In fact, parts of the movie are quite bad, such as the ridiculous snow chase. And yet, there's something here that makes me want to view the film again someday.

You see, the movie that was made was not the movie that was intended! David Niven was first billing, but Peter Sellers stole the show. Unlike the sequels, the Sellers slap-stick stuff was never supposed to be the main point of this film at all. It was supposed to be a rather high-brow, classy, European-flared romantic comedy. The Sellers character was supposed to provide some occasional clownish, comedic relief, but he is not the main hero, hence the ending which fans of the later Pink Panther movies find bizarre and wrong.

I'm only speculating here, but I think when the shooting was all said and done, the studio realized they had something of a bomb on their hands. Imagine this film without the Sellers/Clouseau character - the ultimate snooze-fest! So they added an extravagant and long animated title sequence, and played up the Clouseau scenes as much as possible to make something out of nothing. The end product is rather bizarre, but also has something warm and lovable about it (such as the Fran Jeffries musical interlude, apropos of nothing). You must say they succeeded brilliantly, because not only did the Sellers/Clouseau character spin off several unexpected sequels, but even the animated intro spun off some separate work. I never really understand where any of that came from until I saw this original film.

So the original Pink Panther demands an appropriate mindset to enjoy it. Those expecting something hilariously funny, or a completely riveting drama, or even a decent romance flick, will all be left disappointed. But if you can enjoy it for what it is, it's worth a visit.

Bad Lieutenant (1992)

Bad Censorship

[7/10 · 3 January 2023]

Unfortunately, the current commonly available R-rated version of "Bad Lieutenant" has been mangled up since its original release. I only discovered this after watching the film and then reading a reference to Harvey Kietel's 'member' being seen in the film and being quite small. My reaction was that it couldn't possibly be THAT small because I never recalled even seeing it. That scene, among others, is only in the original NC-17 version.

Other changes are some of the original, more impactful, music was removed, some of the more controversial religious scenes removed, and the conclusion to the encounter with the 2 young girls driving without a license was removed. In the R-rated version this scene simply abruptly ends. At first I thought this, and similar weird edits in the film, were just bad filmmaking. So the film does suffer at the hands of these cuts and edits.

I think all of these changes take a lot of punch out of this film, as does time itself. But I can see how back in 1992, this film would act as something of a gut-punch to the viewers. With the edits plus the desensitization of time (we've now seen all this stuff before), the film loses a bit of something. So my advice is to find the original version, if you can.

But in either version, we have one of the best character study films ever made. Keitel is in almost every scene, and he carries the film on his back in a riveting performance. It's one of, if not the, most gritty depictions of the underbelly of NYC I've ever seen. You really feel the sense of time and place, and the spirituality angle of the film gives you something to ponder when its all over.

Full Metal Jacket (1987)

The outsider's view of Vietnam

[6/10 · 11 November 2022]

To me, the "big three" (anti) Vietnam war films are: 1. Apocalypse Now 2. Platoon 3. Full Metal Jacket

And I rank them in that order, putting 'Full Metal Jacket' below the other two (and below several other well known Vietnam films for that matter). The main problem with 'Full Metal Jacket' is that it simply doesn't ring true on any level - it's obviously something that has been crafted and hammed up for the big screen, in order to convey certain messages, and that takes me right out of the film. This is basically Kubrick's style falling flat in this particular genre. Kubrick was always looking for non-realistic takes in his films (repeating takes over and over until he got the right one), which is what makes his great films great, but a war film needs to be something more visceral and real. In 'Apocalypse Now' you feel like you yourself are living on that boat. In 'Platoon,' you feel like you yourself are lost in the jungles. But in Kubrick's film, you are a passive observer, learning your lesson. This is not helped at all by the film almost being two short films back to back, each one being viewable in isolation without needing the other one. So 'Full Metal Jacket' becomes this stylized, outsiders take - a take from someone who obviously had nothing personally at all to do with Vietnam, and so instead of being from the viewpoint of a soldier, we get the viewpoint of a journalist, someone on the outside, looking in.

It's certainly worth viewing, but for me I actually like it less and less each time I try to watch it, which is the opposite of most Kubrick films for me.

Nomadland (2020)

Boomer Catnip?

[3/10 · 11 March 2022]

There is something carefully crafted about "Nomadland" that makes a film that is totally unpalatable to most people extremely attractive to a certain segment of the population. I'm trying to put my finger on it, but it is something around the romantic notions of 'hitting the open road' and 'throwing off the corporate shackles' and 'discovering America.' I think a lot of people of a certain generation are very attracted to these notions (despite the fact "Nomadland" makes that lifestyle appear to be downright awful) that in turn makes them extremely attracted to "Nomadland" itself. That's my best take as to how this film has attracted so much praise.

For me, having none of those aforementioned romantic notions, I'm just left with a very bad (though very well made) film. Why is it bad? Because it has nothing, and I mean nothing, of anything that attracts me to film. It has no drama, no spectacle, no plot to speak of, nothing clever or innovative, no interesting ideas, no interesting characters (in fact, the Frances McDormand character is repulsive and nasty) it doesn't really say anything or have a message. Nothing. It's simply normal looking people, doing mundane things, in mundane places, in a wandering and meandering style (the 'Nomad' style of the film). Some of the cinematography is good, and music is good and quite emotional, so I give it some credit there, but to me, that's not enough to make a film. It reminded me more of an art installation you might find at a museum than something you'd find at your local movie theater, something that just plays in a loop and you can wander in and out of it, and take it in small doses. In that format, "Nomadland" might actually kind of work, but to sit through close to two hours of it straight on starts to feel endless and painful. I can't remember the last time I felt so relieved at a film being over as when I finally struggled to the end of this.

The Beatles: Get Back (2021)

You Have to Love Music

[9/10 · 7 March 2022]

There is a simple prerequisite for loving this film: you must love music, or at least art, in order to really 'get' the film. I wouldn't even say you need to be a fan of the Beatles, just music. There's a theme that runs through the comments of all who dislike "Get Back" of wondering why we need so much of it, why it's so long, so much detail, so many 'superfluous' things that could have been left on the cutting room floor. What these people don't understand is that to a music lover or creative type, we could watch 100 hours of this stuff, and still be left wanting more. Watching one of the greatest rock bands of all time birth new songs, jam, and do fun covers, all in real-time on film, is something akin to magic. Thank heavens that Peter Jackson understood this, and his editing of this material to bring out these aspects of the "Get Back" sessions is masterfully done. The music itself is really the star of the show, as it should be.

And while we witness these births, the fascinating subtext of the film is that we are also witnessing a death, also caught in real-time on film, that being the death of "The Beatles." The film makes no editorial comments, simply lets us voyeuristically hover in the room while these events unfold. Was it Paul's obsessive (and sometimes domineering) perfectionism? Or was it John's flippant and erratic (some say drug influenced) attitudes? You can see how, when "The Beatles" were functional, those two main forces counter-balanced each other. Ringo seems mostly bored, only really coming alive during the rooftop performance. One interesting aspect that comes out in the film is the rise of George Harrison and how this impacted the dynamics of the band. George was coming into his own as a songwriter on the same level of Paul and John, yet he was rightfully feeling stifled by the band, and in particular Paul, who obsessed over his own songs while giving almost no interest to anything George brought in. The topic of "why did the Beatles break up?" will be discussed in some circles forever, but this film gives a lot of new context and subtext that a lot of people were missing. As with most things in life, it's never as simple as people try to make it out to be.

One of my favorite parts of the documentary was the discovery of Billy Preston, who (at least as the film presented it) accidentally became the organ player during the "Get Back" session. As a casual Beatles fan, I was entirely unaware of his existence, which is a shame because he is supremely talented and a joy to watch perform. I'm glad he was in the film, because he was unburdened of the tensions that were obviously dragging on the other 4 members of the band, and brought some needed lightness.

No Man's Land (I) (2001)

Intelligent satire of a little understood conflict

[8/10 · 4 March 2022]

The 1990s war in Bosina was a mess, that's difficult for foreigners to understand. The former country of Yugoslavia held together a number of disparate peoples, and kept the peace through force. When Yugoslavia rapidly dissolved, it left a huge power vacuum, and a struggle for dominance between rival ethnic groups began, nowhere more pointedly than in Bosnia, where three groups (Serbs, Bosnians, and Croats) all battled for dominance and sought to settle 'old scores' that went back hundreds of years, where this village or that valley was deemed to be the 'rightful' property of one group or another. Eventually the UN got involved in an attempt to provide humanitarian relief.

'No Man's Land' is a mostly satirical take on the absurdities of this situation, with warring sides so similar to each other they cant tell each other apart, and the bureaucratic politics of the UN overlaid over everything, as the media watches on in order to mine the war for juicy stories. Unlike most films about these conflicts, that tend to take one side or another, 'No Man's Land' is strictly neutral, and equally makes fun of everyone involved, with one of my favorite moments being the main characters arguing over "who really started the war."

I'm sure a lot of things in this film went over my head, and would be more appreciated by a native language speaker, but most of the themes are universal so I would not that put you off. I also found it difficult at times to tell who was a Bosnian and who was Serb (which is ironic). But it's still a highly compelling film that offers a bit of a different angle on the 'war movie' trope.

Oxygen (2021)

Derivative and Melodramatic

[5/10 · 31 January 2022]

"Oxygen" is a film that tries to build 'something out of nothing' and I would say only partially succeeds in that goal. What I mean by that is that the film really has almost no plot, or at best, a plot that would fit into a short film at most. So it instead takes its cues from the horror genre, and tries to make the viewer feel trapped in a claustrophobic nightmare with the main character. Unfortunately, Aja also brought in a lot of cheesy scare gimmicks and over-acting by Mélanie Laurent in an attempt to amp up the emotional impact of being trapped in a small space. None of this worked on me, and it took me out the film more than anything. A lot of the time while watching, I couldn't help but think of similar, but much better done films. The comparisons to the far superior "Gravity" from 2013 are obvious, except that female lead was cool and competent as opposed to hysterical. I prefer that approach. I could never really get behind the Mélanie Laurent and root for her in a meaningful way. It was more about watching in mild interest to see what would become of her. Sci-fi horror is a difficult thing to pull off, and I think if this story was told in a more "straight" way, without trying to be scary, it would have actually ended up both more scary and more satisfying to watch.

The Swimming Pool (1969)

Underrated Classic

[8/10 · 7 January 2022]

Ignore the Naysayers, "La Pacine" is a masterful film. A true example of the kind of film they only really made in that area: vibrant and glossy, where a voyeuristic camera just hovers and lingers, putting the viewer right there. It reminded me a lot of Jean-Luc Godard's "Contempt." The way it is filmed makes the viewer want to be in that world, and stay there as long as possible. I know that South France in 1960's seems a hell of lot better than our world today. If "La Pacine" was 3 hours long, I would still sit through it, just to BE there.

I found the acting performances to be extraordinary. So much in this film is conveyed through body language and facial expressions, that one hardly even needs to know French (or read subtitles) to understand what it happening. Romy Schneider and Jane Birkin are both great to look at, and I thought Jane Birkin in particular really did well to say a lot with few words.

The only thing that slightly drags "La Pacine" down is that it's slightly overlong in the drawn out expository section after the climax, which causes the film to loose a bit of punch by the end. So come hang out by the pool for a while, I don't think you'll regret it.

Lilith (1964)

Nostalgia value only

[5/10 · 29 November 2021]

The most remarkable thing about "Lilith" is how many of the actors in this film went on to be huge hollywood names. Peter Fonda, Gene Hackman, & Warren Beatty all rose to be big name stars. Jean Seberg was perhaps more infamous than famous, but she was also a well known individual. It's fascinating to see these actors so young. I think Fonda is the most shocking as he is totally unlike the type of roles he's known for (I didn't even recognise him), which is perhaps a testament to how good an actor he really was.

Unfortunately the film itself is quite pedantic, with perhaps brief glimmers of "something" - the promise of a better film waiting to emerge, but never does. The only thing that really carries the viewer is staring at Seberg and Beatty in all their youthful and photogenic glory. The film is something of a 'talkie,' with an endless stream of long dialogue scenes that must have driven the actors half-mad. It drove me half-asleep. After so much plodding along, a small melodrama plays out at lightning speed at the end, and leaves an unsatisfying feeling in its wake.

Not recommended for viewing unless one really has a keen interest in one of the aforementioned actors.

Swiss Army Man (2016)

Had promise, but turns into a joke

[3/10 · 5 November 2021]

I can't say I expected much of this, but the start of this film is surprisingly compelling and funny, when the boy first encounters the "swiss army man" on the beach while attempting suicide. The middle section drags, as it seems to be just rehashing the same dead-body schtick over and over as we move towards the pay-off: how will this all resolve when other, real people are met?

This premise held my attention as it seemed like the filmmakers were building towards something big, or something meta-physical - maybe the dead body was all in his mind, maybe HE was the dead body, maybe he died and was actually a ghost or something, maybe the whole film took place in his head while he strangled on the rope?

Many intriguing possibilities.... so what did they do? They had him ride the body like a sled back to the ocean in 30 seconds (when it seemed to take weeks to come the other way?) in order make everything real and literal in front of the other people in a supposed emotional tear-jerking ending. Huh? Basically reduces the movie to one long fart joke.

Yesterday (III) (2019)

Bland and boring

[5/10 · 6 September 2021]

"Yesterday" is a perfect example of the modern movie: carefully crafted to appeal to everybody, offend nobody, and ultimately, to say absolutely nothing (because you cannot say something and still maintain the first two).

Sure, it is watchable, but any film featuring what is arguably the greatest rock music of all time, with the broadest appeal of almost any music, would have to try quite hard not to be watchable. Yet, in my opinion, "Yesterday" does try quite hard to do just that. The movie constantly stretches believability, as one has trouble imagining the main character actually doing almost any of the things he does. The love story that is central to the plot feels extremely forced and unbelievable (rates about a 1/10 on the love meter). Even his job stacking shelves at a supermarket doesn't really seem believable, let alone the meteoric rise of this uncharismatic character who, like the film, has essentially nothing to say. What a wasted opportunity, as the concept of a 'world without The Beatles" could have been taken in many creative directions. But the way it rolls out it is entirely predictable, using tired movie tropes we have all seen hundreds of times before.

In my mind, the film would have been so much stronger if they had chosen a charismatic star who was kept down in life due to external circumstances, the kind of person everyone can get behind as opposed to an average schlub who remains average throughout.

There was a time when films used to feature a thing called "movie stars." Great actors who we loved to watch, and not people who look like they live next door, and those films used to be creative and provocative and tried their damnest to say something, to say anything. I miss those times.

Last Days in the Desert (2015)

Your appreciation will be inversely proportion to your belief

[3/10 · 28 August 2021]

What I mean by the title is that people with absolutely no belief or knowledge about Jesus might actually like this simple little film. Devout Christians will be horrified by it.

The idea of making a film about the devil tempting Christ in desert is actually an intriguing one. In the scriptures, the devil tempts Jesus three ways: (1) with food after his 40 days of fasting (2) to leap off the temple of Jerusalem and use his powers to survive, and (3) granting of lordship over all the kingdoms in the world in exchange for worship of Satan. If that sounds mildly interesting, know that NONE of that is in the film. Instead the devil is some kind of smart-ass that follows Jesus around and makes rude comments.

And Jesus himself is just... off. McGregor plays Jesus much like he played a Jedi Knight in Star Wars. Cool, but a Jedi is not the same thing as Jesus. Even then, that might have worked, if the film had stuck to just Jesus in the desert, and all the interesting landscapes (the cinematography of these landscapes being the absolute highlight of the film), but they had to insert a random family into the mix, and have a melodrama play out in a transparent effort to 'create a plot.' In these pedantic interactions with the family, one loses even the faint thread of belief in McGregor's performance.

Maybe someday we will see a proper film on this story, the real biblical one, as it could be interesting, particularly if done with the style and cinematography that were on display here.

Valley Girl (1983)

Lighten up!

[7/10 · 24 May 2021]

"Valley Girl" is one of those rare films that's much better today, nearly 40 years later, than when it was released. In its time, it was just another romantic teen comedy, lost in a sea of many during that time period, but today it's a fascinating time capsule of early 1980s Los Angeles - the people, the places, the accents (even if much of it is stylized and over the top). By taking us to a place and culture now mostly gone and forgotten, something about "Valley Girl" gets elevated a notch or two, and it becomes an absolutely fascinating thing to watch.

You can tell by watching "Valley Girl" why Nicolas Cage became a star. He is eminently watchable. The camera just eats him up, and so do we. His female co-star, Deborah Foreman, never amounted to much, but is also highly watchable at the height of her beauty in this film. Together, they succeed in carrying this film and you want to see what happens to them, even if it's silly at times.

Everything today is so heavy and moody, exhibit A being the curmudgeonly reviewers here crapping all over "Valley Girl" because it isn't "high art" or something. Yes, "Valley Girl" is a light-hearted romantic film. That's all it ever set out to be, and it's a fun and nostalgic film to watch (if you have the right attitude...)

Crisis (I) (2021)

Felt like a made for TV special

[5/10 · 24 April 2021]

I really wanted to like this film more than I did. I can appreciate many things Jarecki was trying to do here - widescreen cinematography, A-list actors, action sequences - but it all falls a bit flat, and it all feels a bit thrown together. A bit cheap, a bit hammy, a bit cliché.

Technically speaking, it's a progression from Jarecki's previous film "Arbitrage" (way back in 2011), in that it looks better, and feels more professional. "Arbitrage" is one of the most heavily edited films I've ever seen, with a cut every few seconds on average, and it's all just reaction shots and people talking, and yet overall I preferred it over "Crisis. The story in "Crisis" was just not as interesting, and Armie Hammer is no Richard Gere in terms of carrying the film.

The real issue with "Crisis" is the writing. It feels like the kind of film that someone who spent their life getting a sense of reality purely from other films would write (and I think that is pretty much what happened). The film is not grounded in anything real, it's just cartoon gangsters and cartoon cops. There were several times in the film where I could predict exactly what the character would say next, because that was cliché line, and bam, they would say it. The film starts like this right from the opening scene, which is a cliché "exciting" chase-the-bad-guy scene that ends (surprise-not) at a cliff face.

"Crisis" is an OK film. Better than most films these days, but that's faint praise. It just lacks any edge, or anything to make it stand out, which is common with a lot of today's content. Maybe that's the world we live in now, I don't know.

Anthropocene: The Human Epoch (2018)

Uninteresting propaganda

[3/10 · 25 February 2021]

My take on this film will likely be unpopular, because it goes against the conventional orthodoxy, but I found this film to be boring, misleading, and fundamentally anti-human at its core.

This is the classic case of 'opinion masquerading as facts.' Nothing in this documentary is scientifically sourced. I'm not saying it is all wrong, just that it is not sourced, nor balanced. This "Al Gore" level stuff here. Actually it's worse, because it is mostly images designed to provoke emotional reactions. At least Gore tried to use scientific explanations (they were just wrong, but we aren't supposed to talk about that). Using images without context to provoke emotional reactions is the core definition of what "propaganda" is.

A person could have made the entirely opposite documentary using almost the exact same footage, just changing the ominous music and negative narration to one that celebrates these things as technological achievements of human-kind, and how our ingenuity can get us through these current times, if only we let it.

I do not wish to paper over the fact that there are serious problems on planet earth, serious flaws in our thinking that strives for endless growth, endless consumption, and ever-risking stock markets on finite planet with finite resources. But you will notice that very, very rarely does the finger get pointed at these real root causes. Instead we get documentaries like that that just blame us, and strive make us feel guilty and worthless. That's why I consider this documentary to be "anti-human" at it's core.

Carnal Knowledge (1971)

Probably Nichols Best Film

[8/10 · 11 February 2021]

To say Mike Nichols had an "uneven" career as a director is probably something of an understatement. His highs were spectacular, but the lows were rock bottom, and I think for that reason his name doesn't come up in film discussion that often, and "Carnal Knowledge" is something of a forgotten film because of it.

That's a shame, because "Carnal Knowledge" is a stunning achievement. I've never been much for the romance / relationship drama, but this elevates it somehow to another plane of existence. The film is honest about sex and romance in a way that we rarely get, and takes the viewer along for the ride into a character study primary about two men, and juxtaposition between their very different attitudes and behaviours towards women. The acting is superb - Jack Nicholson was never better - and everyone else held up their own very well. The film really lets us view these characters, to see them. And we want to see them, as they are all highly watchable. There's a tinge of voyeurism at play here. No small part of this is due to the stunning cinematography by Italian Giuseppe Rotunno (who incidentally just passed away at age 97 in 2021). Never has a relationship drama looked this good, or been framed so well. It makes modern films of this genre seem like a joke by comparison. Why can't we make things that look this good anymore? But I digress.

I think the main "failing" of Carnal Knowledge is that it shares too much of what many people prefer to remain hidden. It crawls around in the underbelly of sex and relationships, and brings us down there with it. For many, it's a ride they would rather exit early, then seeing it through to the end. But I would highly recommend you try it.

ZeroZeroZero (2019–2020)

Great direction, sub-par writing

[7/10 · 28 January 2021]

This show came to me highly recommended, and not just by the high IMDB rating. And certainly the cinematography, the stunning shooting locations, the acting, and the overall direction is top-notch. However, when each and every episode starts building up enormous plot holes you can drive trucks through, the entire thing starts to fall apart about half way through the series (assuming this will remain a limited one season series). I'm not going to go through the nitpicking details, but surely anyone who has viewed this series has to be able to detect at least one of the things I am referring to. I simply couldn't believe this story, and thus I couldn't get invested in it, or the characters. It's certainly heads and shoulders above most TV these days, as we are lost in a sea of quantity over quality, but "ZeroZeroZero" is still no classic in my opinion. Worth a watch, but temper your expectations.

The Nest (I) (2020)

A rare cinematic film

[8/10 · 24 November 2020]

In an age where everything seems to resemble a made for TV movie, "The Nest" declares itself, right from the first shot, as a return to something more cinematic. This feels like a real film. It's shot beautifully, with wonderful locations and with a great cinematic gaze that lingers on its subjects.

This is what films should be. They are a visual medium. Too many movies today are "talkies" that endlessly explain with a sea of words and dialogue. The Nest instead shows a long outside shot of a horse kicking the door of its tiny barn in rage and let's that do the explaining for it. As it does this, it builds an incredibly atmospheric world that created a real feeling of dread in me, similar to watching a horror movie, and as other commenters have noted, in some ways this actually is a bit of a horror movie of an unconventional kind.

My only mild critiques of the film are that the 80's theme seemed tacked on for some reason. I'm not sure why, but it seemed a bit anachronistic, like it wasn't the real 80's but some idealized version of it, which is not necessarily a deal breaker either. And my other comment, that may surprise some, is that I actually wish it had turned into a more outright horror film at some point. I think that may have actually taken "The Nest" into the realm of a masterpiece, or at least a cult classic. Never before would there have been such a well acted, serious, and believable build-up to a horror climax, but in 2020, I will take what I can get.

Mank (2020)

An incoherent, shambling mess

[3/10 · 22 November 2020]

If you took a group of random movie fans, all familiar with David Fincher's work, sat them in a theater, showed them this film sans-credits, and then asked them at the end "who directed it?" not one of them would say "David Fincher." This film is missing every single aspect that people loved about all his previous work.

There is no mystery here. There is little drama. It's a film about the writing of a film, and it comes across about as boring as that sounds. To be fair, "Mank" never really sells itself as anything different, but seeing the Fincher name and the (ridiculously inflated) IMDB score was enough to make me think there must be something more here. Or maybe I just didn't understand it, because I certainly felt like much of the film was flying over my head, with all of the time jumps, characters appearing with little explanation like we were supposed to know who they were, and the constant 'name drops' in the dialogue of prominent people from the 1930s hollywood and political scene. For me this last one was the fatal flaw. The film takes for granted that the viewer will know all these names and backstories of people that are now obscure and long forgotten. So the entire film from start to finish has these references to contemporary people and politics flying over our heads, leaving us bewildered in their wake. If one hasn't actually seen Citizen Kane a couple times and doesn't have some rudimentary knowledge of Orson Welles, then this experience would only quadruple, as the film constantly references Citizen Kane without mentioning it by name. This film essentially has a pre-requisite: you must watch Citizen Kane first, or it will make absolutely no sense to you.

But the most glaring thing missing from "Mank" is the distinctive dark and brooding style that Fincher has cultivated over the course of his career and that is entirely absent here. Going in, I was excited to see how Fincher would translate his style over to black and white. The answer is that he doesn't. It's just a standard black and white film. And while it looks good, I was left underwhelmed by the cinematography all the same. Something about it made me feel like it was 'made for Netflix.' In fact, the first jarring realization I had in the theater is that I was watching something in standard 16:9 wide televesion aspect ratio. Not cinemascope or widescreen. Digital, not film. It felt like watching a crummy made for Netflix movie in a theater. And I quickly realized that's exactly what I was doing.

Catch-22 (1970)

Absolute Humourless Trash

[1/10 · 6 November 2020]

I wasn't expecting much, based on what I'd heard about this film, but I had also heard enough people say they loved it that I decided to check it out. I cannot for the life of me fathom how anyone loves this film. It has virtually no redeeming qualities. It's not funny, it's not interesting, it's not heart-warming, and it's even watchable really.

I actually found the film to be low and vile. These elements are in the book too, but they are balanced with humour and heart. The film just took the most vile, most lowbrow moments of the book and shot them. It completely forgot all the other elements of the book that made it work.

Cross of Iron (1977)

The most overrated film on IMDB?

[4/10 · 26 October 2020]

I felt compelled to review this because of the obscenely high rating for this uneven mess of a film. Perhaps it's just the novelty factor of a Nazi versus Soviet WWII film in a sea of American focused stories that attracts people to this, but having read a fair bit about that conflict, this film doesn't really do that side of the conflict justice, and doesn't stand up on it's own as a good film.

The war scenes are an incoherent jump-cut fest. Constant explosions. Zero tension. There's very little narrative or even explanation of what is going on. It's mostly difficult to even tell what we are supposed to be looking at or if it's the German or Russian side. Just random explosions. It's simply not well directed, and I don't think Sam Peckinpah was A-list material if you look at his film resume.

Then the rest is mostly melodramatic potboiler dialogue scenes attempting make some worn-out comments about the aristocratic officers versus the commoner grunts. The only highlight of film is James Coburn, who puts in a charismatic performance as the insubordinate Sgt. Steiner (despite seeming slightly geriatric for the role). Seeing what became of his character was the only thing that kept me going as the film gets progressively worse as it goes on, with a truly terrible and incoherent ending.

Sadly, I don't think there ever has been a Hollywood take on the Eastern Front of WWII that has ever got it right. The story of how the Soviet Union threw millions of soldiers at the Nazi army and slowly ground it to dust is compelling one. But this film certainly is not.

Doctor Sleep (2019)

Kubrick it ain't

[4/10 · 10 October 2020]

One of the most popular reviews here gushes about how this film pays homage to Kubrick, which I find to be quite strange because my own predominant thought while watching this was that it kind of backed up a dump-truck over the memory of Kubrick's "The Shining" and proceeded to drive back and forth over it for over 2 hours. Everything that Kubrick brought to him film - style, artistry, visual mastery, an overall vision, was everything missing from "Doctor Sleep."

Perhaps you consider it unfair to compare this film to "The Shining," but they literally asked for it by melding the world of this film with the original, going as far as to re-shoot scenes from the original with the new, present-day actors. This is rarely an advisable strategy and it doesn't work here either.

You have two basic options in a situation like this: (1) you can do a straight out re-make of the original or (2) you can make full blown sequel, something that might borrow something from the original, but also moves on from the original to create something new. I would argue that "Doctor Sleep" does neither and ends up in some kind of middling no-man's land.