Change Your Image
lubegiant
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
The Queen's Gambit (2020)
A uniformed boy-waiter at the 'Moscow" hotel offers people vodka? I don't think so
For all the praise 'The Queen's Gambit' received for its authentic 60s sets and costumes, the usual Hollywood's sloppiness towards all things Russian really shows. The raggedy homeless-looking old men playing chess in the center of Moscow, an 'ushanka'-clad child-runner at a major international sporting event yelling out 'she played G6!', the bad lettering everywhere, the played-up Russian accent, the ever-present somberness in everything - it's Russia, we get it, thank you. But the boy waiter carting around an assortment of booze offering vodka to the patrons of an upscale restaurant at one of the most exclusive hotels in Moscow... That's just plain offensive.
The Crossing (2018)
Somehow this newly revised "The Terminator" really works
By the time you realise this is basically "The Terminator" yet again blown out to the proportions of a TV show, it's too late. You're hooked. It does get a bit mushy by the 5th episode, but mushy good, perhaps even "24-houry": no pseudo intellectualism, no unnecessary story lines and parallel narratives. The formula works still, so why mess with a bunch of time travelers who manage to escape the future in order to change it for the better by tweaking the past? Sure, in doing so they have to wack out a few people, but that's what makes it such a great binge. The lyricism and the boy-girl factor are reduced wisely to a minimum allowing the audience to focus on what matters, which, I guess, is whether the "evil that men do" gets curbed due to the efforts of the good guys. In this reviewer's opinion, when we try to answer this grandest-of-them-all question through the medium of TV we fail miserably, but "The Crossing" works because it just tells a cool story - no pretense for innovation, no expensive cast, no weird CGI.
Ad Astra (2019)
There, you have it: a lot less interesting "Apocalypse Now"
The Moon plays great, Mars is awesome, Saturn is at the top of its game. In fact, Space should be getting an Oscar for this flick, the only thing is, I wish something was happening against this magnificent backdrop. To all of you who grasp on an ever so dwindling hope of action - any action - forget it. It's just another dysfunctional family movie as if Hollywood is still tying to unpack the concept for the masses.
Other than "whether the truth is out there," the only thing left to wonder about is how do they manage to push through this astonishingly underdeveloped mud of a script to people like Brad and Tommy Lee. Two and a half billion miles and a couple of hours later I still don't know.
The Irishman (2019)
You've Seen it All Already
Was this really necessary? A three and a half hour trope fest leading to two shots with a 38 in back of head. And guess what, the mob did it.
Of course, no well-established film reviewer will dare to mess with the Hollywood royalty, so let me tell you: you've seen it all already. The only difference this film makes from the rest of Scorsese's work is De Niro CGI-ed to a ridiculous extent so Pesci can call him "boy." The reason why this was called for is beyond this reviewer since "The Irishman" runs through almost five decades and the young (ish) Frank Sheeran could easily be played by an actor who is spry enough without computerized augmentation.
Other than that, the film seems almost as though Scorsese went around collecting and re-editing scenes from his greatest hits "Goodfellas", "Casino", "Mean Streets", "Raging bull", borrowing a few strokes from (what the hell) "Hoffa" and "JFK" - you get the idea. I'll bet, the director's cut is going to be named "The Passion of The Irishman", but we'll just going to have to see.
See (2019)
What if from the get-go ALL Characters in GoT had only one hand?
It's cool that over the centuries the visually impaired have come up with many ways to navigate on their own through a bustling city, do arts and crafts or go camping. Hell, they even compete in Paralympics (although truth be told, the athletes are not completely blind, and they use "buddy system": each runner is attached to sighted runners), which is totally awesome!
But, other than Hanzel und Gretyl, who in the right mind would think of taking their blind grandma to Amazonia or the Pacific Northwest and leaving her there armed with only a chisel and a ball of twine for messaging?
Steven Knight, the creator of "See" would to considerable success, I might add. Well, "considerable success" to the same extent as "Princess Bride" is a gripping historical drama set during the Renaissance era and "The Bold and the Beautiful" is a thrilling account of the human condition.
The advantages of those who possess the gift of sight over those who do not have been carolled in history and arts since forever - they're self-evident and boring. Come to think of it, R.L. Stevenson taught us that a two-legged pirate is bound to do much better for himself than his pegleg colleague and George R. R. Martin convinced us long ago that two hands are better than one. Still, I wonder how big a hit "The Treasure Island" would be if everyone was hopping on one leg. Also, undoubtedly, the ratings of "GoT" would dip dramatically if every personage would suddenly lose a hand...
Nonetheless, Knight felt that the idea that it's better to see than to not deserves its own show, so we got one. Granted, a magnificent cinematic achievement, in which the Momoa star truly shines, but setting a platitudinal notion against a dystopian backdrop... Where have I seen it before... Oh, yeah, pretty much every single zombie show there is.
El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie (2019)
Why wasn't it called "El Camino: A Jesse Pinkman movie"?
I set out to write something about this film but couldn't think of anything. You saw all you needed to see in the series, and adding another episode to the completed story was unnecessary to say the least. I know, money talks in Hollywood, and some folks really felt like "saying farewell to Jesse Pinkman" for some weird reason, but it's the wait for something really exciting and special that absolutely kills this particular attempt to wrap "Breaking Bad" for good. No grand gestures, no sudden moves or unexpected twists. Just a tribute to the silliness and psychopathy that allowed Vince Gilligan to drag this thing for five seasons. Amen.
Catherine the Great (2019)
Complete and Utter Fiasco
I could never figure out how is it possible that an epic production like this with such stellar cast and seemingly unlimited funding can fail so miserably. It's astounding, really. I'm not going to complain about the well-known historical facts that have been omitted or neglected altogether, no matter the age of the Queen or the fact that she addresses her subjects from a pulpit, that's all secondary. My question is, how does it happen within an organization like HBO that over the entire course of production every one of the decision makers just rolled with the whole thing without a care in the world?
The Righteous Gemstones (2019)
Rampant church abuses deserve a better indictment
Barely finished watching the pilot. Bad acting, worse writing. As a black comedy it's dreadfully unfunny, and as a social satire... Well, it's like calling the "Rambo" series an anti-war film. Don't be surprised to see more people coming to church for its glitz, glamour, and investment opportunities. Anyway, when under-actors start to over-act so much, it gets really boring and the thrill of finding out who the killer is turns into a chore. F- that!
Close (2019)
Literally, nothing of note.
Well, maybe the innovative way of strangling a dude by pulling on his legs while the other chick holds his arms deserves some praise. But then we'd have to get into this whole discussion about body weight and muscle mass of women v. men and get all boring.
The only question left after wasting two hours on this unpolished turd is who the hell ordered the kidnapping in the first place? And why? Most importantly, why make movie about it?
Condor (2018)
Hollywood, stop casting tiny women as assassins or teach them to handle a gun!
What makes this series a great binge-watching option is the total absence of side narratives. It's a rare treat these days when nothing blocks the flow of a story - no vomit-inducing love line, no complicated children-parents relationships, no ripples-on-water memories, just a bunch of CIA guys and gals doing their thing.
If I had to complain, of course, I could point out the chic-assassin with a body mass of a mocking bird who handles an AR-15 like a plate of hot soup. Or the car crash scene (a car pirouettes in the air and falls on its roof, after which both occupants come out unharmed? Not bloody likely!) but I'm not gonna. The show is great and the cast is superb.
Hold the Dark (2018)
It's like being stranded at a used car lot: a Promise turns to Disappointment in no time
Amazingly, the blogosphere is abuzz with this film, some of the more inspired critics even have the gall to compare it to "The Revenant,' and not to the latter's advantage. "Hold The Dark" is more sinister, more mysterious, more brutal, say they. The story is way darker, goes the shtick, the characters are better written, more sophisticated and multi-polar than the Iñárritu's carefully thought-out personalities...
Well, let me be the first to say that both movies are pure BS from the story standpoint, but at least "The Revenant" offers an exposition, development, high point (culmination), and resolution. Besides, it raises some healthy laughs when a guy with an open fracture on his leg rides a horse. Hard...
"Hold The Dark," is pegged a thriller, so it strives to thrill, which it does. Rest assured, you'll encounter some top-tier lunacies that would make you salivate for a grand finale a-la the "red wedding." Sadly, the film ends right in the middle of everything when you're just about ready for a bathroom break before the good guys start poking holes in maniacs. The cliffhanger is so shameless that it should've made some of the die-hard netflickers cancel their accounts.
Watch if you have no problem being disappointed in the end, left stranded in an unfinished story and helpless in a plot that begs more questions than it gives answers. It's normal nowadays when attention span is a commodity, on which nobody goes long anymore.
Upgrade (2018)
It's been a while since I've seen a person killed with a sneeze
I wholeheartedly recommend it as a date movie. If she stays after the first murder, you've got a future together. Otherwise, you're still looking at about two hours of bloody goodness on a modest budget.
At first, the plot seems fairly predictable and it feels like you're setting yourself up for a day at a cheep sifi convention. Not true, don't switch off. About fifteen minutes into the movie you realize that you're in for a really sweet gore fest with seemingly no stupid side-narratives, hints of this or dashes of that. In the end it unravels reaaaaly fast so hold on to your popcorn and enjoy!
Annihilation (2018)
It should have been a short - 20 minuts would suffice.
I can only imagine what would Andrey Tarkovsky be able to do with a budget of $40 million, but I assure you, this Chernobyl-gone-bunkers drama would have made a whole a lot more sense.
So, what could have been easily cut? The university scenes. The romance with the black fellow. Half of the bed romps with the hubby. The Ventres scene at the lighthouse (she mumbles and catches on fire for no apparent reason). The prolonged silent streaks with stare contests, the long walks, boat rides, and girl talk. They could easily get rid of the first lab scene where she's all disheveled and amnesiac only to recall everything perfectly well a few minutes into the narrative (we will use this term loosely here). And so on. Forget rewriting the script and trying to make it somehow correspond with the accepted definition of common sense. Forget pushing it to abide by the laws of the SiFi genre - just cut it all.
It should have been a term film at a film school: twenty minutes of "ok, cool!" followed by a condescending applause and a B+.
The Outsider (2018)
A premeditated "The Godfather" rip-off with Jared Leto as Michael
If you're into Jared Leto's boyish charm, this movie is for you. He cuts quite a lean and dashing figure what with all the B&W suits and a motionless, passionless face expression (the easiest role for him to date) of a cartoon gangster. The fact that "The Outsider" is a shameless rip-off of "The Godfather" doesn't bother me as much as a poorly stitched together story of a USMC captain who somehow ended up in a Japanese prison in a 1956 Osaka and, having saved a life of a prominent yakuza, upon release enters the local gangland.
The overly translucent narrative doesn't go as deep as to explain what would lend a Marine captain in a Japanese prison in 1956, though. On one hand, Nick is clearly a broken man who scurries around eyes down, mopping floors. On the other hand, while incarcerated, he maintains a full head of shoulder-length well-groomed hair, which portraits him as a proud yet pathologically impractical man...
Never the less, there's some value to the film, particularly, Japanophiles will be pleased with picturesque rituals and a few new words.
The Death of Stalin (2017)
Coming up next: the "9/11" musical, "Pearl Harbor" ballet and "Hurricane Katrina" sketch show!
I'm actually relieved that there are no more taboos in the cinema, which Lenin considered "the most important art form for us," communists. It's certainly reassuring to see a capitalist pig like Iannucci disproving the point by putting out this well-produced yet utterly worthless garbage.
I can't think of a single reason why an artist would choose the death of Stalin as a backdrop for a supposed comedy. Is it to underline the historicity of the events? Not in this case. To ease the impact of the subject matter onto the audience without spooking them and prematurely turning them away from the film? Sure, if they don't know who Stalin was going in. Is it to showcase your comedic chops employing as unexpected and controversial material as can be without ending up on somebody's hit list? If so, "The death of Stalin" is an epic fail for an otherwise acclaimed comediograph.
Why then?
I guess I'll never know. The taste of "The death of Stalin" is so bad, my viewing capacity had run out in twenty minutes. I just got tired of looking at mock-Moscow (filmed, unsurprisingly, in Kiev, Ukraine - wink wink) in full summer bloom. Not to be too pedantic, but I guess it's worth pointing out that Stalin had died on March 5, which was back then, and, despite the global warming, still is the dead of winter in Russia.
Anyway, you let me know, how it ends. Oh, wait...
Knightfall (2017)
Good thing, Jacques de Molay doesn't see this...
How is it that, having produced "Vikings", the History channel puts out a pile of dreck of such enormous magnitude? I recall the 'Top Gear' blunder when some genius decided to let Clarkson & Co. go over some minor mischief, immediately turning the BBC from an "is" into a "has been". I'm guessing, something similar transpired on the "H". It's either whoever was at the helm of "Vikings" quit and got replaced with a certified moron or they had a budget surplus and the money had to be spent in order to get the same amount the next year...
Otherwise, the appearance of this big gob of nothing is truly unexplainable. Why make this? I mean, a TV production is a long and arduous process, there had to be someone who at some point went "hey, wait a minute, the siege of Acre (1291) + "15 years later, Paris" equals 1306. Pope Boniface VIII had died in 1303, yet he's alive and well on the screen (not to mention the Pope's bitter animosity with the French court at the time). Are we making a History Channel show or a freakin' Disney fantasy?!"
Truth be told, "Vikings" was no feat of historical accuracy but at least the chronology and the lines of successions have been somewhat observed, and the production value is kinda OK. But this...
Anyway, don't waste time. Read Maurice Druon's "Les Rois maudits (The Accursed Kings)" or, if too lazy, watch the eponymous French TV series. Adieu!
Taboo (2017)
SPOILERS: Could somebody PLEASE tell me, WHY did Delany return to London? At all?
After re-watching this marvel of true-grit television three times, I still don't get the answer to the question, why. The IMDb annotation goes "...James Keziah Delaney returns to London during the War of 1812 to rebuild his late father's shipping empire." I think, he returned in, like, 1807, but that aside, really? James hated his crazy bankrupt father who apparently killed his mother... The matter of inheritance could have been resolved from literally anywhere, "a ship" (singular) that James needed for his "shipping empire" could have been purchased through an agent, again, literally from anywhere. Especially, with a pouch full of raw diamonds. With sealed paper in hand, through lawyers and agents, unreachable to assassins and his pop's ex, he'd be much more dangerous to all the sirs in all of London's high places. So, why?
Shot Caller (2017)
Learn to stab people correctly with this great story enacted by stellar, yet inexpensive cast!!
Here's what's important to know before you spend time on watching this movie. It's no docudrama, and whatever you think you know about the US penal system, remember that most likely you became a penologist watching "Heat", "Oz", "Ornage is The NB", "Goodfellas", "Scarface" etc.
I, for one, know that they don't search cons on CDC before yard, so it doesn't take a butt stash to carry a wad of drugs from the dorm outside. Strangely, in "Shot Caller" this exercise is used as a test of a new fish by a gang. I know that targeted gang-affiliated prison killings are rare, carefully orchestrated and, most importantly, are NOT entrusted to "tourists" from the general population. In fact, you would have to earn the right to kill on gang's behalf. And if a white money boy would be cliquing with a gang, they would certainly not use him as a yard thug or an ass-mule, as we've learned a long time ago from the great Shawshank saga. Also, I do know that a white investment banker in CA would have caught a break, no matter how badly he's done.
You know where I know all this from? The previous Ric Roman Waugh's work called "Felon", a great 2008 film (except for the white investment banker thing, this one's from CNN), which could actually pass for the "Shot caller"'s prequel. To the extent that Waugh has used the actor Chris Browning in the exact same capacity in "Shot caller" as he did in "Felon" - an AB key holder. Do yourself a favor and watch "Felon", appreciate Val Kilmer at his very best.
Anyway, I'm not complaining! The movie's awesome, watch it, re-watch it, learn how to put things in your anus, how to stab people in different settings, how to use burner phones, what to say to cops before being sent to death row and how to tell a snitch. Who knows, perhaps, some of those skills you'll find useful in real life.
King Arthur: Legend of the Sword (2017)
Where was the Lady Of The Lake when Charlie Hunnam needed acting lessons?!
...but you know what? The movie was great. I knew what I was getting into when Jax Teller turned up in the first trailer with enough product in his hair to make Fearless Leader from "The Adventures of Rocky & Bullwinkle" jealous. I knew the drill right then and there when he pulled out the Sword with the clear intention to once and for all rid the world of Jude Law (kudos!). He smirked, he fought, he lost at first but then he won, just like the countless blond likes of Craig, Ledger and Tatum always do. There's nothing to wreck your brain over, no somber story twists and subsequent head-scratching. Although, all the regular platitudes, which writers invariably pass for "genre attributes" in a PG-13 swordplay fantasy were there: bloodless pricking, no sexual innuendo whatsoever and definitely no "F" word. And even though Peter Dinklage would have been bored out of his disproportionately huge mind, somehow I was OK with it. It DID take me three attempts to finish watching it but it's probably because my attention span is no different than that of any other Ritchie's intended viewer (hey, I fast-forward GoT all the time too!).
Jason Bourne (2016)
Just another exercise in futility - the kind that's been sapping the life out truly interesting filmmakers for decades
I saw an article somewhere titled "20 brilliant movies that didn't need a sequel". Naturally, "The Matrix" took the cake, although, personally I think all three parts were just beautiful, but that's me. There was "Saw". "The Exorcist" and others. The "Bourne" franchise wasn't there, which is a shame because after the original "Identity" all four nonsense-packed follow-ups are simply poster children for elaborate money making scheme, where proved Hollywood assets habitually flex their CGI muscles (not bothering with writing a half decent script) and actors "act" out the ridiculously labored drama. Had it been the first time, the fraud itself would be worth at least some praise -- look how we managed to bend y'all over a barrel! But it keeps happening again and again, season after season, movie after movie, TV series after TV series: there's no more investing. There's only vested interest. And because of that it's impossible to spoil a Bourne movie; you get a stack of entertaining idiocies a mile high and a list of characters who resemble the previous versions of themselves to a point of deja vu. Firstly, Bourne himself. At least James Bond changes his clothes every once in awhile, busts quips and beds different women out of civility. Bourne doesn't even do that. He is an island in the most boring sense: superfluously bleak, empty, washed-up. Then you get your Girl-helper. She's there only to fulfill a certain function, be it to give Bourne a ride or hand him a flash-drive, a phone, a key or a note. The likes of Franka Potente and Julia Stiles handle the job perfectly. Then there's the CIA man/woman -- a seasoned, yet full of doubt pro, ready to change sides whenever he/she thinks it's "the right thing to do". The villainous old fart from the said organization -- just as predictable (read: uninteresting) as Bourne himself (and not even Tommy Lee Johns' grit can save the day). And of course, "The Asset" -- sawing death to dull his pain
"Officers, Gentlemen, Messenger, Herald, Attendants" etc.
If I were to ask you, which of the five Bourne films this succession came from, you'd probably have to scratch your head. And rightly so because essentially the last effort by the director Paul Greengrass has no real creative, intellectual or spiritual merit, just another exercise in futility -- the kind that's been sapping the life out truly interesting filmmakers for decades. Nothing to see here, people, just making the ends meet -- aaaand, action!
The Revenant (2015)
A Puzzling Masterpiece
So, let me see if I got this. The film that's made Leo a star should have taught him that it's just impossible for a human to stay in the ice cold water for longer than a couple of minutes: because of the body temperature decrease, one's blood vessels contract so much, the heart is no longer able to push through the life juice. And that's just one thing... But nah, says Iñárritu. I'm gonna have DiCaprio body-raft down the freezing cold mountain river, drop down a waterfall, float some more and finally crawl ashore wearing a bear skin, which by that time should have weighed about a hundred pounds. And we know, what happens to a man enveloped in 100 lbs. of stuff in water. Those of us who have seen a single medieval knight movie know for sure: man sinks like a stone. Oh, well, says Iñárritu. That's what YOU think – and then shatters Leo's right leg. Shatters to a point when it hangs by the skin and tendon. At first Leo does take it hard – barely moves. A day (!) later he crawls, using a crutch and a tiny stick for a splint. Another couple of days pass and he is moving like a drunken hockey player, though able to avoid all kinds of unwanted encounters, gathering and hunting... Finally, perhaps, after no more than two weeks of healing, he is running, mounting a horse on a fly, spurs it frantically, in short, displays the kind of vigor rarely associated even with a perfectly healthy individual, let alone someone who's spent days under a snag in a forest
But the film in itself is great. The kind of achievement which could (and should, given the amount of pure garbage on offer) cap the whole cinematographic year. What is sad though, is that my problem with 'the ballads of the strength of the human spirit' has not for the countless time been rectified. I still can't figure out how to feel about the blatant untruths the film makers utilize in order to make their characters' heroism truthful.
The Martian (2015)
'Armageddon' meets 'Cast Away' with better CGI
I thought that by the time Robert Zemekis yelled 'Cut!" after the final scene of "Cast Away" fifteen years ago we were done with "I'm- left-for-dead-but-the-power-of-my-spirit-and-the-high-school-science- classes-will-get-me-home" dramas. Nope. For some reason, my lifetime hero Ridley Scott decided to step on that same track that's been beaten so many times before him. As a result we have an attempt at an exciting story supposedly brimming with thrilling potential turn into a Bond movie, only without the body count. To me it's just silly to spend two hours sitting on the edge of the seat, motionless, while knowing more or less what all the lead-ins are going to be and what the grand finale will look like. So, I fast-forwarded a lot and something tells me, I didn't miss a whole a lot of twists and turns: and Astronaut (Damon) is left alone on Mars as a result of a mission gone bad but he survives against all odds and is eventually brought back home. That's it in a nutshell (I feel silly retelling this story, it was pretty easy to surmise even from the very first trailer). The rest is just 'Armageddon' with better CGI, constant disco in the background and the foreseeable Damon's own brand of humor. For Scott this is a first (meaning, first by-the-book drama), I even went back and looked at his resume to be sure. Not gonna ask myself why has he done it, just another feel good candidate for the Oscars? I guess. Oh, and the spoiler, of course. Ready? Everything is going to be fine. Enjoy the disco!
Sicario (2015)
Shame. This could be something.
I've read a few tag lines for this movie here and there, it's always the 'disgruntled FBI agent thrown into the deep end of the drug war' or some nonsense like that. The truth is, there's no way to sum up this story in just a few lines because there's simply no story. Or rather, it's not a story but an illustrated federal case, a task force theater, if you will. It's fun at times but make no mistake: there's no sex, no love, no romance, no mystery - nothing much to overcome or achieve for that matter. There's very little action (granted, when they finally do commence the ass kicking, it's truly glorious). There's a bit of a thrill, sure, but it's mostly about trying to wait out boredom until Blunt or DelToro do something. Commit. Alas, they never do, instead they act the unactable and vigorously play the dullest, the silliest and the least believable plights, like the highway shootout or the rendition of a single POI via a convoy of Suburbans through the Mexican border (what happened to using a helo?!).
Act of Valor (2012)
If Hollywood is watching, brace yourselves! We are going to get more of these...
What's alarming about this production (can't compel myself to call it a movie or a film or a picture) is not that it's a complete bogus from every angle, it's the fact that half of the reviews here are cheerful and positive, adamantly suggesting that "Act Of Valor" is a good quality product, a "blood pumper", a "solid entertainment" etc. Observe: the overall rating here is 6.4 and for one of the best films of the 2011 – "Anonymous" – is almost the same: 6.8. Which reflects to the Hollywood Powers That Be who is it that they're dealing with as an audience when they are putting together their projects. So, if Hollywood monitors these things at all (and I think it does), we should expect more crappy propaganda shenanigans targeted at a bunch of retards (that being us) such as this one in the future. Shame.
The Book of Eli (2010)
Oh, the horror!
Freaks love quoting the Genesis. Always book of Moses: "...first there was nothingness, then God said let there be something and then it was good..." Relatively poetic but they never (never!) use the part where Lot's virgin daughters "know" their father out of boredom, where Moses passes his wife for his sister to the Pharaoh and enjoys favor and Pharaoh's benevolence while the Ruler makes a nice addition to his harem out of Mosses' wife (and later gets punished by God for it!), they never mention parts where men gladly allow mob rape their daughters and wives, Eli never mentions ethnic cleansing, pathological cruelty, idiocy and plane old schizophrenia of the Bible. Sylly book, silly read, silly spectacle. Why throw money at a crap script like that when real history is full of absolutely breathtaking stories?! It's just beyond me!