Change Your Image
rmmorelli
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Fallout (2024)
The Game is Better ... So it Everything Else
How this piece of trash has garnered as many high reviews, completely mystifies me. This series has absolutely nothing going for. I would give it a negative rating if I could.
As far as I'm able to perceive, there is no writing talent on display. The plot is a long, tedious, predictable, patchwork of cliches, with absolutely zero new or compelling. The writers appear to have attempted to substitute weirdness here and there to compensate for their lack of ideas and skill, and in so doing, only create boredom.
There are several clumsily intertwined subplots, which all "resolve" in thuds in the last episode. No plot twists a moderately intelligent view couldn't predict from the first quarter of episode 1. There is no compelling character development. But what's even more astonishing and appalling, is that over the course of 8 full length episodes, the writers fail to establish even one convincing personal relationship.
There is gratuitous gore and an abundance of stylized fight scenes, that are as pointless and unimaginative as they are boring to sit through.
If I may indulge a speculation, the writing in this series reminds me of a period a few decades ago, when the US movie industry reached a low point and many writers and actors were struggling with drug addiction and alcoholism. It became something of a joke when yet another Hollywood figure checked into the Betty Ford center for "exhaustion" and a number of them died very young. In those days, people writing really weird, incompetent, scripts while they were high became a common problem. Is something like that happening again? I watch so many truly weird movies these days that have inexplicably little going for them, especially given the substantial budgets behind them.
Even Ella Purnell's grace and beauty is wasted, as she's put opposite the decidedly dull Aaron Moten, who's character is weaselly and emasculated and portrayed with as much charm and charisma as cold molasses leaking from a rusty can. If there was any chemstry between these two, it must have ended up on the editing room floor. It would have made a difference if he could at least occasionally make a facial expression. Perhaps one might make a study of characters like Han Solo, whose less than perfect character, did not prevent him from having charm, masculinity, or attractiveness.
Then, there's the music. Both the relentless period music and the abysmal score, detracted from this film to the point where I think I'd rather have watched a remix with all music removed. There's a weird retro aspect to this movie that they are catering to, but, really, how much 1940's music and Johnny Cash do they think a contemporary viewer has the patience for?
Beacon 23 (2023)
This Series Lacks it All
It's hard to find anything this boring, disjointed, and pointless series has going for it. The dialog is stilted, acting is ... well it's hard to act well if you're handed a pile of scribbling. The musical score is drab. The character development and human drama make a typical daytime soap opera look genius. There's even offensive racial stereotyping thrown in for good measure.
The plot is a "just so" story presented in a very disjointed manner, with the episodes jumping back and forth across generations, in an apparent attempt to weave together a storyline that spans many years. But the problem with disjointed storylines, is that they are disjointed, and they usually come across like the writers are trying to hide behind a device so we don't notice that they ran out of effective plot ideas. The conclusion of the series is abrupt, leaving much up in the air, so I assume the series was canceled without a lot of lead time.
There are the usual sci-fi tropes: a mysterious phenomenon with pseudo-religious hints, an individual with special abilities, oppressive governmental and/or corporate entities, AI's struggling with human aspirations or tendencies, unlikely (and unconvincing) romance, etc. But, it was better the first time we saw this stuff, half a century ago, and there are only so many directions you can in, and so many head fakes, before an audience stops seeing a point.
The setting is a few rooms on board an isolated vessel, in a remote part of the universe, with a sparse cast. This creates a claustrophobic and depressing overcast, with little relief. For what benefit? None, I can think of, except perhaps to limit production costs.
Anyway, I could go on, but you get the idea. Watch this series only if you are forced ... at gunpoint.
Traitors (2019)
Astonishingly bad
Despite taking dragging the boring and pointless drama over 5 episodes, there is hardly any interesting character development. I wouldn't even say that the characters are 1 dimensional; they were 0 dimensional.
The occasional appearance of violence, which is not unexpected in a spy story, is squandered. There was not a single scene that builds suspense or tension. There's not hint of 007 style excitement, or fun, or cleverness. In fact, one of the more ridiculous aspects of this series, is that it was filmed with the tone of a "serious" drama, even though it has no message, no point, no depth.
Some contrasting political views make their way into the dialog. They are not developed with enough sophistication that I think viewers would generally identify with any of them or take them seriously.
In view of the above, the plot must therefore be driven entirely by contrived, highly implausible, devices which culminate in an even more implausible and ridiculous "conclusion".
Last Sentinel (2023)
Confused, Predictable, Boring, Pointless
Safe to pass on this one, even if, like me, you're a fan of the genre.
The headline says it all. The characters are stereotyped, the plot is predictable, the production values are meager. From almost the opening scene, there are clumsy attempts at setting up character tensions, but the drama is crass and uneven. Similarly, there are similarly ineffectual attempts at building suspense and drama.
Every movie, should make some kind of point, however modest, however clichéd. I'm really not sure this movie has one, and I'm not sure why anyone bothered to produce it.
I charitably gave it 2/10, just in case I missed something.
Perfil falso (2023)
Could only stomach the first episode
Out of a sense of obligation, I usually watch a production in its entirety before writing a review. I could barely make it through one episode of this. I skipped through a few scenes from later episodes to check for any obvious changes of tone, but I saw none.
As others have noted, this is basically a soap opera. But even at that, it's a poor soap opera.
First, what turned me off the most was a gratuitous number of fairly loud musical interludes. That's a no-no in my book. Music in film should be subordinate to the overall vision, not steal attention. If someone wants to listen to pop songs, there are better ways to do that. Also, the style of the music is unlikely to appeal to very many viewers. To my ears, it sounds dated and cheesy, with old fashioned vocals like "Donald Duck" sounding vocoder tracks, etc. It makes me feel like I'm watching something out of the1970's disco era, rather than a contemporary production.
Then, a cheesy and plastic romance. The two leads are physically attractive like models, but are given a lot of weak dialog and look uncomfortable and self-conscious in their roles. The sex scenes turned me on about as much as putting a Barbie doll and a Ken doll in positions would. The average viewer seeking sex scenes is going elsewhere for that anyway. On Netflix, I'm looking more for convincing and interesting character development and relationships.
Whatever plot twists awaited me in the subsequent episodes, I had to forgo. There just wasn't enough to hold my attention.
FUBAR (2023)
Extremely Poor Script
This is one of the worst, if not the very worst, production I've ever seen Schwarzenegger in. I can't help but suspect that some of the reviews awarding more than 5 stars are fake. Yes, it's that bad. The script is absurdly clumsy and amateurish. The context and plot line are a collection of cliches stitched together in an uninspired way. The only surprises are circumstances that are so implausible and unconvincing that it surprises you that they made it into the final cut.
Worst of all, the dialog is utterly unconvincing and stilted.
Ostensibly, this is a romantic comedy grafted onto a spy story. Schwarzenegger can be surprisingly successful with comedic material, but handing him a bad script with fingers crossed is not a recipe for success. For a successful movie along these lines, I'd point to Red Notice, with Dwayne Johnson delivering a script of the quality that Schwarzenegger should have been given.
Also, rather out of character for Schwarzenegger, and, I think, unbecoming for him, his character is an emasculated old man with little apparent self-respect, as are most of the male leads. How can you expect an audience to engage with such characters in a romantic drama? Schwarzenegger's character is constantly berated by his bratty, air-headed daughter, disrespected by his superiors, and follows like a puppy dog a woman who started an affair and divorced him 15 years earlier. It's never convincingly explained why this man would want such a woman back, especially after 15 years, and why the woman would react with anything other than revulsion at him. Not only are these circumstances unlikely for any man, they are also totally out of character with his supposed career as a James Bond style spy given over-the-top, save-the-world kinds of assignments. It's incongruent, and just doesn't work theatrically.
Similarly, the daughter, despite a supposedly equally spectacular career, is portrayed as a thin-skinned, whining, brat, ready to start a self-important harangue at the drop of a hat. Also, there's a good bit of embarrassingly dated banter about gender roles that might have been relevant 4 or 5 decades ago, but whose cultural context would probably be lost on most younger viewers today. Her fiance is a boring, emasculated man for whom she professes love but without any apparent chemistry.
In short, none of the major characters are in any way interesting or appealing, and none of the dynamics of their interactions is interesting or appealing.
It puzzles me that a star with Schwarzenegger's standing would accept a role in something this bad.
Even if you are a Schwarzenegger fan, as I am, I am comfortable advising you to skip this cringe-worthy piece of cinematic trash.
Faithfully Yours (2022)
Silly ending, not what it seems to be
This is a very strange movie, with an especially strange ending. In fact, I would describe the ending as not only anticlimactic, but actually silly.
As the promotion states, "... Best friends Bodil and Isabel, apparently happily married, sneak off for secret affairs ... Bodil gets caught up in her own web of lies."
Sounds like a fairly typical pretext. But there's something really strange in how the film plays this out, that doesn't really add up. Bodil does indeed get caught in her own web of lies. And as we are shown and told pretty much the first scene to the last, Bodil is pathological, both in her dishonesty as well as her indifference to all characters except herself. She waltzes from situation to situation, exhibiting cruelty, indifference, and extreme selfishness at every step, with seemingly hardly a care. She's perhaps intended to be psychopathic, if I'm reading it right.
OK, well enough. We have our villain and the audience is set up for some kind of dramatic resolution. Since Bodil is presented as a person without any personal charm or redeeming qualities, it would seem there are only a limited range of ways to untangle things.
I had mapped out several possible endings that I thought could give an interesting enough ending to possibly justify the meandering 95 minutes (which seemed much longer). But what they actually did, was really quite strange and anticlimactic. The plot becomes increasingly implausible as the movie progresses, with quite a few dangling threads and "just so" events, and ends on a hollow note.
This is pure speculation, but my guess is the film makers had a reasonable plot planned originally, or else they would never have started the project. For some reason, I guess, they decided at the last minute not to use the original ending. This left them stuck having to
scramble to do something else, and ended up forcing an unnatural and incoherent ending.
The Strays (2023)
Was this movie made by ChatGPT?
On second thought, I doubt it. ChatGPT is not this incoherent.
The Strays initially leads the viewer to believe it is a supernatural horror movie. Then it morphs into something else, then something else, ... Sadly, these gyrations come off as nothing more than an apparent lack of overall vision on the part of the filmmakers.
The culmination of the movie brings no resolution to this directionlessness, but instead throws further confusion with the final action, which seems as random and purposeless as it is disturbing.
The movie throws jabs at commentary on black culture in Britain, as a sort of back story for the moral depravity and psychopathy of the lead characters. However, it landed no discernible punches. I think the filmmakers would have done well to further develop this theme if they hoped it would "explain" the grotesque psychology on display. But, this worn out theme has long since ceased to be a fertile source of plot devices, given the bombardment of audiences in recent years with B grade movies full of empty social commentary. In any case, it would take quite a decisive statement to cut through the noise ... but this film is not that.
Vanishing on 7th Street (2010)
Haunting
I have given this movie one of the highest ratings among the user reviews. Let me start by saying what I least value and most value in movies, and what I therefore valued in this movies.
I am not moved by surprise endings, cartoonish karate chopping characters, political moralizing and huckstery, or simplistic "meanings". That's the stuff of the great majority of movies these days. What I do value is being transported into a fresh dramatic world with an atmosphere that haunts and evokes reflection. Generally, reflection on the universals of human experience.
This moving doesn't give a simple explanation for what transpired. That's a risk that few movie makers are willing to take, and even fewer can pull off. In my opinion, this movie did. It reminds me in some ways of David Lynch's Lost Highway, which was also underrated by many reviewers.
This movie is bringing into relief some of the universal questions, of life and death, or our very existence, of whether our moral character matters, and whether there is any sense in the events of our lives which sometimes seem arbitrarily subject to malevolence. And above all, the terror we feel confronting our mortality without definitive answers.
No 2 hour movie should be expected to answer these questions, but this movie at least presents us with an occasion to reflect on them in a new way.
The universal questions are the ones that religion addresses. In the conclusion of the movie, James is drawn, seemingly against reason, to a Church, that is mysteriously illuminated in the dark. Jake attempts to persuade him to leave, but is conflicted. As his truck loses power, Jake looks back, and immediately falls, in a scene reminiscent of the fall of Lot's wife, and several other Biblical passages where characters are ruined by indecisiveness.
In the meantime, all hope seems to be lost for James as the candles in the church burn out one by one, and the shadows begin to envelop the sacred icons, with Jesus at the center. But James somehow survives the seemingly hopeless situation and wakes to the morning light. Another child appears, who has also survived by living in the church and together they set out for Chicago.
We are not given answers to what has happened to the vanished, but neither do we have answers in our lives. Likewise, the children carry forward, with the hope that each new generation brings.
The Last Thing He Wanted (2020)
The First Morphing Movie
I've seen movies before with incoherent plots - and this movie certainly has that-, but I think this might be the first movie I've seen that actually morphs. It actually reminds me of the scene in Terminator 2 where the liquid metal terminator thrashes wildly, displaying in quick succession all the faces he's assumed since landing in our world. This is like a cinematic version of that, with the plot thrashing wildly, showing in quick, fragmented succession, showing an investigative journalist, a daring idealist, a political cynic, an alienated daughter, wife, and mother, a gun runner, a blubbering floozy having casual sex with an associate of George Schultz, CIA intrigue, ..., and so on and so on. Along with occasional, out of character, poetic narrative.
You might be tempted by the impressive cast. But a dozen celebrities cannot make up for a disjointed script. The acting was OK but not exceptional, which makes sense since the actors probably had no better idea what the movie was about than we do. Except that it looks like they were only willing to pay Ben Affleck for his Economy acting package, which unfortunately does not include facial expressions or emoting.
God's Not Dead (2014)
Polarizing, Schlock, but ... no more so than many movies these days.
Most of the reactions to this movie are negative. It's cheesy, hollow, and cringe-worthy. I agree, but I also have to put this in perspective. First, Christianity is not a monolith. Many Christians, probably the large majority, would see this movie as simplistic, uninspiring, and in fact embarrassing. The central event of Christianity is a man being tortured and nailed to a cross. It's not exactly a rosy image. There's something very raw at the heart of the religion. And the intellectual tradition of Christianity, in philosophical, theological, and artistic terms, is as sustained, rich, deep, and profound, as any tradition on our planet, if not much more so. This movie isn't pitched to what I consider the most authentic tradition and it doesn't begin to delve into the depths that tradition has attained.
A lot of the way people react to a movie seems dependent on their world view, and what most people don't realize is, if the world view of a movie doesn't resonate with you, it doesn't mean your judgment is objective, nor that what moves you prefer might not seem equally cringe-worthy to someone else.
The lion's share of movies these days are made with from a "woke" world view. To someone who doesn't subscribe to that view, those movies are equally hard to stomach. I'm not in the camp of this movie, but neither am I "woke". Woke movies generally leave me cold. I often find myself puzzled by how seemingly moved some of my woke friends can be at what seems to me pure woke schlock. They'll comment things like, such and such movie explored deep and painful issues at the cross-section of race, class, ... you get the idea. The majority of such movies aren't deep at all, and are too predictable and shallow to really strike me as worthy of serious reactions. I have no doubt that in a couple of decades, almost everyone will see them as embarrassingly simplistic pieces, stuck in a very brief cultural moment , just as we see "God's not Dead". In fact, I think they may even age less gracefully, because wokism doesn't even have an intellectual or artistic tradition behind it, certainly not one stretching back thousands of years.
First They Killed My Father (2017)
First, She Ruined Her Movie
I debated whether to give 2 stars for ... well, the problem is, I couldn't think of what, so I left it at 1 star. I'm baffled that anyone, especially professional critics, gave this movie good ratings.
First, the film is set in the tragic aftermath of the Communist revolution in Cambodia (by the Khmer Rouge army backed by China, North Vietnam, ...). The Khmer Rouge immediately established a very pure and highly intolerant form of socialism that quickly degenerated into one of the most brutal genocides in human history. If there is anything the movie got even approximately right, it is the heartless and cult-like nature of this socialism. If you aren't already aware of the history, I do not recommend watching the movie until you read up on it.
I watched the entire film right to the end, but mostly out of sense of obligation; it's astoundingly boring, slow paced, and confusing, for a film based on such a rich historical context.
If I tried to find a more distorted and ineffective way of portraying the events, I doubt I could do so. For instance, some of the events are portrayed as dream sequences, but that could not have been witnessed by any of the characters of the film. Other dream sequences interspersed with these, are wish fulfillment or fantasy sequences. There are also flashbacks juxtaposed with real events, for no obvious purpose, other than to point out obvious similarities.
The impression you might get from watching the entire 2 hour 16 min movie, is that the events took place over a course of a few days or weeks. But it had to have been at least several years to line up with historical events.
The logic propelling the story is completely lacking. I rewound the scene 6 times in one spot trying to figure out what motivated the characters in an abrupt change, before giving up. This kind of discombobulation has been justified by some reviews as faithfully adhering to the point of view of the child-witness of the events. That's a flimsy excuse, and this film isn't worth the time it would take to expose it as nothing but an excuse, and demolish it.
There are numerous scenes where, if I were teaching a film class and this were a student film, I'd say, "Angelina, I sense you have something powerful in mind that you're trying to convey in this scene. Unfortunately, you haven't told the audience what it is. Let's dissect this." Unfortunately, this is a released film.
There's also a baffling mountain of historical revision, that does nothing but undermine the credibility of the movie, and remove any claim it could have had to a moral purpose. Inexplicably, Jolie shuns tremendous riches of low hanging moral fruit, in order to promote a distorted message, that is, at best, morally compromised.
Specifically, I don't think the words "socialism" or "communism" are ever used in the movie, nor anything else that would anchor the events in the world-conflict, and the Socialist movement, which was its context. In the past century, socialism in its various incarnations has claimed hundred of millions of lives. This was one of the eyes of the storm. Pulling that context, would be like making a movie about the Holocaust without ever mentioning Nazism or German socialism, and insinuating that the conflict with England was the reason for the death camps ... or some such nonsense. Or about the Ukrainian genocide, without mentioning that Stalin was a Soviet communist, or about the "great leap forward" without mentioning that Mao was a socialist. This movie is not one iota less absurd than these other cases would be.
There are repeated suggestions that the brief US bombing incursions spurred the rise of the Khmer Rouge, and that the Lon Nol government was an unpopular puppet US regime. This is so far from the truth, I hardly know where to begin. The Khmer Rouge had been in Cambodia since the war of independence from France in the early 1950's. The US has never had a formal colony in Cambodia (or any other country on Earth); it was the French who had colonized Cambodia, as well as Viet Nam for that matter. The US was bombing the *communist* forces in Cambodia -- you know, the bad guys. The North Vietnamese that had taken refuge there invasively, and the Chinese-funded Khmer Rouge that committed the horrendous genocide. The US wasn't there to fight the Cambodians, whose government was pro-US.
Infamously, during the actual conflict many members of the Left in the US discounted the threat the Khmer Rouge posed, and took some very misguided stands on the situation in Indochina, apparently to promote socialism at any cost. In the aftermath, many abandoned the Left when the catastrophe unfolded, but those who didn't never acknowledge how wrong they had been. In effect, they became genocide deniers. One would hope that Jolie was not influenced by those morally grotesque people, some of whom are still roaming our planet. In any case, I don't see how Jolie's reputation will not be forever stained by this offensive movie.
In conclusion, I find the historical revisionism deeply insulting to the millions of lives lost. The film ends with a dedication to the victims of the genocide, and its survivors, and some meaningless statistics on how many bombs the US dropped. I'm sorry, but when you distort the history, you disgrace yourself and lose the right to dedicate the movie that way. If you make a movie about the Holocaust, that never uses the words "Nazism" or "socialism," and blamed WWII on the Allies, you don't get to dedicate it to Holocaust victims.
The Da Vinci Code (2006)
If you are bored and there's absolutely nothing else to watch ...
Many negative reviews have the form with "I loved the book but ..."
Let me say from the outset, I did not love the book, I did not like the book, I cannot stomach books like Dan Brown's. Whatever human impulse leads people to this fascination with bizarre, implausible, preposterous conspiracy theories, I don't have it. I'm by nature something of a skeptic, and I find so far without exception, that every conspiracy theory falls apart within a few minutes of any serious examination. The silly thesis of Dan Brown's novel is no exception, except perhaps that it falls apart in only a few seconds rather than a few minutes. I find it boring, inane, insulting to my intelligence, and not at all titillating, as some seem to. Also, Dan Brown's contrived "clues" and "riddles" do nothing for me. I have a PhD in mathematics and I've worked on many real puzzles in my life. Dan Brown's silly idea of a riddle is to real problems, like miniature golf is to the Olympics. I like the real thing, not silly nonsense. Also, Dan Brown is a mediocre writer. I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks otherwise needs to dust off their copies of some real classic literature and remind themselves what it looks like.
Finally, Dan Brown takes an odious and hateful stand. Yes, I've heard the defenses. They ring false to me. They sound like people arguing that Hitler was misunderstood. Dan Brown is hateful, and he intends to insult and defame, and like all bigots, he does so with lies, distortions, and hoaxes. I don't care what religion you believe in, if any at all, do we really need more hateful people spreading lies in the world?
OK, so now you know where I'm coming from. Does any of the above mean that the movie has to be bad? No, not at all. A screenplay based on a controversial novel can be selective, as many have been. Cinema is a totally different art form from literature. In my opinion, a movie and the novel it's screenplay is based on are as likely to be correlated in quality as an opera and the novel it's libretto is based on. Opera is music. The libretto is a framework for presenting music. Cinema is a visual art form. The screenplay is a framework for presenting imagery.
So, finally, what value does the movie have? The answer is simple: none whatsoever. As harsh as that sounds, I think it's entirely fair. There's no character development, the screenplay is stilted and clumsy, and there's therefore no opportunity for great acting. The plot is botched to the point of being nearly incoherent. I think the biggest challenge for the actors is to keep from bursting into laughter at the silly lines they have to deliver.
Here's an example of the movie's gems. The line "Welcome home, child" delivered by a woman with tears welling in her eyes. The woman has no other appearance in the film, her existence contradicts something that was just claimed in the previous scene, she's not in anyone's home, why she hasn't been in contact with the "child" is never explained, and she's surrounded by an entire crowd of unknown people who have gathered suddenly, summoned apparently only a few minutes earlier, who also have no other role in the film, but converge to be witnesses to this "special" moment. I would be hard pressed to find an equally ridiculous scene in any other movie I've ever seen. And this is just one of numerous such cringe-worthy scenes in this piece of cinematic trash.
There's also no great cinematography, no striking visual language, the score is unexceptional, ... Nada.
What could be fun, is to have the bloopers from the editing room floor. I can't imagine how many times the actors must have burst into laughter trying to deliver the more ridiculous lines. Perhaps when they get tired of trying to find some value in Dan Brown's scribbling, they'll at least salvage that.
Crack: Cocaine, Corruption & Conspiracy (2021)
If you ignore the whining, consiracies, and middle school angst ...
This is mediocre. The filmmakers are clearly searching for a narrative, searching for a villain to indict, a conspiracy to expose, a myth to bust, a solution to propose, ..., and never find it. Instead, they throw a series of half-baked, mutually contradictory, commentaries at the wall, hoping something sticks. But ... it doesn't.
In particular, the highlighted conspiracy theory, that the crack problem in the US was caused by US involvement in the conflict in the small nation of Nicaragua, is too far fetched, and the dots too far from connected, for credibility.
I love documentary "showing both sides," usually by interweaving interviews with opposing parties. There's a right way to do that. This film just confuses the viewer by contradicting its own first hand accounts. Were the crack addicted mothers interviewed, who told of the devastation cocaine visited on their lives and families, a myth, as was later suggested? Was crack an overblown problem, xploited to promote negative stereotypes? Or were the evils all too real, but the result of a racist attack on the black community? Or ... or ... or ... They 180'ed so many times, it made my head spin. What point were they ultimately making, if any? I have no clue.
Given how much time and money it must have taken, you'd think they'd have their heads clear about the point they are making.
The worst part of the documentary is the central role of the people they call the "stars," Mitch Credle, Noveen Crumbie, ... This is just terrible documentary film making. A good film narrative shows rather than tells. In a documentary, this goes double. You focus on people who have a story to tell, who had a personal involvement in the events, to engage the viewer and puts them in the position to judge for themselves. The worst thing you can do, which they did, is have some commentators tell you what to think, especially when what they say is incoherent and has the tone of a rebellious adolescent.
This is all a big no no. If I were teaching a class on documentary film making, I'd use this as an example of what not to do.
The Confession Tapes: Down River (2017)
Detective John Palmatier is Naked Evil
Confession Tapes is a remarkable series and every episode is disturbing. However, the false confessions in most of these episodes are understandable in the sense that the police seem to be (falsely) convinced of the guilt of a suspect and use coercive tactics to get a bogus confession. There are many examples of police planting false evidence, wearing down people with limited education, in emotional distress, with low IQ, and planting ideas in their minds, etc. We all know these are common techniques that the police use.
This episode is different. It focuses on a corrupt, and likely psychopathic, police detective named John Palmatier, who plays the key role in exploiting a media-fueled public furor against a man who suffered a tragedy when he drove into the Detroit River with his wife and four children. There's something far more disturbing to me in this episode than the usual run of police mishandling of an investigation. The filmmakers have exposed in detective John Palmatier, a man so evil, so sick, so heartless, with such callous indifference to the truth, that it makes your skin crawl. By the end of the episode, it is obvious that Palmatier almost certainly knew that he had manipulated an innocent man into "confessing" to a crime he didn't commit, and showed no remorse at the man's conviction and life sentence. I would be hard pressed to find another example of a documentary that so effectively exposes raw evil as this episode does. It is obvious by the end of the episode that there was only one criminal in this case, and that was John Palmatier.
However, I warn you. I had nightmares after watching this. I felt dirty. Palmatier is an example of someone so nakedly evil, so diseased, he makes your skin crawl. He makes you feel hopeless. God help the many victims this sick man has interviewed over the years. That this diseased man is still walking free is very disturbing to me.
By the way, the judge in the case disallowed Palmatier's "interview" and ruled that the "confession" was involuntary. He also stated at sentencing that he was bound to give the sentence, but had not been convinced of the man's guilt. (To the best of my knowledge, there was no evidence against the man, apart from the disallowed "confession," no plausible motive was ever proposed, and the forensic evidence regarding the car's mechanical problems corroborated the man's original account to the police.)
Here are a few selected quotes from Palmatier from the episode:
1. "I don't know why, Larry, but it seems that I have been given a gift to look much deeper into people than anyone ever thought it was possible to do," and "I've been able to pull rabbits out of the hat so many times that it's not even funny." These cruelly narcissistic statements come close to admitting that he enjoys playing games with other people's lives.
2. "I don't know if it was the baby crying so loud. I don't know why the Lord empowered children with the ability to cry at the pitch and frequency that they are able to. But you know you could ... I threatened my own daughter to tie her in a garbage bag and leave her in a closet for a while. You know, when she was small. Just -- damn kid, shut up!" A stunning admission of how cruel and sick this man is. As a father of 3, I can say that, I don't care how much your children cry, anyone who's threatened to tie their daughter in a garbage bag and leave her in a closet, has no idea what a normal parent, or even what a normal person, is.
3. " Larry, within each of us, there's a demon, and it's when we deny it exists that it'll come up behind us. It's the fool that won't acknowledge its existence."
I doubt there's a demon inside each of us, but I do know there's a demon inside Palmatier, and that's why I think this evil creep let this one slip.
For further background, I encourage you to research the case further. There's only so much you can fit into an episode of a show, and there's a lot of exculpatory information.
The Humanity Bureau (2017)
One dimensional characters living in a dystopian, environmental disaster
If you enjoy slow paced movies, with boring one dimensional characters, set in a cartoonish dystopian future, where there's some over-the-top dying planet environmental disaster, you sure do have a wide choice, as this has become something of a genre unto itself. Take your pick. Do you want near future, medium future, or far future? Do you want global warming, toxic air pollution, radiation, oxygen depletion, or some combination, or some more "creative" reason the Earth is dying? Do you want a thinly veiled political bias, a medium political bias, or a blatant political bias? Whatever you want, it's out there, except for one thing: can't get a good movie in this genre.
Among the hundreds of such recent movies, I'm trying to think if there's anything that makes this one stand out. Let me see ... nope, don't think so. Well, OK, I take that back. If you are a Nicholas Cage fan and you are intrigued to see what he does with a role so hopeless he can't rescue it, and aren't depressed seeing him look like a has been, then this movie could be just your ticket.
On the other hand, it's hard to explain why they keep spending money to make movies like this, after several hundred duds in a row. After all, if there were a way of making a good movie in this genre, I think we'd know by now.
3022 (2019)
Flawed, but Powerful
Some of the production values of this film are weak. In particular, the editing leaves much to be desired. There are many scenes that are so poorly cut that it's hard to decipher what's being said or what's happening.
And if you're looking for a realistic vision of the future, move on. There's very little in this movie that's much different from today's world, other than people being aboard spaceships floating in space far from Earth, and the implausibility of some of its ploys.
I could go on criticizing, but there's something I really liked about this movie. I enjoy edgy movies, relentlessly oppressive and impossible situations exploring the negative limits of human experience. This movie certainly delivers on that front.
This movie isn't about the future; it's about the timeless human predicament, the fragility of our attempts to find meaning in a world where alienation and distrust are the norm, and our tragic predilection for self-destruction in the face of it.
Every single character in this movie is deeply flawed, every relationship deeply dysfunctional, every possibility for hope dangling on a thread. The logic of the plot is one of inexorable self-destruction, as each character alternates between glimmers of hope, surrender to despair, and narcissistic betrayals, always out of joint with each other. If that sounds depressing, it is. But I credit the movie with moving my emotions while not becoming cheap.
In the Shadow of the Moon (2019)
If you rate this movie more than 1 star, there's something wrong with you
Production values, script, plot, acting, all seem to be about on the level of a made-for-TV movie. However, there are an abundance of awkward clues along the way that the movie has some kind of disturbing political undercurrent. However, I doubt many viewers would expect how grotesque and hateful the "message" of this movie turns out to be.
I've seen some sick and weird movies in my time, but this one easily takes the prize. It really creeped me out. I can't really find any nice way to put this but, the writers are not well people. Not just mentally unbalanced,, but very disturbing, lacking a moral center, and very, very creepy. Bugs crawling under your skin creepy. Ghoulishly creepy. It's genuinely frightening that hateful, diseased people like this are allowed to make movies.
That Netflix allowed this sort of hate to degrade its reputation, is inexplicable. To Netflix: moral compass, check it out.
IO (2019)
Inexplicably stereotyped and boring
We all know the usual compromises: surrender to hackneyed and stereotyped templates, forget trying to be original or deep, focus on solid production values, achieve something entertaining, but empty. Sadly, this movie makes all the compromises, but somehow only got the empty part.
It basically comes across like a home movie by a boring person, visiting a lonely, boring place, where she meets a boring person, and they are bored together and have 0 chemistry.
Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015)
Uninspired remake of 1977 Classic
Like every Star Wars fan, I approached this movie with the thrill of tremendous anticipation. With Disney's investment, and the combination of new and old talent, the possibilities were limitless. I would never have believed that with so much potential, this movie could deliver so little. Yet, it is so unoriginal and un-compelling, that I have no hesitation recommending you to pass on it.
Describing this movie as a remake of the original (Star Wars IV) is perhaps slightly exaggerated -- but only slightly. It is clear the filmmakers deliberately intended to mimic the concept of the original. In fact, it is surprising how far they took this. Since I'm avoiding spoilers, I won't go into specifics, but let's just say the original Star Wars movie is more of a spoiler than any review I could write. This film is therefore entirely predictable. I suspect the filmmakers took this to be a safe approach. The problem is that what was genius in 1977 becomes lifeless cliché when clumsily transplanted into 2015.
What little has changed from the original, is the weakest aspect of this film. In particular, an attempt at creating romantic tension between two characters that have no chemistry, fell flat, especially with the movie's rushed pace, a gender role reversal, and embarrassing racial stereotyping. As to the latter point, you would think that after the debacle over the offensive racial caricature, Jar Jar Binks, Disney would have been more sensitive.
Deadfall (2012)
Dark, Beautiful film
This film has excellently writing, acting, and directing, and it managed to maintain uninterrupted dramatic tension from the opening scene to the end of the movie.
I am baffled by the reviewers who claim this film is flat or standard fare. If you are looking for a new special effect or a remarkable plot twist, you won't find it here. But the emotional play is far from standard. In the lead role as a sociopathic killer, Bana convincingly creates a complex and very human character, whose depth and whose motivations are gradually revealed as he disintegrates in the face of an increasingly desperate situation.
The central theme is the relationship between Bana's character and his younger sister. The two are forced to separate early in the movie, but their relationship continues to develop and reveal itself throughout the film. By the time they are reunited, they are forced into an emotional conflict that propels them to a climactic conclusion. I found the ending compelling, with elements of hope and tenderness emerging from an extremely sick and tragic situation.
This is a beautiful film, well worth seeing.
Nothing Is Private (2007)
Shallow characters ring false
I saw this film at its premier at Sundance 09.
Since American Beauty is a movie that had something to say, I had hopes for Towelhead. Unfortunately, it was a disappointment. In fact, of countless movies I've seen in almost a dozen Sundance festivals, Towelhead is the only Sundance movie I've ever wanted to walk out early from.
The worst problem with Towelhead is that it so obviously originates with a collection of "provocative" concepts concerning cultural stereotypes, rather than with an organic human drama. The screenplay derives from the novel of the same name by Alicia Erian. The famous Edith Wharton quote comes to mind: I have never known a novel that was good enough to be good in spite of its being adapted to the author's political views. That observation is especially devastating for Towelhead because its political views are so stale and simplistic. If there ever was a time when Towelhead's white male villains, condescending portrayals of blacks, ironic treatments of foreign cultures, etc., were fresh, it's long past.
For a more detailed review, please look up any of the many professional reviews available online. Almost all rate this movie poorly and expose the shallow and manipulative tissue it is based on.
On the other hand, the amateur reviewers seem more easily bamboozled. As you read through the reviews in this and similar sites, you'll frequently come across superlatives: "stunning," "breathtaking," "profound," "shocking," ... It embarrasses me to read them, but it does not surprise me. Indeed, I've encountered many people who seem to regard any book or movie dealing with racial, cultural, gender, or sexual issues as deeply moving, thought provoking, full of profound insight. If you are such a person, by all means, rent Towelhead and be moved by it. On the other hand, if you set your standards higher, you can safely pass on this one.