Change Your Image
tone_lord
Reviews
Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)
A Masterpiece
Possibly the best action movie I've ever seen, it will also likely be the best movie I see all year. Why is this film so good: 1. Nonstop action with an off-the-charts WOW factor, mostly based on real world practical effects, which are always more convincing than CGI. 2. Characters who are genuinely sympathetic no matter how strange they seem at first. 3. A well-thought out, intricately detailed and consistent world which is certainly no real world that could exist, but is a perfect embodiment of the mythic Mad Max universe. 4. Technical perfection. This is one of the most beautifully and expertly made films I have seen in a long time. Brilliant photography, design, editing, costumes, makeup, pacing, acting, etc., etc. A final word: if you haven't seen it yet, do so. You will not be disappointed (in spite of any expectations created by my gushing review).
Jurassic World (2015)
By-the-numbers blockbuster which delivers exactly as expected
Well, essentially my review is the title of my review, but to be a bit more verbose: The movie delivers absolutely everything you expect it to and not one iota more. It successfully evokes a hint of the wonder we felt back in the day when "real" dinosaurs on screen were a decided novelty. Who can forget the first appearance of the T Rex in Jurassic Park? Spine tingling, awesome, and terrifying all at once. This is a more jaded age, and we have seen dinosaurs in many guises since then, so it's not easy to WOW us in that way. Yet, in spite of that, Jurassic World does create some awe, tension, and excitement. As with Jurassic Park, the dinosaurs are the best part--the people not so much. But, at least there is no character in this film quite as annoying as Dr. Ian Malcolm in Jurassic Park, and some of the characters are actually quite likable. It's worth seeing, but not more than once.
Hemlock Grove (2013)
Blow your mind
It's amusing to me that the "critics" hate this show so much. User reviews are clearly mostly favorable, so "real people" --as opposed to paid critics-- are getting a lot of enjoyment out of it. I love it. Here's why in a few bullet points: --The show always surprises me ("I didn't see THAT coming!") --It goes places other shows won't ("I can't believe they DID that!") --the acting is IMHO excellent (au contraire to critics' opinions) --the dialogue is brilliant mostly ("clunky" said one idiot critic) --the plot twists are very difficult to anticipate (maybe a little murky at times, but I'm patient enough to let it resolve at its own pace) --characterizations are complex, not cardboard cutouts (see Roman Godfrey for the prime example). Even Olivia has her good side (relatively speaking). --innocents are not safe (see "It goes places..." above) --the show has its own logic not beholden to conventional expectations
WATCH IT. You will be enthralled
Fifty Shades of Grey (2015)
Prepared to hate but left enthralled
I think it's a major advantage in watching this film to have never read the books. I was exposed to some of the pitiful writing briefly when I rode in the car with my wife while she had on the audio book. That predisposed me to expect absolute dreck from the movie. I was greatly surprised to find myself laughing early on--not at the movie itself, but at a particular moment in it that was intended to be funny. It was drawing me in, almost against my will. As it went on, I began liking the character of Anastasia. Christian may have been a little eye-rolling here and there, but I still bought into him. I get why some people are trashing this film--partly because the source material is absolute garbage--but it's actually a pretty interesting character study. I should add that my enjoyment of the film was increased because I watched it in a crowded theater. My wife and I were older than anyone else there. The reaction of the audience to the action (yes, the "action") on screen was invariably entertaining, sometimes hilarious. Keep an open mind, be a bit forgiving, and enjoy.
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)
The Desolation of Peter Jackson
WARNING: Some of the info here may be regarded as spoilers. Do not read if you have not seen the film.
The stars are purely for a few fine visuals.
I cannot separate my Hobbit watching from my decades-long Tolkien obsession. Therefore, I cannot review this film except from the perspective of a disappointed Tolkien fan. But so what? That is, in fact, a perfectly valid perspective to take on a film based on a well- known and beloved book and created universe. When a film maker sets out to do a film with such source material, he accepts that certain expectations come with it. Sadly, Peter Jackson, who is a Tolkien fan himself, has jumped the shark in these Hobbit movies. For the record, I love the LotR films by Jackson. They are not perfect, but they are largely faithful in spirit to the source material. Where he deviates, I understand WHY he deviated, even if I don't always agree with the changes. Sometimes, he even improves on Tolkien. I have been surprised at certain details which I thought I remembered from the books, only to find they actually came from the films. But mostly, the LotR films are explainable in terms of Tolkien's world. In addition, the very way the films were made makes that world seem like a real, living place. The characters seem like real people or creatures. In contrast, the Hobbit movies are mostly artificial and contrived. I cannot detail all of the ways that The Desolation of Peter Jackson-- Smaug, I mean--grated on me. That would require more viewings than I am willing to give the film and more time and effort than it is worth. So let me give one example each of where Jackson added something which might have worked, but blew it, and where he simply blew it. 1.)Elf-Dwarf relationships. Sorry, but Elves and Dwarfs simply don't fall in love, ever. It's contrary to both of their natures by everything that we know about the races from Tolkien. Therefore, it is contrary to Nature itself. That means the very idea is just too damn kinky for Tolkien's world. HOW IT COULD HAVE WORKED: Tauriel strikes up a simple friendship with Kili. That's perfectly plausible as we know from Legolas's later friendship with Gimli (and Kili is quite likable, maybe TOO likable for a dwarf). Legolas could have been indignant that Tauriel was friends with a dwarf. That would have been a wonderfully ironic stance for Legolas in light of future events. It would have added depth to Legolas's character across the trilogies, as would have his relationship with Tauriel. But the "love triangle" angle is preposterous on its face. 2.) The decision to go full CGI with the baddies. I'm sure that the gray guy chasing the dwarfs around for most of the film will be a fine villain in the video game, but Lurtz from The Fellowship of the Ring was FAR more menacing because he had a real presence in the form of a real flesh and blood actor playing him on screen. Jackson just blew it in the basic decision process here. In a tendency which is visible even in the LotR trilogy, and which has grown in every film since then, he is letting his movie-making toys gradually overwhelm his simple movie- making good sense. This has not been a happy trend for him, in my estimation. RANDOM GRIPES: --Smaug was the most interesting character in the film, as in the book. No problem. But why am I more impressed with the dragon from Dragonslayer of 32 years ago than with the smooth CGI creation here? --I hated the whole Lake Town sequence. It was depressingly ridiculous. --Why don't these dwarfs have BEARDS?? Even young dwarfs have BEARDS-- long, flowing beards-- not just a few random whiskers. --Decide, Peter. Are the dwarfs hardy adventurers or bumbling clowns? They can't be both. It throws the tone off. --It is perfectly clear from Tolkien's writings that Gandalf enters Dol Guldur by stealth. He is flat out forbidden by the Valar to match power with power against the Enemy. We don't need Gandalf to try to be some bad ass hero dude. He needs to be smart, know his limitations, and work with the White Council. Sauron was sort of cool, but the sequence was not. I will dutifully go to see the third film, also, but I won't care to ever see any of these films again, in all probability. Final gripe: spell check keeps changing d*w*a*r*v*e*s to "dwarfs." Sigh...
Inland Empire (2006)
Lynch has apparently lost his mind
This will not be an in depth review. Suffice to say, I thought this film to be a muddled mess. Maybe it makes sense somewhere in David Lynch's tortured mind, but nowhere else. I honestly felt that Lynch made this film while having some sort of psychotic episode. I was baffled, which is not a bad thing, but also very irritated by the film, and that IS a bad thing. What there was of plot was incoherent and confusing. I do admit that there were some interesting visual images, which one would expect from Lynch, and Laura Dern gives an earnest performance of whatever it was her character was supposed to be doing, but there were long sequences which induced me to want to fast forward the film. I refrained because this is "David Lynch." I kept thinking, "At some point it will all make sense. Just stick with it." Alas. I have enjoyed many of Lynch's films before this, for all of their flaws, but on the whole, I don't care if I never come anywhere near seeing this film again. One more thing, and I don't think this counts as a spoiler: Rabbits?????
Compulsion (2013)
Lacks identity
This is really two movies which have been hacked apart and sewn back together--like Frankenstein's monster, but with vital parts left out. It could have been a pretty funny black comedy if it had simply played out the character of Amy (Heather Graham). Or it could have been a darkly tragic story of a ruined life with Saffron (Carrie-Anne Moss). Instead, it can't decide what it wants to be, tries to do both, and fails at both. It never strikes any sort of real balance, lurching from low-key comedy to emotionally wrenching child abuse. Near the end, the characters' alliance seems grafted together, rather than natural, relying upon what I can only call a denouement gimmick to close things out. All of the actors do well with their parts. I particularly enjoyed Heather Graham when her character was indulging in her flights of fancy. Carrie-Anne Moss gives everything, but really ought to be in a better movie than this. I know nothing of the Korean original, but surely it was better done than this remake. I give as many as 5 stars because the actors try hard, Heater Graham is a feast for the eyes, and there is some yummy food preparation.
No Place on Earth (2012)
Fascinating story very well presented
It's a compelling human drama of survival against almost insurmountable odds. The documentary aspects are seamlessly interwoven with very authentic-feeling dramatic re-enactments which give the viewer a strong sense of watching history as it unfolds. I found the film compelling both in its technical aspects and its subject matter. Most remarkable is that the story is largely told by those who actually lived it. The difficulties, dangers, and privations they faced are unimaginable without their testimony. This film is an important historical document and should be far better known than it is. I am dismayed by and a little suspicious of the low IMDb score this film currently has (5.9). I don't normally bother with rating films myself and have never bothered before with a review. I felt compelled to add my rating to the mix in order to restore some balance, and I write this to assure anyone interested in history that this film is far better and more important than its mediocre overall rating implies.