Change Your Image
daveinpublic-279-224878
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
The Next Three Days (2010)
Believable and intense
I love it when an action movie makes me feel like the events are really taking place.
Tenet (2020)
A movie that hides behind confusion
Sometimes great movies are confusing. But that definitely doesn't mean that confusing movies are great. One can't help but wonder throughout the lengthy film if the lack of explanation is a means to hide a lack of depth, and even a lack of almost any story at all.
SPOILER WARNING: The movie is basically this, a man discovers that certain nuclear reactions cause objects to reverse in time. Then we get introduced to people who happened to be the ones who encountered the radioactive material, and they've been receiving gold shipments from themselves in the future. We never learn anything more. We know that the main character decides to use the nuclear material to go backwards in time, and continues to go back further at the end of the movie. And Robert Pattinson tells us that they met a long time ago in the past, and they got into some stuff, and they're best friends, but we don't actually get to see any of that, we're just told it happened.
The entire movie is just basically watching this incredibly simple plot unfold. They hide the plot behind having to break in here, an army fights there, there's an art dealer who knows more here, and so on, but it doesn't actually add to the plot.
Gisaengchung (2019)
Original movie, Great directing, Smart writing
What I love about this movie... it's a blast to watch, very original, and the directing is some of the best. The originality is a huge plus to me, because it feels like there's not much of it to go around right now.
But as far as the negative (I'll spend a little longer on this because theirs so much praise already).. I feel like all the best drama in the movie feels manufactured. I felt like the director had the poor father stab the rich one for a dramatic conclusion, whether it was justified or not, a mechanism to show the movie had some dramatic point. Almost hamfisted in, but never organically produced.
The rich family behaved like bosses in a typical work environment. Seemed dismissive at times, even gullible, but in many ways, incredibly generous and trusting, if not creating opportunity and doing more good than required. The director may say, there's no good guys and bad guys, but, shouldn't we at least feel like theirs a motive behind the final killing? I should have been thinking, I hope he doesn't kill him, I hope he doesn't kill him.. but instead I was just thinking, why is this disgruntled cab driver grabbing a knife to kill the rich father of all people? There's a murderer who just killed his son, who is being carried through the courtyard by the rich daughter of all people, trying to get him some help. The rich father commented that he liked the cheap panties, but that didn't relate to the message at all, he didn't even know they were the driver's daughter's. Seemed like a cheap inclusion to build motive for the dramatic killing. Did he look down on the family? Not really, he was a boss and was even caring, and didn't even know they were a family. The poor father stabbing him in front of everyone put his own family at risk and hurt their ability to function even further, and although you knew he was upset, it didn't feel like that level of aggression worked with his character at this point in the film.
Overall, the message didn't come across succinctly. I think the director would probably say, the rich should be more aware of the pains in the community. So no-one can ever have something nice, ever again, until everyone is rich. The only way this rich family could have over come their flaws, is if they had ensured that everyone in the world had a good day the day before.
If I want to get really critical, I would say that the director wanted to make a funny, political, and scary movie, and therefore threw in random scenes to sensationalize his script. Like when the old maid comes to the door... of course they wouldn't let her in if the movie was being honest. And that's what enabled all the incredible drama, was this poor decision made with unclear motivation. They're all hanging out inside, eating food, broken bottles on the floor, openly making a mess of the the house for the first time, this could blow their whole operation they meticulous planned, and were cunning and quick on their feet in every other scene, but they decide to let her inside always, oh well. Could have just told her to come back? So, then they find a poor family living downstairs, which is random and sort of unrelated to the story and the point of it... but they find a poor guy there and so the protagonist mother decides to turn them in. What needs to happen to create the next sensational moment? Well, if the family living downstairs were to just happen to discover the entire secret of the poor family before the mother calls the cops in 5 seconds, then we could have a fight to the death. What happens next? Well, the entire family comes tumbling down the stairs and the downstairs family gets video proof of them referring to each other by their family names, etc. If any of those random, highly unlikely, and unrelated elements don't happen in this short sequence, the entire movie ends with the family making a little money as an uber driver, a maid, and 2 tutors. But, the movie needed to go bigger. So, we have these unintuitive moments driven by unclear motives tacked on to ensure we get the killing and dark moments and dramatic political messages that can only be found in the second half. Now we've got the pieces, at the expense of depth. Almost seems like a fun, silly movie with random political narratives to increase the clout. Like it's a movie that's supposed to make you feel good, because you just got to watch a comedy, a thriller, and then became a better person because of the mechanically meaningful scenes. I mean, if this is how you make a great movie, you could literally use this as a template, because again, it could be a manufacturing process. But since the feeling of moral fulfillment comes by way of cheap design, and gives a bit of hollowness to the final experience.
So, I rate this 8! 8 because of the direction and originality. 2 stars gone because of the artificial nature of the climax. I don't like crapping on a movie this good, but it's off my chest now and there's plenty of positive reviews, so I'll leave some of that to them. :)
Once Upon a Time in... Hollywood (2019)
I don't give a lot of 10s
This was a refreshing change. Not a movie you'll see churned out every other day. I think some people don't get it, for reasons I put below. It doesn't follow a tried and tested formula. It meanders, and that's why I like it. To me, it became clear after a while, that because Tarantino both writes and directs, he's giving the viewer a full experience. That's what movies are for.
This movie is BEAUTIFULLY shot. Was really impressed at not only the cinematography, but the color correction. I don't know how Tarantino seems to charge each scene with such fullness of color and effortless blocking and composition. It makes it fun to just sit back and take a ride with Brad Pitt or watch Leo learning his lines. And the thing that surprised me most, was the originality of the ending.
I won't give away any spoilers, but something that I don't think a lot of people here get, is the history of the Manson Family and the murder of actress Sharon Tate and four others in her home on August 8 and 9, 1969. If you don't know it, please give yourself a short history lesson before watching. It won't ruin any surprises in the movie, it's a bit painful to read, but will give the movie much more meaning if you know. Otherwise, it may feel very random. But learn about it, and you'll understand why the movie got it's title.
Robin Hood (2018)
Had low expectations, was pleasantly surorised
I wish there was a better way to rate movies. Some people compare every movie to Lawrence of Arabia. But, there should be a way to rate a movie against the kind of movie it's supposed to be. This is like Robin Hood meets modern action movie. It's not a movie with a lot of drama and period pieces and plot twists. But it's not trying to be those things. It's trying to be like a ?Vin Diesel vehicle for an old time story. Some will like it, some won't. The plot isn't very thick, but it matters where it needs to. The action is great. And the main actor did a great job.
Star Trek: Discovery (2017)
I like Star Wars, so I'm sad to give 4 stars
This movie is basically one long to do list. They say, this engine failed so this other backup engine needs to be started, this broke so we need to find a tool to fix it, they're gone so we need to beam them up, but there's geography in the way so we need to move here, on and on.... it's like a joke after a while. Is that what they think sci fi is? You just distract the people who bother to watch with a long laundry list of items for James T.? Oh, and they try to spice it up with the old... is so and so going to retire after this, and other stuff like that, which just feels like they're not even trying. This move should not be called Discovery, because the movie isn't about discovery, it's about movie tropes. Did they really say, we need a distraction, again? One thing I'll say positively, and why I gave it a few stars, is the graphics are beautiful. They're not the most creative I've ever seen, but they're done tastefully and what's there looks realistic. Also, the cast seems to know that this movie's plot is tiresome, and I get the impression from everyone that they're not too excited to be on set. Seems so often like the script writers are the weakest link on these movies. Can't we crowd source a script or something? Kind of like graphics have gotten better, can't the scripts get better, too?
Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018)
Better than the first Jurassic World
Let's get the negative out of the way, Chris Pratt wasn't having his best performance, the plot has a few holes, and there's way too many long, dramatic looks at the camera... but if you look at the movie overall, it's a bold entry into the series. It doesn't follow the same progression as the others. Not just in storyline, but in the pacing, and the visuals, and the unfolding of the story. You get to see the dinosaurs in new environments and in interesting setups, that make you genuinely curious what will happen next. Definitely worth the cost if admission.
Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018)
Not bad, but follows the same formula as other new Star Wars movies
The past 3 Star Wars movies have been disappointing. I know that the reviews were pretty good, and they made billions, but those reviews come from the 'professional' critics. If you look at IMDB and see the actual movie goers reviews, especially the die hards, it wasn't what they wanted. Disney got away with it 3 times, but people are learning. It's just more of the same formula.
The formula is... some character in a movie goes through a challenge, and at the end, the character's story arc connects with a previous episode or they have a happy ending or a PC message is related. Either way, they basically have the beginning and the end, now they can lazily connect the dots through some random stuff that happens in space and doesn't follow laws, previous info, or make sense. They do this over and over. ** SPOILERS ** Han Solo has to get back to the bad guy. How do we make it interesting? Put a maelstrom in his way. Why does he have to get back fast? Well, of course the unrefined energy will blow up in 17 parsecs. Then put a giant star fighter in the way. He gets around it by going into the maelstrom. What now? Put a giant octopus in their way. How can we get rid of this giant octopus? Put a giant black hole next to it that the octopus can be sucked into. This continues for a while.
The movies feel hollow because of this. In Rogue One, there was some giant satellite that needed to be pointed one direction. It wasn't even in the story up until then, it wasn't explained, it was just space jargon that you're not supposed to get and then they'll explain that friendship is important and that will make sure the movie has a message and is worth watching. If you criticize the movie, you don't like friendship.
That being said, I think this movie was a little better than the other 3, but will still leave you with some of that hollow feeling. Like it wasn't a story, just a product.
Pacific Rim Uprising (2018)
A monster movie without spectacle
The fact that computer graphics in this movie were worse than the original, which came out 5 years ago, is an achievement. The original had far better character design, mood lighting, camera movement, etc. The amount of detail in the original was exceptional, all the way down to the monster's internal organs in jars. Amd important to the premise, the giants on screen felt larger than any other monsters we'd seen on the screen at the time. The monsters and robots in this movie could have been exchanged with those from any other movie that came out this year, they didn't feel large for lack of discipline by the director, and the character development would have fit especially well in suicide squad. This movie feels like the dollar store version of the original. Did the budget get quartered perhaps? The blame must fall with the director. I hope this series doesn't fall too much farther.
Get Out (2017)
Was pretty good
I liked the visual style of the movie, but wasn't too excited about the screenplay. A quick summary: A black man is dating a white girl... they go to a southern town to meet her parents who he thinks will be racist, but she tells him they won't be. While there, he meets a lot of their white family and friends who think black people are physically stronger, more agile in things like jiu jitsu, and are better endowed than white people. We learn that the mother can hypnotize people and allows her racist white friends to live in the black bodies they desire to. In this movie, the white people are racists who think black people are physically superior, literally not figurative. One time, the white girl laughs and blushes because her family is 'so white'. He laughs it off and says it's all good. To me, it felt a bit shallow. I understand that in our current culture, this is more permissible than the opposite, but Jordan, the director, needs to understand that he's raising a generation of movie goers of the opposite race on the same thing he grew up on, only the opposite. White kids are going to think that being white automatically makes them guilty and physically inferior. From his point of view, it's probably not much compared to the racism he grew up on, but still, the kids watching this movie didn't do those things to him. Feels like he's taking the racism dialogue in the wrong direction. He did a good job on the shot composition, color correction, music, etc, but he needs to find more elegant solutions to address the racial inequality he sees around him.
Mother! (2017)
Tries a little too hard
The director succeeded in making something mysterious and complex, but lacking in depth. I found the movie enjoyable on many levels, though difficult to watch at times because of the emotional darkness and graphic scenes. I wish I could give it more stars, but in the end, I felt the movie didn't respect the audience enough. It was looking down on them, and even had built-in defense mechanisms. It was built for high ratings, and contrived to convert low rating into controversy. I personally thought it should get neither a high nor a low rating. It was a movie with a great idea and brooding atmosphere, but was somewhat dragged down by the acting of Jennifer Lawrence who appeared much too self aware and the execution of the allegory felt mechanical. But, the energy of the movie picked up by the end, with the final scene that included the newborn making for a masterful ending. Javier Bardem was excellent, as well.
Director Darren Aronofsky ticked all the boxes for artistry and mystique, but forgot to invite the audience along. If creating a classic movie was as easy as ticking boxes, the box office would be littered with them.
Boyhood (2014)
Pleasant surprise
I saw all the 1 star reviews before I decided to rent this movie. I wanted to see the movie because they filmed the boy for 12 years, so I figured I'd get it. Surprisingly, this movie is not a one trick pony - as evidenced by its best picture win. It draws you in very quickly. This movie is about an intimate view of a family you soon fall in love with. Think of it more like a Forest Gump that doesn't take itself as seriously in that it has a continuing story line, like a teen movie mixed with an epic drama. There is no simple plot line, like, we found out the mayor stole the deed to the land because oil was on it! But it's about seeing the world through the eyes of someone else for a while, and you come out feeling like you know yourself a little better in the end.
God's Not Dead (2014)
Better than I expected...
This movie is the reason why review sites like this don't work. As soon as a movie with polarizing opinions comes out, all walks of people with an opposing view give a zero star review to 'offset' all the 10 star reviews from people who agree. And whoever has the most people on their side wins the 'star wars'. Well, this movie wasn't a 10 or a 0 star movie first of all, but it was much better than what I expected. I actually loved that I was able to see the raw views of the writer and director with no filter, and I could enjoy to for what it was. As far as the logic behind the inevitable argument as to whether god exists or not, many people seem to be rating the movie on how well the student explained it. This movie isn't about whether or not we walk away believing him and how sound his logic was, it's about seeing the emotion surrounding religion. How much it affects everyone. In the end, I was glad I chose to see it, there's a lot more to it than an argument about religion.
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011)
Well-made movie, but the plot wasn't as good as you think it will be
I think the cinematography and acting made the movie seem more intellectual than it was. I never read the book, but unlike others, I was still able to understand the movie. I don't think it was intellectually challenging because of the plot's depth, but from a lack of explanation and splicing elements from the entire time line in random order. Some scenes, like the main investigator, Smiley, wading in a pond outside, were never explained or integrated into the plot.
I had a hard time understanding some of the plot, not because it was too complex, but because it didn't make sense. To recap, Ricki Tarr is sent from the British Intelligence Agency (the Circus) to investigate a Russian guy Boris on a routine job, who is really just a sort of Soviet decoy. Ricki Tarr falls in love with Boris' 'wife' Irene who happens to be a Soviet operative. Firstly, why would the Soviets send a Soviet operative with this kind of sensitive information along with a decoy? Tarr finds out that there is a spy in the Circus from Irene, which is the mother load of all mother loads - yet, he doesn't keep Irene in a safe place (she gets caught, tortured, killed), he simply sends it by wire to anyone who will receive it at the Intelligence Agency, where he knows the spy is. Tarr, "I know there's a spy somewhere in the Intelligence Agency,so I'll send a wire to the Intelligence Agency letting them know." Then, the record of that wire was removed from the books alerting Smiley, the future investigator of all this, that there really is a spy. But, what motivation did the spy have to remove that from the books? It was sent by wire, everyone knows it was sent, but the spy risks confirming the validity of the claim by removing the record of the wire? But, after the Circus are aware that there is a spy, a guy by the name of Jim Prideaux is sent by the Circus' ringleader to learn the name of the spy from a Soviet general willing to sell the info. When you find out there's a spy, you find the name of the spy by paying a willing person on the opposing side, easy stuff, not exactly mind bending. This would have solved the mystery, and the movie would have been over. So, Jim Prideaux does one last thing before he goes to find out the name of the spy in the Circus, he tells his best friend in the Circus, Haydon!... Why not? They're friends, I mean you can tell that because they're both smiling in a picture together at one point. And I'm sure they watched Winston Churchill on the TV all the time, too. Too bad Haydon was the spy. I guess that's what happens when you tell your friend who has a 20% chance of being a spy that you're going to find out if he's a spy. Of course Prideaux did this because he subconsciously was trying to save Haydon, hmmmm. Haydon tells the Soviets about Prideaux and they grab him and torture him. Then, for some reason, he is presumed dead because he was shot once. A few months later he withdraws money in one of his code names. Later on this will alert Smiley that he's still alive. Now Smiley is getting smart! The twists and turns aren't too complex. Some of the Circus is restructured after this 'fiasco' where one agent is killed, Smiley is let go, and other people are fired. The people who are at the top now are people who have established a name for themselves by creating project Witchcraft, an organization that trades sensitive information about each others countries under the auspices of being double agents, but are actually triple agents? Apparently everyone gives up on trying to find the spy at this point. So to recap, Tarr learned of a spy, they send an agent to find the spy's name, that agent is killed, and they give up after that. Time passes, and Smiley is brought in to investigate the people fired around that time. Smiley is actually a suspect himself because he worked at the Circus when all this happened, so why did they have him investigate? He learns what I've just said through interviewing people. Then he has an idea that project Witchcraft is not just a place where we give 'chicken feed' Intel in exchange for incredible Intel, it's where the spy from the Circus gives 'chicken tenders' or real deal Intel. I don't how he got that idea. Once he thinks that the home where project Witchcraft is located is the place where the Circus spy gives sensitive Intel to the Soviets, he does the old, feed them Intel and wait for the spy to transmit the Intel. To me, the plot wasn't too deep. Someone finds out there's a spy, they send an agent to find the spies name, that doesn't work because the agent happened to tell the spy before he went and found out the spy's name. The new investigator feeds intelligence and waits where he thinks the spy exchanges information. I feel like the story is aggrandized by the cinematography, atmospheric England, acting (though I expected more). The plot was a little thin, had holes, didn't introduce anything new. Maybe that's why they had to make it difficult to follow, to hide the imperfections.
I still can't help but like the movie. It was a mental exercise to follow the plot, which gave me the same kind of enjoyment I get from playing Sudoku. I'm a fan of some of the actors. I really liked the locations - the smoky party room, the odd orange padded walls of the intelligence agency. The director took his time with the movie. I think between him and the actors, the movie still worked.