bnitcamela Reviews

The Consultant (2023)

Disappointing.

[5/10 · 25 February 2023]

There is nothing believable about this short series. If you accept that going in, you will have a much more positive opinion of it from about midway through to the (thoroughly unsatisfying) end.

Christoph Waltz - his presence, his demeanor, his acting - can only salvage so much and the writers/producers left too much on his plate to turn this utterly forgettable miniseries into something special. Don't get me wrong, the supporting cast does fine; better than average really. But the sum of the parts is just not very compelling.

Now let me throw in that I've heard about the novel and the author of the novel (and his other books - highly touted by Stephen King, a very haughty recommendation indeed), but I haven't read it/them. However, I'm suspecting that the writers and producers of the Amazon series must have missed on something very key to the message in the original story as it was told. Something's just off. In many cases concerning TV shows and movies there's already a need to suspend disbelief, especially if the audience is going to need to accept what they see as a metaphor or other device intended to convey a larger message. And I sense that "The Consultant" may have been such a story in the original print, but it's nothing even remotely like that in how Amazon has put it on the screen.

Obligatory disclaimer - Yes, it's entertaining enough to watch to the end. Yes, it's visually well done. And yes, it's professionally produced. But there is something major missing and by the 8th and final episode, I found myself not caring what happened to anyone involved because, frankly, nothing remotely realistic or believable in real human terms had happened.

"The Consultant" doesn't know what it is trying to be and it's painfully obvious. I trust that more who actually watch the whole thing will agree with me than will disagree.

4.5 rounded to 5 stars on the aggregate.

Stranger (2022)

Complete Amateur Hour

[3/10 · 7 February 2023]

The funny thing about this flick is what caused me to totally give up on it. Was it the wooden acting? No. How about the terrible sound design/soundtrack? Nope. Or the casting where they made an obvious fail in using a dude about the same age as the lead actor as "the creepy old guy."

No, it was the ridiculously amateur, intelligence insulting background radio dialog/announcing during two separate car trips. On the way to the store and back for some pasta that they forgot (3 boxes???), the radio in the SUV plays in the background and provides what seems like expository information. But it was so friggin amateur! The announcer is talking about a trail that the community had voted to fund re-opening after a girl had fallen down while jogging. The mayor is mentioned, but not his or her name like you'd hear on any local radio station. No. Just "the mayor" says this...the "opposition leader" says that...Then they get to the weather. When reading the weekly forecast do they use the standard "The high temp will be 72 and the low temp will be 65"? No, they say "The maximum will be 72 and the minimum will be 65 as we watch the skies for you in this already hot summer..." NOBODY reads a weather forecast like that in the United States. It's THE HIGH WILL BE or THE LOW WILL BE.

But seriously that really isn't the only reason this movie is terrible, of course. All of those things I mentioned in my opening paragraph are true. The acting is wooden, the casting is a fail, the sound design is garbage, the cinematography is puzzlingly disjointed and in many places not even relevant to what's happening in the story (of which there is not much of one).

Take note of the overhead drone footage of the forest as they drive into the mountains headed to the cabin. Hmmm....where have we seen this before? Ominous music playing as we see the tops of pine trees (going in multiple directions?!) and an aerial view of a car with a couple inside. All that was missing was Danny and his imaginary friend. Just a terrible job of trying to ape Kubrick for absolutely no reason. Then there are the lingering camera shots when the character has left the frame as the camera then slowly changes focus to the background in an ominous manner while spooky music plays where......there's nobody whatsoever present! What is the point of this?

This is 3rd year film school quality at best. Do not waste your money or time on this garbage. The literal only good thing I can say about it is that the lead actress is pretty attractive. That's it.

3/10.

Playing Frisbee in North Korea (2018)

I really wanted to like or at least appreciate this

[2/10 · 31 January 2023]

I'm pretty fascinated with the so-called Hermit Kingdom of North Korea. It has a rich history dominated by colonization and wars, primarily with Japan and I truly feel for the people who live there and are forced to stay. I try to watch as much footage of people inside DPRK as I can because I can't quite decide yet whether this fawning obsequiousness and over the top emotion for that country's leader(s) is merely people acting out a fiction because they know they must in order for their families to survive, or whether at least some of them are truly that brainwashed after years and years of nonstop programming.

In any case, I was very much looking forward to this film and the first hint that it would not be what I was looking for came in the opening credits where it was listed as a project supported/funded by the Colin Powell School for "Civic and Global Leadership" which itself is a neocon/neolib propaganda generation and indoctrination operation.

The first 30-40 minutes of the movie were OK if a bit slow. The director leaves any textual material on the screen for WAY TOO LONG; almost as if it was made for audiences "of all ages" (including young children) or people who are not proficient at reading. The narrator begins as she enters North Korea from China in the north of the country and she talks about the experience while sometimes filming from the tour bus in an unauthorized manner. The DPRK 'minder' (people who accompany foreigners in NK and closely monitor/guide their activity) warned her about it but it seems as though she kept on recording. It's also hard to tell how much of this footage is really from other peoples' works, because it's obvious much of it wasn't recorded on the narrator/director's trip.

As with any DPRK related material, we are reminded of how bad it is there, the cult of personality that the original revolutionary communist government devolved into over the years and that there was a war that divided north and south back in the 50s. As such, it's fine by my book because as I mentioned to start, I want all the footage from inside DPRK and of its people that I can get. I like to look at the psychology of it all. But then things took a left turn.

We are then guided through the different versions of the war between north and south and told how the north is telling lies to its citizens about who really began the shooting on June 25th early in the morning. The south side gets to go last and thus the message is that it's the US/SK official version of events that is correct and all other contextual detail can be ignored - i.e., the north started the war, as a complete surprise, unprovoked, and in brutal fashion. As a student of history I can tell you that this is not the case at all. The Colin Powell neocon folks couldn't help themselves and decided to turn a movie about a very propagandized society into a propaganda vehicle of their own.

A quick summary of what really happened to start the Korean War is as follows:

Mark E. Caprio, professor of history at Rikkyo University in Tokyo, points out:

"On February 8, 1949, the South Korean president met with Ambassador John Muccio and Secretary of the Army Kenneth C. Royall in Seoul. Here the Korean president listed the following as justifications for initiating a war with the North: the South Korean military could easily be increased by 100,000 if it drew from the 150,000 to 200,000 Koreans who had recently fought with the Japanese or the Nationalist Chinese. Moreover, the morale of the South Korean military was greater than that of the North Koreans. If war broke out he expected mass defections from the enemy. Finally, the United Nations' recognition of South Korea legitimized its rule over the entire peninsula (as stipulated in its constitution). Thus, he concluded, there was "nothing to be gained by waiting."

also

As to who did in reality fire that shot, Bruce Cumings, head of the history department at the University of Chicago, gave us the definitive answer in his two-volume The Origins of the Korean War, and The Korean War: A History: the Korean war started during the American occupation of the South, and it was Rhee, with help from his American sponsors, who initiated a series of attacks that well preceded the North Korean offensive of 1950. From 1945-1948, American forces aided Rhee in a killing spree that claimed tens of thousands of victims: the counterinsurgency campaign took a high toll in Kwangju, and on the island of Cheju-do - where as many as 60,000 people were murdered by Rhee's US-backed forces.

Rhee's army and national police were drawn from the ranks of those who had collaborated with the Japanese occupation during World War II, and this was the biggest factor that made civil war inevitable. That the US backed these quislings guaranteed widespread support for the Communist forces led by Kim IL Sung, and provoked the rebellion in the South that was the prelude to open North-South hostilities. Rhee, for his part, was eager to draw in the United States, and the North Koreans, for their part, were just as eager to invoke the principle of "proletarian internationalism" to draw in the Chinese and the Russians.

So there we have it. A film with a good premise but too much ideological baggage thus bringing nothing new to the table, including no interviews with actual North Koreans, no unique or novel footage of the country, and definitely nothing new to say about the situation.

Sadly, I cannot recommend. There are better DPRK documentaries out there. 2/10 for being a neocon Trojan Horse rather than an honest documentary.

Bezos (2023)

Pointless hagiography of Jeff Bezos on his own platform

[2/10 · 27 January 2023]

First off, this was not a good film. Nothing new here at all for anyone who's watched TV like Silicon Valley and other startup related content. The direction is clumsy and flawed and there isn't enough interesting going on to make it worth watching. Of course if you want to learn how Jeff Bezos thinks of himself and his life, by all means watch this movie because it beats spending days reading a book on the topic.

But there is nothing adversarial at all going on here either. In order to become a multi-billionaire and own a monopolistic corporation like Amazon, many people and small businesses have to be hurt along the way, not to mention the environment. What would have made this movie interesting would have been the portrayal of how Bezos personally dealt with issues like overworked employees, the unionization (or attempts) of various warehouse/distro facilities, the lobbying efforts and countless dollars spent buying US government representatives and senators, the foray by Amazon's hosting and data divisions into extra-constitutional government surveillance of Americans by way of taxpayer funded contracts with the Defense Department/Pentagon/NSA, the way Bezos decided how to game a lot of Amazon sellers out of revenue through various algorithmic quackery or straight up ripping off ideas (one wonders if Bezos had any role in the Amazon Basics brand that offers knockoffs of already fine products), etc.

Instead we get a hagiography with a little nod thrown in for his ex-wife. We don't get to learn why he decided to become "buff" or the efforts he is making in biological sciences/cybernetics/etc. To try to live forever, his competition with Elon Musk regarding the aforementioned government contracts, the race to mars, or any of it.

Two word summary of this movie: Pointless Hagiography.

The Boys in Red Hats (2021)

Meh, where to begin?

[6/10 · 21 December 2022]

The filmmaker in this case is a documentarian for NatGeo, although I've never seen any of his previous films. This was important to me because this movie, like the incident it is based on, is incredibly sloppy and full of cloying attempts to present "both sides" of the story. IMHO, he tries too hard to virtue signal to everyone involved while pretending he isn't doing so.

We start off with the infamous events that occurred on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial back in 2019 where one member of a rowdy group of catholic school boys is shown by the MSM to the whole country (and world) in a manner that completely lacks any meaningful context. The director walks us through his own initial reaction to the incomplete story and then goes about providing the missing details that put an entirely different spin on what went down. As it happens, this group of school boys were in Washington D. C. to protest abortion and on top of that many were donning red MAGA hats. They were accosted by a group of Black Hebrew Israelites (BHI from here on), a notoriously confrontational and anti-Semitic group of radical African Americans. After responding to the BHI with a school chant/fight song, things appear to be escalating and a guy posing as a Native American tribal elder attempts to intervene by beating his peace drum as he inches closer and closer to the group of boys; one in particular by the name of Sandmann (is it really pronounced Sand Man?) who has decided to insert himself into the situation by moving from the middle of the group toward the front, the line of contact. As we've all seen millions of times in the viral video and pictures, Sandmann appears to smirk condescendingly in the face of the would-be tribal elder while wearing his red MAGA hat. That was the totality of the story presented to us on day one, but was eventually corrected on the following day by most outlets who did the one-sided reporting/sharing.

From there, the film decides to analyze both sides of the complete picture starting with a profile of the Catholic school that the boys attend, Covington Catholic HS (annoyingly always referred to as CovCath) which is located in northern suburban Kentucky. It so happens that the director is an alumnus of this "elite" private religious prep academy so he presents himself as uniquely able to do a deep dive into that institution, its history and its traditions. His viewpoint is offset by his co-producer, who comes at the project from a decidedly anti-Trump SJW angle in a manner that only occasionally verges on offensive or totally wrong.

We are informed that the director was once punched in the forehead by a well respected teacher at "CovCath" (in front of a whole classroom, BTW) and that he never reported it due to fear of reprisals, in part because he was not upper class as most of the students there were/are, but was only allowed to attend on a football scholarship. This is a mostly needless diversion from the main story and they don't do a good job of integrating it into the overall film, IMO. If anything, it is an example of how close knit and insular the CovCath community is, the (often unearned) respect given to older male authority figures, and how they keep things confined to their "bubble."

That aside, we also learn that the Native American participant in the events is largely a fraud and has been caught lying about several important things in his past, which casts immediate doubt on his claims that, among other offensive things, the boys were chanting "build the wall" (they weren't) on national TV the following day. However, as we are all human and nobody is perfect, the director presents a different Native American analyst who explains the significance of the drum, tells us that most Native Americans are in fact offended by the "Indian" chanting and tomahawk chopping motions in American sports, not to mention team names like the Redskins (since changed to the Commanders) and Seminoles. Fair enough, as the CovCath boys were in fact mocking (?) the chants of the Native Americans and making tomahawk gestures at him; facts clearly evident from the complete video. This delves into a societal issue of (white) privilege as it specifically pertains to how Native Americans are treated and how their culture has been historically disrespected and nearly wiped out. But that's a sidebar.

As we continue, we hear from some current members of the CovCath community, including some of the chaperones that were with the kids on the day of the incident, parents, current and former students and a former teacher. Interestingly the current student's identity is carefully hidden to prevent the kinds of threats and harassment that allegedly happened to Sandmann - and also likely to prevent any further litigation, as - at the time - the Sandmann family's various defamation suits were making their way through the court system (more on this in a bit). The general message received is that there was absolutely nothing wrong with how the students, chaperones and school comported itself that day, as well as a defense of the overall moral compass and traditions of CovCath. Problematically, after the full context of the main incident was disseminated, other things began to emerge about the school. For one thing a tradition of ____(insert color)-Out (ex. White-out, Blue-out, and Black-out) rituals for certain sporting events during the school year. Initially they explain themselves very well; after all, they point out that it's not just "black face" they engage in, but many other colors as well. This narrative unravels a bit when we learn that on Black-out days in particular, numerous students captured on video not only have their entire bodies painted black, but have also adopted the contrasting white lines around their eyes and mouths, which is a direct not to actual blackface and racist minstrel shows. Whooops. And yet no apologies or even an acknowledgement that this is seen as problematic by many, including African Americans are forthcoming.

By this point in the movie's run time, things are a little disorganized. The director spends much time insisting to the audience that he's trying his darndest to interview both Sandmann and the Native American in person. One wonders what this would accomplish in the first place since we already have video interview footage of both from the days after the incident. He gets a hard "NO" from the Sandmanns (through their attorneys) and ends up driving 5 hours to the home of the Native American who is, as most of us would be, upset that his address has been located and potentially included in a documentary film.

But back to the original reason this movie was made in the first place, the film does an OK job of exposing the CovCath community's seeming blindered view on society and history, which includes notable privelege and resources, and one admits off camera that they are happy in their bubble. I don't quite know where I stand on some things, even after finishing this film. Clearly CovCath is a religious Catholic school and the teachings of the Catholic Church are clear on abortion. I also don't see a problem in a general sense of getting kids involved in activism and exercising their first amendment right to free speech and peaceable assembly to demonstrate for or against a cause. But when they also decide to take the provocative (and despite their denials, they knew darn well it was a provocation) step of donning the red MAGA hat, it becomes problematic for me.

First, why get kids involved in situations like this in the first place when the vast majority of them aren't old or learned enough to really understand politics outside of what they hear at home and likely at school? There is no way that these boys understand the real history of the United States or any of the nuances of the loaded message sent by embracing the "make America great again" ethos, which to anyone who does understand history knows means "make America white again" (or various equivalents). There is no way they understand Trump's actual politics, and I see no reason for a bunch of kids to show up to a demonstration on an entirely different topic (abortion) carrying with them an additional political message, especially during such a fraught time and in Washington D. C. which is far more diverse (both in terms of income and ethnicity) than Covington, Kentucky. But this falls mainly on the chaperones/parents involved. Who made the dumb decision to allow (let alone encourage) a bunch of 15-18 year olds to go out and buy MAGA hats and to flaunt them as a provocation (again, this is undeniable - think of how many times you've seen someone just yell "TRUMP" in someone else's face as though it's a big middle finger). These adults are either completely naïve to reality or they are willing participants/enablers in a provocation that does nothing to help their intended anti-abortion message.

As the story continues we learn that the Sandmann family and their team of lawyers have filed numerous lawsuits against various media outlets seeking huge sums of money. On this note, it is common lore among "conservatives" I know and online that, among others, CNN settled for a massive amount of money, however this isn't true. While the terms of the settlement are technically protected by an NDA, those with knowledge of the matter assure us that no more than legal fees were agreed upon, and just from CNN. All the other suits have been summarily dismissed and tossed out of court in the time since this film was made. Regardless, Sandmann and his family were the only party to initiate any sort of legal claims; something all the other non-CovCath parties don't have the resources to pursue. CovCath essentially has doubled down and refused outside diversity training and continues to exist in its comfortable upper- and upper-middle class bubble of its choosing. The director doesn't provide any further closure or the idea he's really learned anything.

The Menu (2022)

In keeping with the theme of "eat the rich"...

[7/10 · 27 November 2022]

"The Menu" pulls few punches as it takes aim at society's ultra-wealthy. First off, I almost feel like I need to watch it again so that I catch all the subtle clues and details. There is a lot of overlapping dialogue as well, so perhaps once it's available to stream I'll grab a copy and turn on the subtitles. It wasn't easy to tell who was talking to whom in some places (strangely, this is also an issue with the other current "eat the rich" film, "Triangle of Sadness" which I recommend if you liked this one).

The score is pretty darn good, the casting is also not bad at all and the script is fairly linear and easy to track. Now, if you're like me, you'll probably figure out pretty quickly what's really going on. For a while there, the director is subtle about it, but once things kick off this film gets pretty over the top and in your face, i.e., unsubtle. Which, strangely enough again very much mirrors "Triangle of Sadness." The cinematography was excellent as were the set design and just the overall 'feel' of the whole thing. It kinda just pops off the screen in a visual feast for the eyes (and not just when menu items are shown) that I'm sure is intended.

Fiennes is excellent as a world famous celebrity chef who commands his kitchen with an authority that is both brutal and meticulous. His sous chefs behave more like brainwashed cultists ala Jim Jones and the Kool Aid than aspiring young culinary talents. IOW, they show very little personality, especially while cooking and serving.

There are some plot holes, but they're small enough to maybe just be plot snags. Minor annoyances in the overall scheme of things. And as is probably inevitable with a movie like this, there are some unbelievable characters (see: sous chefs), actions/conversations and events (one in particular relating to the chef's "angel investor) that you just kind of have to accept and go with the flow because the story moves aggressively forward after the introductory first 30 minutes or so.

In a general sense, The Menu does have some uncomfortable and awkward moments, but not on the level of "Triangle of Sadness", "Nuevo Orden", "Soft & Quiet" or "The Square." I've written short reviews for all of those films here so feel free to like or dislike them should you be interested in reading. The target here, again, is the ultra-wealthy who are the same group in the crosshairs of "Triangle of Sadness" and also "Nuevo Orden." In some respects this film and all the other ones employ the story telling devices as Michael Haneke when he aims for the soft upper middle class bourgeoise who he depicts as living in their own self-important liberal bubble. Here, as stated, it's the 0.001% being roasted for their own blind spots, greed, entitlement and disconnection from the vast majority of society.

I'll give The Menu 7/10 because it started off so strongly but got pretty predictable toward the end. That having been said, while it was predictable, it was still a fun ride.

Nocebo (II) (2022)

Well made and starts off strong. Descends into somewhat of a mess at the end.

[6/10 · 26 November 2022]

I wasn't even going to watch this film, despite having seen it available on my usual "borrowing" sites, but several IMDB user reviews convinced me to give it a shot anyway.

The film starts off strongly and is well conceived and actualized. For about 2/3 of the run time. Casting was great (Eva Green does a wonderful job), sound tracking was very very good (not overbearing but useful enough ala "Under the Skin"), the production value (with minimal but effective CGI) is very high.

It's just that it lost me at the end. Once the full plot was revealed, it made me think that the setup was ridiculous, whereas before this point, I was pretty into it. And the last 10 minutes of the film are difficult to watch because the director begins to go way over the top in order to, I'm not even sure, scare (?) the audience and beat us into submission. I

In any case, regarding the setup, was this woman actually a Umu or a human Umu hybrid? If the former, why carry about a normal life when you could use your powers for good? IOW, why even work in that sweatshop to begin with if you could make a lot more money just "curing" people??? Also, why does a superhuman spirit creature care about taking revenge on someone from halfway around the world who was only a small part of the sequence of events leading to the need for revenge in the first place?

I'll give it 6/10 for the first 2/3 - Just don't expect a really solid ending.

Soft & Quiet (2022)

Good job with the single take approach, but...

[6/10 · 4 November 2022]

This just wasn't a believable story. Minor spoilers ahead.

This one started off on a pretty creepy and interesting premise. Several white women in some random upper Pacific northwest town get together to discuss their ideas about racial animosity and ethnostates. Since I hadn't really read any reviews past the headline (or spoilers) I was very curious where this might lead given the universally high scores from critics.

Without giving away too much, the problems for me started once they ended up at the local grocery/convenience store and confronted two Asian women; one of whom was a victim of rape committed by the lead character's brother who we are told is in prison. The store scene is when we find out why. At this point in the movie, the women (and one husband) begin to make very stupid decisions that were totally unbelievable for real world characters of their age. Needless to say, it continues to spiral downward and out of control for them as the decision making gets even more incredibly stupid and lacking any logic or realism.

Then there's the relationships/dialog. The way the lead's husband was portrayed could not possibly represent a real life archetype - as both seemingly tough and down to earth but also susceptible to the absolutely ridiculous and unfounded, immature and laughable insults his wife begins to lay on him in a sort of cuck-guilt trip. And of course it all works. He goes along with a totally hare brained scheme for a "prank" and the director expects us to believe he's playing a believable character because he comes up with one decent, non-dumb (if you're part of a budding criminal enterprise) idea. Nonsense, LOL. Any halfway sane man would have laughed at this woman and said c'ya. But of course the director also did a good job of laying the groundwork by choosing the most attractive actress she could and building up to this moment in which we're supposed to believe that the poor dope, who was clearly out of her league, would go along with anything just to keep his (infertile?) wife around, no matter now frickin' ridiculous.

Once again, things devolve even further into a messy and utterly incomprehensible situation whereby a "prank" carried out by several middle aged and Gen X/Z women goes horribly wrong.

I think I know what the writer/director was going for here, but it failed. The hope was to create a scenario that started off seeming so real but ended up becoming so far fetched that it would resonate with critical audiences in the same way as "Nuevo Orden" (New Order) did. The problem here was that they took it too far. No reasonable person in that situation, no matter how bigoted or uneducated, would ever do anything remotely that mind blowingly stupid. There would have been too many "wait, should we really do this-es" along the way for it not to end up just a conversation among some overly racist women over some wine.

This film could have been done a lot better. Critics are obviously (over) praising it for the technical acumen that the production crew put forward and the all-too-contemporaneous messaging about how some casual racism can end up having real bad consequences if not held in check and shared with the wrong people. At the end of the day, none of it was believable, and I'm a viewer who likes being shocked and made to think about things. As examples I hold most of Michael Haneke's films in very high regard as well as the previously mentioned "New Order" or "Irreversible" or even "Deliverance." In this company, "Soft & Quiet" falls flat. I was checking my phone messages starting about half way through and didn't get emotionally involved at any point in the film.

6/10 - Good first effort marred by some ridiculous and, at the present time, all too typical (reverse) virtue signaling. If you want to make a movie about racism and bigotry that really hits home, try making it all more believable.

House of the Dragon (2022– )

Still enjoying it 8 episodes in

[8/10 · 11 October 2022]

Set several hundred years before the events depicted in GRRM's "A Song of Ice and Fire" (and the HBO program "Game of Thrones") HotD provides some of the preceding history for Westeros and the eternally warring or power-jockeying major houses that exist there.

I think anyone who liked the first 4-5 seasons of GoT (don't get me started on how they later ruined it) will really enjoy HotD for its good writing and acting as well as the dragons. They clearly didn't spend as much time using real-life locations as the producers of GoT did, but no real complaints there since we're mainly dealing with 3 houses and not the continent spanning scope of the previous series yet.

I was glad they introduced the dragons right away and that they don't rely too much on them as GoT did toward the end of that series. There are dragons, one family made up of 2 houses controls them. No suspense and this series doesn't push the CGI super hard like the end of GoT did.

As far as the story/plot, it hews pretty closely to the source material. More so than GoT did, anyway. That said, there are several time jumps, one of them pretty major and that was initially jarring. Due to the nature of the three families/houses involved (Targaryan, Valerian and Hightower), and their very similar if not exactly the same given names, it can get confusing keeping track of who's who, especially once the third generation of characters is born and grows up. There are two Aegons (in addition to the Aegon of lore) for one thing, which can be especially confusing and a lot of the names sound a lot alike.

They also could have been a little more creative with the opening sequence and theme song, which sounds like a slightly different key version of GoT's, but I have to admit it does bring back good memories of when that series premiered and it's a pretty good song. Regarding the lead in sequence, it's not as wide ranging or informative as GoT's was, but it looks very well conceived and executed.

So far there aren't any plot holes or major loose ends and the story is progressing linearly (along with the time jumps) toward the conclusion of Season One. With just two episodes remaining, I'm hoping they don't try to cram too much of the story into this season and let it unfold smoothly and spaced out in the next (if it's renewed and I think it has been).

If you're looking for some fun, intriguing, sometimes brutal fantasy television with Shakespearean machinations, I highly recommend House of the Dragon. It's definitely more on par with my tastes than the other currently running fantasy series based (very loosely) on JRR Tolkien's writing on Amazon. That one I'd recommend for kids and teens; this one is geared toward adults.

8/10 and please keep up the good work (cough, cough final seasons of GoT).

Deadstream (2022)

Demon-itized!

[8/10 · 9 October 2022]

Every October I scour the internet for reviews on new Halloween and Horror movies which is how I came across this one. Truth be told, I went in with VERY low expectations. I mean what do we have here but a mish mash of some of the most difficult to pull off genres. I won't give you any spoilers, but there are elements of found footage, livestreaming, POV and close up face cam shots w/ a shaky camera. So it was hard to imagine that the director (also the lead actor) would be able to pull this off and keep me in my seat for the duration.

Not only did it accomplish that, but it made me laugh out loud several times with the excellent dialog and monologue writing. The back story about this streamer being 'disgraced' and de-monetized wasn't completely necessary but it did add enough to the story to make room for some comedic turns.

They did a great job with the location (an old haunted house in the middle of nowhere) and with the general setup. The action flowed very nicely and the lead/director was entirely believable as a live-streamer prankster-type personality.

One minor weakness, to me anyway since I watched at home on a normal sized TV, was the live chat box on the left hand side of the screen. Some of the sequences were driven by what his viewers were telling him (and some fun hints were buried in the chat) so I found it important to actually read what was on the screen. This took getting up from the chair and standing close to the television during those parts. I imagine it would have been much easier to see on a big movie theater screen. In any case, that type of device is used quite often these days and I usually don't like it. But as I mentioned, it did play an important role, wasn't too frequent and was handled professionally and realistically. Pretty darn funny a couple of times too. I recommend trying to keep an eye on the chat stream when it pops up.

I don't know what kind of budget this film had, but it couldn't have been huge and the producers, director and actors did excellent. This added to the excellent and witty writing, ala You B.....ig little lies!

Solid 8/10 and I will be recommending this to friends and watching it again during Halloween season next year.

The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power (2022– )

The Amazon Thursday Night Football of High Fantasy

[6/10 · 7 October 2022]

Amazon was said to have dropped about a billion dollars into this series, and in some ways it shows. By that I mean CGI and set design, and that's about all.

This is a great series...for kids and teens. As an adult who has read all the books (not just LOTR & The Hobbit) and seen numerous adaptations from the Rankin Bass cartoons in the 70s and 80s (all very good) to Peter Jackson's iconic LOTR series in the early 2000s to the same guy's pathetic cash grab with a 3-part Hobbit series that was terrible.

Amazon's LOTR spinoff-prequel is competently acted, decently directed, has OK music, great effects, limited cinematography (when it's all CGI and drones, how can I give credit?) and some potentially interesting sub-plots.

Where it falls short is in the sum of the parts. There is nothing compelling to most adults here. It's great for kids and teens as I mentioned, but incredibly one-dimensional despite the vast and sweeping scope and scale we are led to believe we're getting.

I won't get too far into the issues pertaining to what does and doesn't jibe with the Tolkien (and family) books and manuscripts, but Galadriel's feats are simply unnecessary and totally unbelievable, even in a fantasy series. It's World of Warcraft level scripting and storytelling. Lame AF.

All in all this gets a 6 for the effort, but that really isn't much considering how much cash Amazon has been laying out for this type of programming and NFL games that finish in touchdown-less 12-9 overtime wins in games nobody but the home fans care about.

The Bear (2022– )

Oh come one, it's a bunch of Chicago meatheads constantly yelling at each other!

[6/10 · 30 July 2022]

Through the first 3 episodes all I've seen is yelling, yelling louder, a ridiculous and completely unbelievable scene about a bunch of grown adults in their 20s and 30s lined up to play a game that was popular before they were born, and then more yelling and screaming at those people. Oh yeah, a few minor scuffles too.

Sorry, but like Mare of Eastown should have been titled "A Very Pennsylvania Crime Show", Bears should be called "A Very Chicago Food Show (with a LOT of yelling)" or "Gilmore Girls But Guys in a Weird Sandwich Shop that isn't Open for Lunch." LOL

6/10 for effort.

Black Bird (2022)

Way overrated

[5/10 · 24 July 2022]

Black Bird is loosely based on a true story, yes. Many of the events really did happen. But you'll notice in checking around, nobody mentions a key element depicted in Apple TV+'s series, namely the corrupt prison guard who blackmails the protagonist.

To the series itself, it takes itself too seriously and the acting and direction are over the top. The female FBI agent, for example. Come on. Even the fact checks say it was "probably" one particular agent, but nothing definitive.

The story - the real story - is engrossing and when the series sticks to that, it is too. However, Mogwai's synth heavy soundtrack is overbearing and doesn't always fit with what's happening on screen.

I guess people are just bored these days and looking for something professionally produced to pass the time and gush about online. Sorry, but Black Bird just isn't doing it for me through 4 episodes. Watch the Dateline NBC episode or listen to the podcast instead for the real experience.

Physical (2021–2023)

Darkly funny 80s themed melodrama

[8/10 · 23 July 2022]

Biggest kick I got out of reading reviews is that some people are angry that "sweet" Rose Byrne is playing a horrible, selfish, self-hating, bulimic person. Um, that's the sign of a good actor, folks.

This may not be for everyone, but I really enjoy the short and to the point episodes (<30min each) with really great 80s historical accuracy for the most part. On that latter bit, the only thing they get wrong is the music, heavily slanted toward synth pop, used in the Aerobics scenes. I'm sorry, but some of those songs were very obscure at the time.

Anyway, Rose Byrne is also surrounded by a great cast and the show flows well. I'm almost finished with season 2 and will be sad to see it go. Yes, she's an awful awful person to herself and most of the people around her. She's entitled, selfish, mean and motivated by all the wrong reasons. But it turns out it all hinges on her own childhood and her even more awful parents.

I won't get into plot details or spoilers. If you like dark humor and have nostalgia for bright sunny shots of Southern California in the 80s, you can't go wrong here.

The New Corporation: The Unfortunately Necessary Sequel (2020)

Radical socialists? LOL - Nah, this film pulls too many punches

[7/10 · 16 July 2022]

90% of the negative reviewers either didn't watch the movie or came into it with a decidedly anti-socialism (a word that they couldn't define in real world terms) bent and pro-capitalism mindset.

For one thing, the movie is OK. Points out how big banks and corporations have taken to hiding behind the "social justice" messages they've cribbed from whatever actual movement is convenient for them at a given time. They don't pick the best interview subjects (we've all heard Bernie "Sheepdog" Sanders and AOC's (correct) spiels before). They could have sought out people like Howie Hawkins or other less-well-known advocates for *actual* socialism and for reining in the power that these organizations exercise over our government through dark money, lobbying, insider-trading and outright bribery.

Nobody including negative reviewers cares to point out how "crony capitalism" and "corporate capitalism" are any different from each other because they haven't done the homework or read authors like Michael Hudson or seen movies like "The Wobblies" about the IWW. If they had, they'd know what the "Overton Window" is and that it was in fact "radical left-wing socialists" who are responsible for the end of child labor and the 8 hour work day among many other things including the New Deal which - unlike the bailouts of too-big-to-jail banks in 2008 - bailed out the American working class and set up bulwarks against monopolistic, unethical corporate practices. The Republicans starting with Reagan and continuing through Democrats like Clinton systematically tore down as much of that as they could on behalf of their financial/corporate masters (buy bye Glass-Steagall!!! Hello NAFTA!!!) and in the same time period the Overton Window has intentionally been shifted to the right with even Starbucks baristas forming unions portrayed as "radical leftists" trying to bring down capitalism (also, why do people insist on capitalizing that word as though it's a proper noun? I'll tell you - the consistent, constant propaganda paid for by the big banks/corps and unwittingly consumed and absorbed by the would-be working class).

Take away the Overton Window and there's absolutely zero "left-wing" or "radical left" to this film. Anyone who called Obama a leftist should not be trusted to objectively review it. All in all, the Necessary Sequel is a bit of a let-down from the previous movie, but worth watching if you can do so with an open mind (something far too many of my closed-minded "conservative" friends think they have, but really don't, thanks to YouTube influencers and the like).

Fish in a Barrel (2020)

Totally lost me with the Russiagate BS

[2/10 · 14 July 2022]

From the film's description:

"At the same time, the amount of election interference by Russia is considerable, ranging from hacking election vendors to U. S. power plants, and a review of Soviet history shows the troubling efforts to undermine American democracy."

There was no Russian "hacking" of election vendors (whatever that means) or U. S. power plants. This has all been thoroughly debunked. Absolutely zero evidence was ever provided either to the public or via Mueller's investigation despite the nightly screaming about it on MSNBC and all the (later retracted) CNN **BOMBSHELL** "BREAKING NEWS" headlines. This is all 100% fake news.

If any nation interfered in favor of Trump it was Israel, via Sheldon Adelson and the open secret which is that country's constant meddling in US affairs and our "democracy." The US has meddled far more in other countries' elections than anything Russia ever even attempted in 2016 and CrowdStrike has refused to make the servers available for analysis. But Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity as well as independent journalists like Aaron Mate and others have painstakingly sifted through all the claims (and lies and obfuscation) to paint an accurate picture of what really happened. Namely, "Russia" bought a few Facebook ads, most of which having nothing to do with the election or politics and the vast majority of which were either seen by non-voters or after the election had already happened. It was Hillary's big excuse for failing to campaign in the "Rust Belt" states like Obama and Trump had.

To the film, it does paint an accurate portrait of the NRA's outsized influence on American politics and their borderline criminal activities w/ tax exempt status. Even then, and once again, it veers back to the Russian angle for no reason whatsoever with Maria Butina (like Trump, just a grifter looking for support) and a cohort of very disorganized Russians who allegedly came to the USA to spy, but for which allegations no proof is ever presented. Just like in the MSM.

All in all, the director did a good job of telling his story, albeit one in many ways divorced from the truth, and as such it is effective propaganda which preaches to the choir who already believe in its nonsense.

For these reasons I cannot give the film any higher than 2 stars, of which 1 star goes to filmmaking competence and an easier than expected narrative arc to follow. Also 'kudos' to the producers for doing this in celluloid/video format as there is no opportunity to stop and check/debunk the lies that they're repeating. Again, very effective as propaganda to cement the incorrect notions that Trump loved Putin and that the latter helped the former get elected. Hogwash.

Disclaimer: I'm a lefty, do not support the Democrats or Republicans (including Trump), but we'll never move forward as a country until we can start telling ourselves the uncomfortable truths about our leaders (both sides) and our media's (both sides) dastardly deeds and coverups instead of fairy tales about evil foreign powers being responsible for the 'bad outcomes' in our political system which is already structurally rotten enough as it is. Please tell us the real story of Israeli election meddling next.

Ash & Dust (2022)

Passable effort, not much more.

[4/10 · 3 July 2022]

This is a slooooow burning film. It's so slow that I'd remove the word "burn" and replace it with "kinda glows then fizzles and dies."

Ash & Dust struck me as a first film (i.e., debut feature length for director) and it wasn't marketed aggressively so I am giving it some slack. There are some promising elements, but they never coalesce into a holistic entity.

Acting is pretty good for the most part, but a few actors are not meant for that career and I won't name names.

Finally, in case anyone is wondering why there are some 8- 9- and 10-star reviews, simply click on those reviewers' user names and you'll see that if they aren't one-review accounts, they've all reviewed the exact same movies including "Hyde", "Angie: Lost Girls", and "Devil Djinn" on almost identical dates. IMDB needs to start charging money for the ability to post reviews or do what Yelp! Does and actually police the fake ones. This is the main reason the site is useless for deciding whether to watch indie flicks these days.

If I had the chance again, Ash & Dust would get a hard pass from me.

3/10 for story plus 1/10 for decent cinematography = 4/10, just barely watchable.

Buried in Barstow (2022 TV Movie)

Did I really just see someone compare this to early Tarantino?

[3/10 · 27 June 2022]

Haha don't take these Lifetime regular reviewers seriously. What may seem like a "Tarantino" flick to those who watch Lifetime, I can assure anyone who's actually ever watched one of his films that this is nothing of the sort.

While it's good to see Angie Harmon getting some work these days, and she does a very passable job in Buried in Barstow, only one other cast member in this has any acting chops (male lead). Well, other than the child actors, they were good.

I found myself checking how much run time was left every few minutes after about the 30 minute mark it was that boring. It's super cliche to say that this is 2 hours I'll never get back, but in this case it's just true.

All of which is to say that unless you're incredibly bored, or unless you're a regular Lifetime viewer looking for a slightly more edgy offering, this one can be safely skipped.

3/10 on the overall scale 7.5/10 on the Lifetime Channel scale.

Under the Silver Lake (2018)

I loved it, but apparently it's very polarizing.

[8/10 · 18 June 2022]

That's often the sign of a very good movie, perhaps even a future cult classic.

I can't believe all the David Lynch comparisons. Like what exactly was there in this flick that seemed to be copied from one of his movies? I didn't see anything of the sort, even if the director might have been inspired by him. That wouldn't be a surprise since Lynch is such an inspirational director, but anyway...

What a fun and trippy ride through Los Angeles courtesy of the young male gaze. I was hooked until the end. One of the best scenes is when he meets the guy who ghost-wrote almost every popular song of the past 40 years. Truly original idea.

Ignore the negative reviews and now-ubiquitous complaints about "what did I just waste two hours of my life on?" type nonsense. Pick a night where you won't have interruptions and give this film a chance. If possible go in without reading any spoilers or reviews and with low expectations. It'll surprise you if you can.

Centaur (2022)

If you're a young guy into superbikes, this might entertain you.

[5/10 · 18 June 2022]

But as far as plot it's been done dozens of times better before.

The film starts off earnestly enough. A young, accomplished, but still aspirational pro motorcycle rider deals with day to day life in Barcelona, where he works loading and unloading container ships at the port. Hie shares custody of his son with his estranged ex girlfriend and baby mama. Then things start getting interesting for him when she - unbelievably - is robbed of a large stash of drugs which the local mobsters have coerced her into storing for them. Needless to say, they are bad guys and they want their drugs or money back...NOW.

The rest of the movie devolves into the usual tropes about cutting a deal - albeit also under coercion - to repay the debt by extreme means.

There are too many unbelievable happenings and coincidences and they continue to pile up as the movie nears its end. In fact there are so many that today, 12 hours after viewing it, I've already forgotten most of them.

Throw in some cheesy Euro-electronica music and the superbikes and chase sequences, and that's all there is. A boring film despite some cool motorcycle chases and Barcelona scenery (predictably and almost universally now via drone footage).

This movie will appeal to younger men who like fast motorcycles and racing. Unfortunately, I'm neither of those things and therefore it fell flat after things became predictable and the amateur hour story started heading into its denouement.

A generous 5/10 for basic entertainment value and a trip to Barcelona via celluloid.

Severance (2022– )

What a compelling Season 1

[9/10 · 11 June 2022]

Everything about "Severance" is great and unique. The writing, the acting, the choice of sets and locations, the cinematography, the music and score, the theme, and the world building.

It starts off somewhat ridiculously and rather than turn the viewer off to it, instead layers more and more craziness as it goes on. With the weird old school looking office tech, utterly strange motivational tactics used by the managers at Lumon and insane quasi-religious element regarding the company's traditions and founding story. I'm like WTF is going on here???

It's very slow going at first. The plot reveals itself as it flows along, stream of consciousness-like. Just enough clues are revealed to keep the viewer wondering and anxious about what's to come next. And yet at the end of Season 1, we still have more questions than answers.

It would be difficult to praise the cast too much as well. In addition to Adam Scott, who won an award for his performance, we get Turturro, Walken (!) who are part of an overall hilarious and believable supporting cast.

Can't wait for Season 2!

The Boys (2019– )

One of just a few 10/10 ratings I've ever given. The Boys is awesome!

[10/10 · 11 June 2022]

I haven't read any reviews for this here, but I'm guessing that many of them share my relief that this isn't just another MCU or DC Comics superhero series.

It's about time someone made a superhero show that's not only believable, but has a deeply cynical - and IMO quite accurate - outlook on modern corporate-sponsored life and late-stage capitalist dystopia.

Each of the characters is, in their own way, very relatable and complex. The writers and directors don't seem to be in a rush and yet they manage to cram in so much social/political/economic commentary that you really have to pay attention to catch it all. Quite an accomplishment given that it's also great as a standalone superhero soap opera.

I don't remember a character in any television show or film that I love to hate as much as Homelander. What a prick. And he personifies all that is wrong with our militaristic forays into the world at large along with all the ritualistic jingoisms, propaganda and lies we seemingly must be told in order to continue supporting it despite decades of unmitigated foreign policy failures. I mean really, Homelander is basically Dick Cheney with a cape and superpowers!

The other characters are also very good, despite a few of them taking a while to develop during seasons 1 and 2. To wit, A-Train and The Deep start off a bit shallow, almost placeholders to keep the plot going. But by the end of the 2nd season and 4 episodes into the 3rd, they are fully developed human beings and important parts of the story.

On the corporate side, Vought stands in as the evil mega-company with nefarious and secretive plans for world domination. It's all about money and power (and superpowers, no spoilers here though).

This series meticulously builds a backstory through references both subtle and explicit and by season 3 we've got a fully developed universe, alive and breathing.

Just as good, The Boys is one of the rare exceptions in superhero themed content where great CGI and effects are not over the top or used too frequently. That's not to say they're not awesome because they are. Just the right amount of blood and guts keeps it believable.

You won't have to switch off your brain to enjoy The Boys, quite the contrary. This is the grown-up superhero story for those of us who've become jaded and annoyed at the rampant class inequality and unaccountable powers that be which have totally captured our "democracy" for all intents and purposes.

Very highly recommended, but you'll absolutely need to start with Season 1 and not skip any episodes!

An easy 10/10.

Foundation (2021– )

Doesn't develop any sympathy for the characters

[5/10 · 11 June 2022]

As television sci-fi goes in the age of excellent CGI effects and scene making, "Foundation" excels. We get to see fascinating worlds and meticulously designed 'sets' (both real and computer generated).

For the most part the Apple TV+ series is faithful to Asimov's books. I must admit, I was never a huge fan of the latter in comparison to some other contemporary science fiction authors like Bradbury and even pulpy stuff like Alan Dean Foster.

Something's just "off" with "Foundation" though. You'd think that by stretching it out over a whole season of episodes, the writers/directors would have the time they need to build relatable characters with rich back stories. This doesn't happen and they still seem like they're prioritizing cramming as much of the books and CGI effects into the film as possible at the expense of character development and a solid screenplay. I know it's sci-fi, but it just feels too piecemeal and shallow for me.

All in all, an opportunity to create something great was missed and I have trouble maintaining focus and interest through every episode. I really wish I could put my finger on it; it's not just the weak character dev. And story building. Perhaps this is intended for a younger audience - people of the same age as most of us when we first read the books - and if so, it's fine.

By all means, this is certainly watchable. Just don't expect too much in the way of grown up science fiction or a viewing experience that will keep you on the edge of your seat or stay with you longer than a few minutes after each episode.

5/10 for effort.

The Lost City (2022)

First 25 minutes were pretty darn funny and promising...then...

[4/10 · 11 June 2022]

The movie falls apart after an opening half hour. I suppose that it was just too hard to keep the momentum going after that point given the 'meh' script and formulaic ideas in play.

At first, the cast had excellent chemistry. Things were really building steam, but after Brad Pitt's character briefly appeared and left the film it was all downhill.

4/10 - Highly entertaining for a while then devolves into an utter lack of creativity.

For a better film of this type, visit (or revisit) "Romancing the Stone" or even "Jewel of the Nile."

The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent (2022)

Surprisingly Good!

[8/10 · 11 June 2022]

I've been following Nick Cage's recent career revival and have only been disappointed with one of the *many* films the dude is cranking out these days.

I wasn't sure what to expect coming into this one knowing that it's still in theaters and getting much better press than most of his other new films, aside from "Pig" (very much recommended).

Pedro Pascal and Cage had great chemistry! This is a buddy flick with a few creative twists on the genre.

From reading the tagline, I expected sheer stupidity. I mean, what, with Nick Cage playing *himself* and the story revolving around a superfan of his. How much more pretentious can you get, right?

Nevertheless, they pulled it off. At no point during the run time was I bored or disengaged. This is the kind of summer entertainment I wish they made more of and less of MCU and Top Gun type militainment. Thoughtful, fun, doesn't take itself (or himself) too seriously and altogether very recommended.

As a side-note and follow-up, be sure to check out "Pig" if you haven't already seen it. Just like with "The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent", it's pretty much free of 'Cage Rage' (which, if you like that, "Mandy" is an awesome Cage film as well!).