LaughingTigerIMDb Reviews

Marry Me (2022)

Rom Com for Kids

[1/10 · 25 May 2024]

Depending on who you are, you're either going to love or hate this film. I firmly believe this is a children's movie. When I say children's movie, I mean this is the one film for kids under 12 to feel like they're watching a grown-up movie instead of G-rated cartoons. It's a sort of transitional movie for kids. There isn't one bad word spoken, no nudity, no innuendos, and the one token love scene is extremely safe.

This movie is really only for adults if you have a thing for Jennifer Lopez, Owen Wilson, or you are a parent watching this film with your kids, or even better: a teen babysitter watching this with kids.

I have little patience with romcom popcorn munching films, and really only watched this because I thought the concept was going to give us a few laughs or a lot more to work with. Instead, it's hopelessly predictable with the old "I wish I had your life" / "no, I wish I had YOUR life" sort of theme.

Jennifer Lopez basically plays herself, only using the name Kat Valdez. The only thing that makes this interesting is reading the trivia where she had such personal influence in interest in the film's costuming and songs. It's as if all Jennifer Lopez had to do was show up script-free. Perhaps since I was already annoyed, her nervous chuckle after every possible line that was thrown to her that was supposed to be cute eventually grated on me. And let's not count out the necessary "running in heels" scene when Kat has her epiphany. (All films like this need running scenes.)

Owen Wilson's character Charlie is unbearable. I am used to Wilson at least flinging out constant, amusing one-liners, but in this film, he's a nothing burger that the amazing Kat Valdez is supposed to find attraction to.

Finally, the stamp that made this a kids' movie is the forced character of Lou, played by Chloe Coleman. With her involved, we have a father who just so happens to teach at the school she attends, where she and all her kid friends make up half of the cast. Not to mention, a vehicle to put Jennifer Lopez's own real life sun Max Muñiz into the mix.

I could feel some influence of School of Rock, with Charlie desperately trying to make a class full of math nerds become cool, and the connection of Kat solidifying that with music, dance, and her Mary-Sue-character style of stardom.

I also felt like the writers ripped off the sequence of couples explaining how they met-a direct copy from When Harry Met Sally.

I hoped when I began watching this film it would eventually pick up and become more than what it was, but was eventually just disappointed in the writing, and when it came right down to it, the boringness of it all.

Enjoy it, kids. This one was made for you, as your coming-of-age film that will ease you into your teens watching more teen/young adult concepts.

The Devil Wears Prada (2006)

Predictable Popcorn Muncher

[1/10 · 13 May 2024]

I avoided this movie for 18 years until Netflix included it, and somehow it ended up in my recommendations for some odd reason.

This is one of those films where you already know how it will play out in the first few minutes. It's the New York City Cinderella, who is unkempt and held back by the meanies in the fashion mag office. Of course you know how the story goes...

The character of Andy is barely likeable, with the usual Hollywood drivel that puts a young woman in the thick of the city with meaningful aspirations in a don't-judge-a-book-by-its-cover approach. Andy is purposely simple, and supposed to be very relatable, but that ends quickly as she is torn between the "good" side, which is her simple friends and boyfriend, to her "bad" side, which is the career-driven world that is sometimes quite cutthroat.

There is so much that could have been done with this script, but the writers and everyone behind the creation just played it safe.

Beyond that is a rather ridiculous, yet dangerous message for women, and that is the notion that you can't have a balance between work and a personal life. You must decide. In order to succeed, you must enter the dark side, where there is no happiness beyond that. But, to be happy, you must forgo success in work and money.

Then there are the usual snipes about looking good while applying the usual points of fashion (for 2006), knowing the right people, being thin, and playing the game. Of course, this message is made to seem ridiculous, but there is some truth to it also as the sensitive characters bring reason for it.

So before getting too deep into what this film means and what the moral of the story is supposed to be, the bottom line is that it's a popcorn muncher for the times when nothing else is on, created by your usual Hollywood lackies that can't come up with anything unique.

Pride & Prejudice (2005)

Cast Not Quality

[3/10 · 8 May 2024]

This is an example of when in the early 00s, film producers had grand ideas of what they wanted to see: a star to carry the film. Keira Knightley catapulted into popularity from Pirates of the Caribbean and Love Actually. While she has said that at first the casting director doubted her ability because he apparently told her she was "too pretty" for the role, the truth is that Keira's popularity was too much to turn down. So whether we like it or not, the Aughts' Favourite Actress for Period Dramas is what we get. It's this sort of sore thumb sticking out that makes this film just another Hollywood popcorn muncher.

If you're someone who has read the book and seen the BBC miniseries, then this is just fluff for two hours to get your Jane Austen fix. Not only is Keira Knightley miscast, but so is Donald Sutherland, who also just seems to be there because they thought he and his long, grey hair would look the part. He does, but he doesn't. Donald Sutherland is too big name of an actor to fit as someone who simply has a handful of lines. Next, we have Tom Hollander, who is much too handsome to play the dreadful Mr. Collins, and Simon Woods who looks too much like a weirdo to play someone as handsome and charismatic as Mr. Bingley. It's too unrealistic that someone as cute as a character played by Rosamund Pike found something so fetching in his crazy wide eyes. Finally, Matthew Macfadyen, who I know they tried coaching to seem uninterested, but he appeared more awkward than unpleasant. I just can't believe they couldn't have found someone with a bit more sex appeal for this role. That was the whole point, was Mr. Darcy's personality shadowed his good looks. And while Judi Dench is always wonderful, much too old as a woman in her 70s then to have a daughter young enough to be betrothed to Mr. Darcy. It just seemed the casting crew thought of Knightley, Sutherland, and Dench as to get them in there to carry the film, regardless of how well-suited they were to be in it in the first place.

After realizing how miscast everyone was, next was the story. In just two hours so many things were rushed, that it almost seemed unexplained. Jane's interrogation by Bingley's sister. Omitted. That's the whole point of the story, was to establish the lower class that the Bennett's were. This, and other key plots that are now plotholes are missed, likely because of time. Maybe if they spend less time on the dramatic fawning closeups of Keira Knightley's face when she's in shock or hurt could have freed up some time to explain some of these things.

All in all, this is a film that cared more about who was in the film, rather than the story and accuracies of the time and trueness of the novel. It just seems like those who favour this film so much likely never did read the book or see the 1995 series, or they are just blind to the Keira Knightley bias of the early 2000s.

Secrets of the Neanderthals (2024)

Not Enough Information

[7/10 · 7 May 2024]

I feel like this was an opportunity to show off more hair and makeup skills based on what we know Neanderthals to look like. We keep getting reminded that they were not a stupid species and they had thoughts and feelings, and the hair/makeup/costume team stepped it up to show that much.

I had read that upon meeting homo sapiens, that that the Neanderthals were actually a bit more advanced than they were, and had already established a way of life that involved jewellery, for example. Neanderthals were creative, and found ways to adorn themselves, and showed humans how to emulate what they knew.

Instead, this documentary shows a rather polished-looking group of homo sapiens coming into contact with Neanderthals, who look like they've all had baths and their clothes laundered before arriving. What this is suggesting in this documentary is that humans may have been a bit more refined. But is this true? This contradicts what other archaeologists have found.

"We all carry Neanderthal DNA" is also not true. This is true for those of European descent, but not African, Asian, or Native Americans.

I did enjoy the re-enactments from the actors who were dressed up to show what a typical Neanderthal may have looked like and to see what they were doing. But I really wished there was more of that. They hinted that they had language, and yet not a peep could be heard from the actors. It's as if they were told not to use dialogue together. Maybe the mouth prosthetics made it impossible? I don't know. But it would have been nice to see and hear them making sounds in conversation, rather than motioning to each other, capturing the quintessential stereotype of the caveman/meat head type.

I also enjoyed listening to Sir Patrick Stewart. It gave the documentary some warmth that added to the idea that the Neanderthal people were compassionate and emotional themselves. As for the information? I felt like so much was being held back, just to enhance the information we already know about with computer work and costuming.

Nonni und Manni (1988– )

We need more Nonni and Manni

[10/10 · 29 March 2024]

If you're looking for a clean adventure series, suitable for children and adults, this would be it. It can hold the interest of adults with its themes of law and love, yet children can keep up with the story just as easily, identifying with the main characters of youngsters Nonni and Manni.

I thoroughly enjoyed this series back in the late 1980s when it first aired on television, but have recently reconnected with it, and it's still one of my favourites. I was immediately taken in by the beautiful scenery, costuming, and charm of everyday life in mid 19th-century Iceland, and beyond that, even more so with the dramatic story that starts with their realization that their wayward father had died one year earlier. The message is brought to them personally by his best friend Harald, who poses as a threat to the greedy and manipulative character of Magnus, who is set on marrying the widow, Sigrid.

Harald is handsome, charming, and hard-working, and best of all, knew Nonni and Manni's father well, providing the warmth of good stories to tell the boys. Immediately, we know that Magnus' jealousy will start the series rolling with trouble, and soon enough it does.

Each episode is full of excitement with the boys doing what they can to help Harald stay safe from being killed, as they fight off henchmen, wildlife, and forces of nature along the way.

Though produced in the late 1980s, it has staying power with its trueness to the period of mid 19th century Iceland, with terrific hair, makeup, and costuming to transport the viewer back in time. It's just a wonderful series, and I only wish writers and producers would take note and create more like it today.

Unless (2016)

Good film to watch alone

[8/10 · 19 March 2024]

This is one of those films where you need to focus a bit on the dialogue and the hints that come into play throughout the film. The dialogue is quiet, and sometimes slow, with some unnecessary louder score over top of the very dialogue that requires paying attention to. If you're sitting with popcorn munchers and movie-talkers, you'll miss things easily. Alone, you can take in a lot more of the details.

I found that the story's moral was to count yourself lucky. All around the characters in the film are the delicate creations of nature from snowflakes and icicles, to beautiful, comfortable things like a warm home, pleasantly lived in. The chitter-chatter of a happy family at breakfast, the kettle whistling, and a good-morning / good-bye kiss from loved ones with the promise of seeing them again at the end of the day. All things done without a thought or a care - until one day every single one of these things is eliminated from the lens of Norah, the daughter who mysteriously leaves home to live on the streets in Toronto.

Every scene of the troubled girl's life is now ill at ease as she sits in unfavourable weather, has nothing comfortable to sit on, and no one to talk to, all the while holding a sign made of cardboard that reads "goodness". While all things good are within her grasp, she chooses not to accept them. Her family visits her daily, and does all they can to coax her back home, but she refuses to even talk to them.

The main character is actually Reta, Norah's mother who partially narrates the film, as per the novel of the same name by Carol Shields. Reta is surrounded by "goodness" and yet none of it matters while her daughter isn't there. She is constantly battered by stupid questions and toxic positivity by people outside of her circle. All of them too, surrounded by "goodness" that they take for granted.

All things become clear when the family comes to realize after Norah is hospitalized for sepsis that she has had burns on her hands the entire time that she's been gone. This is a detail they never knew, as Norah sat with garden gloves on for the entire time she spent on the streets. After speaking with the police, they put the pieces together that Norah had witnessed (and was partially involved in) an accident on Bloor Street in Toronto a few months earlier.

Norah had admitted she was happy that day, going about her business and passing people on the street with stories that she'll never know about. She makes eye contact with a Buddhist nun, dressed in a traditional robe, who blocks traffic on Bloor, near Markham in Toronto to sit on the street and pour a flammable liquid on herself. Then, takes a lighter and commits self-immolation.

Her sitting position on the street is a reminder of Thich Quang Duc from 1963, protesting the persecution of Buddhists in Vietnam. She did not react, and did not try to help herself. This film, and the book it was based on, seems to have been influenced by that, and the recent stories of the time in the late 00s and early 10s of other Buddhists committing self-immolation in acts of extreme protest.

The character of Norah recognizes the peacefulness of the nun, and is happy to have shared a brief moment where they lock eyes and smile before Norah enters a store and misses the start of the nun's violent act. After realizing what happened, Norah runs to her, taking the nun by the hands, which explains her burns, but in that moment, the nun also takes her hands as a sign of thanks. It seems Norah is the only person at the moment who the nun believes understands the beauty of religious expression and acceptance, whereas no one else had the courage to try to help the nun at all. Not in life, and now, not in her last moments.

The sudden shock of the ending of this film puts it all into perspective for us. As we sit on our comfortable couches at home, watching this film, free to do as we please each day - that is goodness, and that is exactly what Norah's message was all along during her phase where she chose to be mute, out of respect for those who could not speak, but also because of her own trauma. Norah also chooses to sit at the very spot the incident occurred at, sitting cross-legged, facing the street where the nun committed her act of self-immolation. It's a sign that they've connected, and Norah will never forget her sacrifice.

To me, this is a heavy message that reminds us of this, while packaging it as a book or film, the story of Unless makes us think and appreciate about all we have, and not to let a day go by that we don't say so.

Beastmaster 2: Through the Portal of Time (1991)

Be prepared to waste an hour and a half

[1/10 · 16 December 2023]

Add me to the list of people who wasted their time on this film. As a fan of the original, I appreciated that while low-budget, it was chock-a-block full of non-stop action, with just the right amount of slow, sentimental scenes. The acting was also very enjoyable, with Dar often letting his boyish, good-humoured self come through in so many scenes. In this sequel there are so many things wrong, I don't know where to start.

First, how about hair and makeup? It's the first noticeable flaw. Whatever they did with Marc Singer's hair was tragic. Marc, who has light brown hair was given subtle, natural highlights in the original Beastmaster. He was also buff, while not needing to emphasize on his body. Marc naturally did that on his own. But in Beastmaster 2, it seems the hair and makeup team went bananas. I don't know if they were inspired by the early 90s look from rock bands like Skid Row or Warrant, but Marc was given an entire new hair-do that mimicked Jani Lane, with an all-over dye job of lemon-blond hair (also, lemon-blond dyed eyebrows, making them look non-existent). His hair was then-styled in that pre-grunge one-length, longer by several inches than we remembered him. Also, his body was tanned and oiled, giving it a waxy appearance in every scene. Simply awful.

Second, the writing and acting. I expected less and got it from the entire cast, but Marc Singer it seems was given so little dialogue this time around. He has safe, predictable lines, and apart from that, just appears bewildered. What ever happened to our lovable Dar? The Dar with the impish grin, who teased everyone he liked-both men and women. The Dar who enjoyed using sarcasm and sly humour to make his point. That Dar is completely rewritten for Beastmaster 2, and not for the better. Dar in this film seems completely reprogrammed to align with Tarzan, who has very little to say, and whatever he does say is uninteresting.

Third, the plot itself. While I'm not opposed to the idea, it's just that the fish-out-of-water stories have been done before, normally crossing over in our own linear world. For Beastmaster, it's hard to tell which side is supposed to be silly. Is it the fantasy, sword n' sandals bunch, or the materialistic, big city no-minds from our world? Usually a film's set puts the viewer into a mood. We feel lit when we are prepared to watch fantasy, science fiction, that we understand while watching what we are expected to see. This film does a messy job of combining both worlds, and neither one sits well with the other for the viewer. At least, it certainly didn't for me.

Finally, the evident loss of familiar faces. Marc Singer is expected to carry on in the title role, but the original had so much more going on when it came to key characters in Dar's life. Obviously Tanya Roberts couldn't reprise as Kiri with L. A. rich girl Jackie showing interest in Dar. But what about John Amos (Seth), Josh Milrad (Tal), and Ralph Strait (Sacco)? All three were around in 1991 and could have been very capable to reach out to, but were they? Not only that, but the animals weren't even recognizable. Ruh is no longer black (but apparently there was good reason for this for the safety of the cats), but what happened to Sharak? Smoothed down light feathers, compared to the full-feathered dark coloured bird from the original? It's too different. As for Kodo and Podo, I guess we'll just pretend they're just the kits we saw at the end of the original film. The problem is with the animals, there really wasn't much involvement from them, aside from a few minutes at the beginning of the film. Otherwise, they just hang around Dar, with Sharak, maybe being more useful than the others. So as far as familiarity goes, we still miss out on our old friends from the original.

I've probably typed out too much for a stinker of a film as it is. If you watch it, you'll do so out of morbid curiosity for being a fan of the original. But don't say you weren't warned.

Coven (2023)

Disappointing, to say the least.

[1/10 · 27 November 2023]

There seems to be this draw to witchcraft these days that makes a girl just want to dress up in black, pierce her nose, and do what she can to make her feel different and special with reasons backing it up.

That's what this documentary captures, although I'm sure that wasn't the intent.

Somehow, the filmmaker focused on three women from the Toronto area who claim to be witches, or else want to find a way to validate their witch-feelings. I'm sure the idea was to celebrate female power, show beautiful sunsets, and of course, the obligatory strolls through forests and the caressing of tree trunks to make for some beautiful videography.

All this documentary really did was further stuff the stereotype of modern witchcraft into a place that attracts lonely and confused women into finding themselves, using typical language like "connecting" in order for it to all make sense.

It wouldn't be right not to include moments where two of them talk about their past lives, and naturally, one believes she is actually the famous Russian writer Helena Blavatsky and another to have become her 7th great-grandmother reincarnate who was a Salem witch, tried and hanged in 1692. (What are the odds?)

Look. Visually speaking, this documentary is lovely to watch and listen to. All the right shots of the scenery, the old villages, and the peaceful, thoughtful strolls through nature, along with perfectly timed dark, sad cellos playing (and an enhanced sound effect when blowing out a candle) would be magic to any viewer enchanted by witchcraft. We visit Scotland, Romania, and New Orleans. For someone who doesn't understand witchcraft, these are considered the most spiritual places on earth.

But the truth about witchcraft is never talked about here. In fact, I think it was meant to be avoided, because much of it would be too boring for a horror fan, and those into creepy things, just as one of the participants has admitted, and another showing a skull within her knick-knacks at home.

Witchcraft is highly dramatized here as being the way to step away from society's norm and be different, mysterious, and special...all the while clinging dearly to reasons why.

I don't want to get too highly critical of the choice of women who were subjects in this documentary, but let's just say they all had the same sense of longing to connect and to somehow prove to the audience that they are witches for a reason.

The supporting cast is worse.

A Gardnerian high priestess named Anne Marie Greymoon interviews Laura and Andra about initiating them, and asks the question: "How do you feel about drugs?" and "How do you feel about being nude around men and women?" feeling out their responses as they are intended to be requirements. Those who understand witchcraft, know that Wicca is a new-age hippie religion created in the 20th century, that has little to do with actual witchcraft, so their rules and expectations are simply bizarre, nothing more.

Andra then goes to Romania to meet the self-described most powerful witch in the world, Mihaela Minca, who strangely explains she's been given gifts by the grace of God. She's everything you'd expect, a throaty, boastful woman with long red nails doing little more than walking through clouds of incense and using exaggerated gesturing while wearing traditional Romani clothing, reminding Andra with ferocity to tell all that she met the most powerful witch in the world. One who has a billboard displayed firmly outside her place of practice, advertising her Facebook and Whatsapp information, not that witchcraft is a business or anything. (Sarcasm)

Laura also meets Sandra Mariah Wright, who once went by the name Sandra Mariah Power and was featured in a different show whereby her use of the ouija board was hilariously debunked. We meet her again, this time, lighting candles and paying solemn tribute to her relative who was hanged in Salem three hundred years earlier.

Just in case the message of spirituality and connection to nature wasn't clear, there is an amusing shot of Andra lying on the ground in a clearing in the forest, starfished out, with a drone looking down at her, showing her arms and legs spread out as it zooms out to also capture a nice shot of some Romanian scenery. So spiritual.

I do feel a bit bad for these three women, but at the same time, they truly seem like this is what they wanted. To feel special, different, and validated for being witches - during a time with we are privileged to be practicing witchcraft without fearing our lives. Now it's an identity that people wear to show their uniqueness, all the while, not even knowing what or why they're practicing it. This documentary captures the stereotype whether they meant to or not. Because an actual documentary about real witchcraft and real witches would likely disappoint most people for being (gasp!) too normal.

Can You Ever Forgive Me? (2018)

Pleasantly surprised!

[7/10 · 20 September 2023]

I went into this film not knowing a single thing about it. I had no idea it was based on a true story, I didn't know who Lee Israel was, and I didn't know if this was going to be a drama, horror, romance, or some kind of coming-of-age type of film. I just didn't know one single thing about it. I'm glad I approached it this way!

With that said, I also put my curiosity about Melissa McCarthy's dramatic debut on hold, not exactly sure I was ready to see such a change. It took me five years after its release to give it a shot. Still, not knowing what it was about.

As the story unfolded, I realized that I was going through all the thoughtful processes of how Lee was going to get herself out of the financial messes she was in, and when I saw the smirk on Melissa's face as she created her first forged letter, I too felt like it was all making sense.

This film is not exciting in the sense that we've seen such physical comedy from McCarthy in her previous projects, nor does 1990s' New York have to be viewed as gritty, though it always appears dark. It's also not constantly riddled with dialogue. It's perfectly paced. This film is purely meant to think, right along side the main characters, and feel for them as we watch them get by in life.

Lee's desperation to make a few dollars just to get out of arrears allows me to cheer on her wrongdoings, but I felt different when it turned into full-fledged crime.

But as much as Melissa McCarthy surprises us all with her dramatic acting ability (think Tom Hanks or Robin Williams as they crossed over, with their underlining wit shining through), for me, the unsung hero is Richard E. Grant, whose character somehow looks and behaves as some strange mixture of Christopher Walken-meets-David Bowie. He's flamboyant, fun, and a beautiful mess all in one. Melissa was obviously great, but Grant truly steals all of the scenes he's in!

This is one of those films where I watched it once and told my friends that "it was OK". Nothing special, I'd say. But I found myself rewatching it shortly thereafter, then reading more about Lee Israel, and now interested enough to read Israel's book that inspired the film.

It's a slow-to-burn type of interest, where I didn't think it was as great as it was upon first viewing. I sit at a 7/10 rating, but I'm sure in time it will eventually become one of my favourite films for the simple fact that it's like a sleeper: Ignored at first, but later regarded as very unexpectedly fantastic.

Whitney Houston: I Wanna Dance with Somebody (2022)

The lack of resemblance will distract you

[2/10 · 23 June 2023]

I am fussy when it comes to biopics. I would think it should be a priority to cast properly when it comes to finding the right actor who can physically resemble the character that they are portraying. If makeup and clothes don't cut it, they should find someone else. While Naomi did a good job with her script, and mimicked the movements of Whitney's iconic performances, I was left looking at an actress who was so far-gone from resembling Whitney that it just seemed like I was watching a film about someone else.

In fact, upon watching that scene of Whitney singing on the Oprah Winfrey Show, there were cut-away shots between Naomi Ackie and Oprah Winfrey, when it hit me: Naomi resembles Oprah. Perhaps she should be kept in mind if ever a biopic on Oprah is done.

What's more, the fact there was an obvious decision to omit all profanity, sex, violence, and drug-use made this film rather boring, relying on dialogues and music to tell us what we already knew and see and hear what we have already seen. I might have been more forgiving of a dull script had the actress been a dead-ringer for Whitney.

My two stars' rating are for Stanley Tucci and Tamara Tunie, who should have just had starred in a biopic about Clive Davis and Cissy Houston instead.

The Banshees of Inisherin (2022)

Try not to think of this as a comedy and you'll be fine

[8/10 · 19 February 2023]

I went into this film not knowing anything about it. I didn't know if it was a drama, horror, comedy, or what it was. I simply watched it without mentally preparing for what I was about to see, and in all honestly that's how I think it should be approached, if at all possible.

The reason for this is because it's none of those things, and yet all of those things. To have it lean one way or the other to influence the viewer will do them no favours as it doesn't have enough of the elements of any genre to BE that genre.

The trailer makes you believe this is a comedy. I disagree. I think this film represents all the good and bad that can happen in regular life. Sometimes life is funny, sometimes it's slow and boring, and sometimes, it's awful. The angles that the situations these characters go through are unique, but still has a message about what life is like, and perhaps a lesson about the right and wrong way to handle things during the times when things don't go your way.

One of the most pleasing things about this film as someone who is not from Ireland, is enjoying the scenery of the Aran Islands. Also charming is the time this film is set in, which is in 1923 when people obviously didn't rely on cell phones and gadgets, allowing them to actually see people in person. This enables today's films that are set in the past to allow characters to knock on doors or meet at pubs to have conversations.

The character that is not credited in this film, but should be, is that of Friendship, and how important it is in our lives. Friendship can turn bad making things stressful in every way in our lives, but when it's good, it makes everything worth while. One can't help but reflect on their own life while watching the relationship between Padraic and Colm turn bad. It's hard not to think of the friendships we've all held on to but should have either let them go, or think of the people we let go, but should have hung on to.

This film stayed with me for the entire evening after watching it, and all the next day, thinking about the simple things that we can all relate to.

Perhaps that's making more out of this film than it really is, but then again, maybe that's the whole point.

Lean on Pete (2017)

Warning: Deceiving title. This is not actually about a horse.

[4/10 · 9 October 2022]

I was looking for a decent "horse film" and read that this one was not a typical cookie-cutter family film about horses, and had a lot more depth to it, so it may be more up my alley. True, this film is deep, but it really has nothing to do with horses. The beginning of the film basically introduces the main character, Charley trying to find something with meaning to pass his time while he lives in poverty with his father, and ends up befriending a race-horse owner and jockey, volunteering to shovel the stables and do some light exercise with the horse, whose name is Lean On Pete, which bears the name of the film. But in actual fact, this is just one facet of the film with many more facets that show the coming-of-age of the teenaged lead character.

The race horse that Charley bonds with is just the starting point of his journey, which he then feels he cannot turn around from. Shortly afterward, different situations and occurrences happen along the way without the horse, and for this reason, it disappoints me that I had invested time into a film that I really didn't want to. It had nothing to do with horses after that.

I chose not to dig deep into the plot by reading anything more about the film online, as I wanted to simply enjoy the film as it went along. The fact that the title bears the horse's name, and it is a side character for a short time doesn't make it enough to actually be in the genre of any sort of "horse" films. This is simply a film about a teenaged boy with very grown up problems, and his sudden choices that land him in trouble at every turn. Lean On Pete, the horse, is the character that starts everything off. Nothing more.

If you're looking for a horse movie, this isn't it. This is a suffering, teenaged-boy film, about a kid who is mainly alone, and gets himself into trouble due to bad circumstances, and meets some good and bad people along the way. That's it. The horse just happens to be there for a few minutes.

Elvis (2022)

Had Potential

[1/10 · 21 September 2022]

This story had all the ingredients to make a great film, but fell flat with a few key details. One, is the distracting unlikeness of Austin Butler. Elvis' face is the one thing that fans were drawn to, just as close as they were to his voice and moves. The first comments I ever hear from others who had seen the trailer was the same: "Doesn't even look like him." Painfully, this doesn't improve much throughout the film. Aside from that, Austin Butler does get the moves and vocals down.

Aside from that glaring error, there is a production style of the film that constantly distracts, and that is the constant use of zooms, spins, split screens, and overlays. The film doesn't seem to flow with thoughtful scenes like usual bio-pics. Instead there are snippets of key events that last for approximately 5-10 seconds, sometimes beneath a soundtrack that is mixed with classic Elvis rock with modern hip-hop.

It's a bit like watching the style of Beetlejuice and Woodstock together while watching Tom Parker tell his story. And for those that didn't know, Tom Parker is the actual main character, not Elvis himself. This story took a different angle of Elvis' success to make it entirely about Tom Parker's questionable affairs regarding Elvis' business deals.

As far as sound and lighting, same distracting over-produced detailing. In almost every scene, including a darkened tour bus, there is a blast of light to cast on the actors' faces. This was more noticeable during night-time scenes outdoors, whereby it appeared to be soft daylight. Sound mixing made sure that all the voices were intimate, even in loud environments. No matter how close or wide the camera angle, the softest voices were amplified to fill the sound, and become louder than everything including cheering and running vehicles. In some films, this is expected, but this film did it with every single scene.

I wish I could give this film a better rating, and I really had hoped to enjoy this film more, but it seems the powers that be wanted to delve into a new-style of filmmaking of the time, giving the soft lens focus of an idyllic world of the 50s, and strange choices to make this movie appear to be computer-generated with too much lighting and motion-effects.

Gone are the days of old-style bio-pics I suppose. I was equally disappointed with the same style when I watched Rocketman. This film couldn't seem to decide on whether to be a musical or a bio-pic, and the in-between just seemed too trendy with busy and distracting features to make it work either way.

Respect (2021)

Too long, yet not enough

[3/10 · 12 December 2021]

I really wanted to love this film. I'll admit, I knew very little about Aretha Franklin, so prior to watching the film, I did my Googling and learned many key things about her. I was then looking forward to the film...

First, I know it's under the Trivia that Aretha Franklin herself handpicked Jennifer Hudson to play her, but I have to wonder why she got away with that. I am not taking anything away from Hudson's abilities, but without saying the obvious, is it because she's black and can sing? There really weren't any resemblances to Franklin, and the makeup team just seemed to allow this. Notably, Franklin's thickly painted eyebrows. Not really taken into consideration. But then again, Hudson's facial features are so incredibly different. While clothing can mimic her body type, and Hudson can learn her "walk", her way of speaking, her delicacy, and her look were distracting. Sometimes, a film can have me get lost into the story when the character looks and acts so much like the real deal, but that just didn't happen here.

Also, where's the rest of the story? I find too many scenes were drawn out in the studios and on stage, that I was left wondering why there wasn't more to tell -- which I knew there was.

As for the ending, the title cards just named her as one of the best entertainers, and some of her accolades (all of which are worthy to know about), but no mention of her father's murder, her divorce, or how she died. The viewer didn't really get to know more of these personal details, and usually, that's what a biopic is for.

In the end, I was disappointed that so much of this film had seemed to drag, and yet I had found myself many times noticing the similarities between the film "What's Love Got to Do With It?" and this one, yet Angela Bassett's Tina Turner was so full of fire and her scenes were so captivating. In this film, I felt like I was simply watching Jennifer Hudson be Jennifer Hudson.

I think Aretha Franklin should have let movie producers do their thing and allow their casting associates do what they do best. It might sound crazy, but I think this film would have worked better with an unknown actress to get her break. Someone who actually did look like Franklin and embodied her sound and style. There surely could have been someone out there to do just that, but Franklin's pull to have Hudson take this on might have been the biggest mistake.

Sorry, Jennifer.

The Book of Negroes (2015)

Lovers of the book will be a bit disappointed

[2/10 · 3 November 2021]

I thought I had found the wrong series when first I saw lead actor Aunjanue Ellis on the DVD jacket-cover with a modern look (including makeup). A far cry from the book's original cover that included a modest, much darker-skinned woman whose look was to reflect that of being enslaved most of her life.

But that's just the start of my experience with this series.

I had read and enjoyed every gritty details of the book, simply because it was raw and heart-breaking, meant to make the reader feel something beyond their grasp. All of the ugly elements and consequences of rape, humiliation, personal loss, just to name a few things that rob someone of their dignity. The series seemed to cater to the ever-sensitive TV viewers who very likely needed to see slaves fully-clothed, clear-skinned, and bright-eyed. The series left out shocking details from the book, such as the infants that were thrown overboard (alive) on the first ship to the Americas. Once again, TV & Film find it too easy to spoon-feed the viewer only as much as they need to.

This series consisted of six episodes. Surely they had some time to show a few shocking moments from the book.

What's more, the very obvious sexual tension between Aminata and Sam seemed to be added for the viewers' pleasure since an absent husband just isn't as romantic.

These details that the readers of the book know about that the viewing audience doesn't makes me wonder if there ever will be a bridge between literature and screen-writing, as we see it time and time again.

I realize that this work is meant to be separate, and that Lawrence Hill did not write the screenplay, but I can't help but wonder why it is so necessary to take a subject as serious as this, during times like we are in now, and water it down with so much Hollywoodism.

My answer for those who read the book and wonder if they'll also enjoy the series?: No. I did give it two stars simply because I did enjoy the cast and for what it's worth, they did a good job. The costuming, cinematography, sound.. all of it good, but just a disappointment when you know how the story goes and end up with so much less than you hoped.

School's Out! (1992 TV Movie)

Way to Ruin the Memories

[7/10 · 18 August 2021]

I'm the same age as these characters. It was wonderful to take a trip down memory lane and watch the original series Degrassi Junior High & Degrassi High, restarting right at the beginning in Grade 8 along with Joey, Snake, Wheels, and the others. Then capping it off with this film -- the finale. My impression is that the film does NOT reflect the series, and for that reason, I'm disappointed.

The film went into a direction of ticking boxes of all the things that could be upsetting and did so while alienating most of the cast that I expected to see at the end. Whether the casting just couldn't round up most of the actors, or if the actors simply declined the offers, School's Out only focused on the inevitable longing for losing one's virginity, which had me wondering if it simply wasn't a choice for most actors to turn this film down.

The Degrassi High franchise prior to this send off made me laugh and cry. Not everything revolved around love, but when it did we saw different combinations of couples, and sometimes life altering results for the choices they made for sex (ie. HIV and pregnancy/abortion).

This film steered away from all that Degrassi worked on when it came to social dynamics to simply give us a typical look at sex and losing one's virginity between a select few original characters. It was a very basic script, and offers almost no humour and nothing to think about. In fact, there isn't even much that is relatable, or anything we learn from this film -- unlike the beloved series.

What's even more puzzling is how the spotlight was given to the very new and unliked character of Tessa, while giving a character like Spike almost no camera time.

When the door closed on the original Degrassi High series, it would have been nice to see some alignment with it in this final film. I wished for a little bit of humour and some problems to solve. Instead, the film takes us to a darker place filled with infidelity, fighting, alcohol, with life changing consequences stemming from those three themes. Was anything happy in this film? Sure. But the few happy moments were criticized by the characters.

While the cast did their best with the script and remained true to the characters that we loved watching throughout the series, I found myself simply disliking almost everyone in the end mainly because I was expecting so much better from this film.

Let There Be Light (I) (2017)

Kevin Sorbo hasn't gotten older, he's gotten worse

[2/10 · 13 January 2021]

I wanted to watch this on a whim after thinking about my love for the old Hercules and the Legendary Journeys series back in the 1990s, that first gave us the muscled up, feather-haired Kevin Sorbo. Back then, I could see he was more than his looks. He could deliver a great line and have some sort of comedic timing that could help his co-stars do the same.

But after many years, wondering what Kevin's been up to - this film piqued my interest after seeing it featured on Netflix.

Kevin's new-found method of pumping out films with either his own production company or that of his friends has left us empty. They're just not that good. Let There Be Light is one of those examples.

The poor directing, poor choice of cast (their friends and family), and choosing a story just-because-the-wife-wrote-it, doesn't mean fans are going fawn all over the new Kevin Sorbo and whatever films he takes on. We get it. He's found religion in real-life, and is now using his career and resources to promote it.

The dialogues are contrived. The jokes/one-liners are silly. The timing, the facial expressions - I could go on.. it's just watered down and it doesn't even look like Kevin cares about the product, but more about the message.

I have no problem as an atheist, watching Christian-themed films. Many are good, many are not - just like other mainstream Hollywood films. Hit and miss. It's not about the content, but about the entire movie-watching experience. Sorbo misses everything here.

Sure, watch it because you're curious to see Kevin pushing 60, still looking good. Watch it for the morbid curiosity of how the whole nauseating family stars as - their own nauseating family. Watch it to see Travis Tritt act, if you must. Watch it because you want to see Sean Hannity deliver a few lines. But don't watch this if you're expecting a masterpiece in film. Those who are Christians of course might love the message, but if we break the film down into whether or not it is actually good, let's be honest. It's just not.

Goon (2011)

Canadians: Be prepared to roll your eyes

[3/10 · 23 October 2020]

Okay, Canadians, get ready for a hockey comedy where the unsung hero of the flick is actually an assuming, polite, lovable American while his adversary is an egotistical Canadian brute. I can't be the only one who thought the miserable stereotypes were backwards. In fact, so backwards that it's silly. This movie was obviously focused on having an American hero, for the unforgiving American audience that insists on it (and the Canadian audience that just doesn't seem to care one way or the other), but they Canadianized Doug to the point where I actually had to pay attention to make sure I didn't miss any hint that he might be a Canadian. Like most Canadians, I guess I just have to learn to live with the fact that our American cousins require ego-stroking when it comes to a film where they need to be the hero and to add to the silliness, need to be better at hockey. (Eyeroll.)

Mae West (1982 TV Movie)

Mae Historians Will Be Disappointed

[6/10 · 28 May 2020]

If you're one of those people who is going to watch this to obtain information about Mae West and be entertained, then this film will suffice. Child actor? Married? In jail? Anyone who knows little about Mae West will find these key tidbits about her interesting.

But for those that know this and more about Mae, you'll be disappointed to see so many things left out. Sure the budget of the film only allowed so many actors, and so many sets, but Mae West had a brother and sister, a second serious love that she married named Guido Deiro. Jim Timony was certainly a main man of hers, and their rumored romantic relationship only actually lasted a short time. Frank Wallace came back to haunt her and Timony for several years looking for money after Mae struck gold in the business. Dragging her to court every few years may have been the reason of her failed film career as it interrupted her life for several years. But this film focuses mostly on the short-term romance between Jim and Mae.

This film shouldn't be counted out for accuracy. In fact, so many small things were obviously researched incredibly well. Examples: Mae's green and pink dress that she wore as a child actor. Mae's obtainment of her own personal silk underwear and sidebar friendship while incarcerated. Mae's determination to help give direction pointers in Night After Night, and George Raft's quote about her performance "she stole everything but the cameras". And eerily, Ann Jillian's ability to belt out a number with Mae's signature salty timbered voice.

As this review is written in 2020, it is hard to believe that it hasn't been since 1982 (four years after Mae West's death) that a biopic hasn't been recreated. Until a new film is made, if you can tolerate some dated technology and old-style methods of filmmaking of this originally made-for-TV film, then it's not bad to get your Mae information and learn a more about her.

The Age of Adaline (2015)

Not a new concept, but still enjoyable

[7/10 · 18 May 2020]

Imagine taking some elements of Freaky Friday (a freak-occurrence that sends a person experiencing a unique physical change), Groundhog Day (a person being able to live every day to the point of becoming well-versed in many things), Interstellar (a parent who inevitably will outlive their elderly child), and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (young person on the outside, old person on the inside). Add a cute dog and allow the scenery and some landmarks of Vancouver to pose entirely as San Francisco and you have The Age of Adaline.