SteverB Reviews

Civil War (2024)

A Solid 10/10

[10/10 · 28 May 2024]

I'll just go ahead and make the prediction now: this film will be nominated for Best Picture, and Kirsten Dunst will be nominated for Best Actress. And although I don't follow the Oscars much, I would be shocked if both those things didn't happen.

I haven't seen a more visceral film in a long time - "Saving Private Ryan" may have been the last. The best part of the film is upending the expectations of the audience by calling the film, "Civil War," and then making it about news and photojournalists getting from New York City to Washington DC (in the midst of a civil war). I knew very little about the film before I watched it, but I didn't expect that. As other reviewers have mentioned, one is dropped into the deep end from about the third minute of the film and it doesn't let up. There's no stupid romance going on, there's no other dramatic beats but the civil war that's taking place in the US, with the journalists following it.

It is safe to ignore EVERY review that calls this film boring, or plotless. There isn't a boring moment in it and the plot, including WHY the civil war happened, is pretty straightforward. Just about anything outside of Los Angeles and San Francisco would be more than willing to "sign up" with Texas. It's only been a few years since portions of California wanted to break away from the main state, after all. The "why" is self-evident.

I honestly don't understand the 1/10 reviews here, and especially the "boring" comments. They don't seem to come from one political side or the other, so it's like they watched a different movie. Kirsten Dunst is better than anything I've seen her in, and Cailee Spaeny, who plays Jessie, has a long, successful career ahead of her. Jesse Plemmons has a ten-minute scene that will be hard to forget. The entire main cast worked like a well-oiled machine. This is a phenomenal movie and well-worth the time to see it. Highly recommended.

Fire Island (2023)

Seriously?

[1/10 · 27 May 2024]

Well, I guess we gays have now gone mainstream, because we can now get what should be direct-to-video crap films too. How progressive. Showtime did this? I'm kind of amazed that anyone green-lit this mess of a film. Connor Paulo, in addition to being not hard on the eyes, gives a believable performance, but the rest of the cast seemed like they punched in and out for a paycheck and didn't bother to do any other work. This alleged HORROR movie was bland beyond belief. By the end, when the "big twist" is revealed, I had to go back into the film to discover where this twist of a character came from. As it turned out, he was sitting at a bar, stalk-staring at Paulo's character, but was otherwise nondescript -- just some weirdo at a bar, and even though you might know the basic plot going in, would never think that the director would make the killer so obvious so early in the film. Trust me when I say that doing that is, in fact, NOT a twist, it's just a lazy annoyance. And who was the old guy with the beard that pops up twice to recite weird ominous messages at Paulo? He had nothing to do with anything, and this writer/director is NOT David Lynch, so I don't know what he was supposed to represent. It was ridiculous.

Then the film had the audacity to leave open the possibility of a sequel! Don't bother with this. Don't bother with the sequel -- don't ask how I know it will be bad, I just do! Another review called this a "hot mess," and it's that, and so much less. NOT recommended.

Madonna: The Celebration Tour in Rio (2024 TV Special)

Fantástico!

[10/10 · 15 May 2024]

Something this week triggered me to watch the 1990 Madonna Blond Ambition Tour concert video, and although I gave that one an 8/10; on that scale, this one deserves a 15/10.

I honestly didn't expect to like this concert much, as Madonna is now 34 years older than her 1990 tour, and with my being only six months older than her, I didn't expect anything like what I got. I have been a big fan of Madonna since the mid-80s, so imagine my surprise that just 10 days ago, she performed this 2.5 hour set for 1.6 MILLION people in Rio de Janeiro. It was, in a word, fantástico!

Her dancers are, and have always been, some of the best in the business. The choreography was on point throughout the show, and although Madonna herself wasn't as "dancey" as she was in the 1990s, the show worked through that so that if you weren't looking for it, it was hardly noticeable. I think at 65, we can cut Madonna a break!

Her voice was as strong and PRESENT as it's always been and although another review complains about "playback" happening during the show, (and it's there in places, no doubt about it), it doesn't detract from the show itself. I'm sure that NONE of the 1.6 million fans gave it a second thought.

There were also several new song arrangements that I liked quite a lot. "Vogue" and several others were changed in such a way to bring them into 2024. Songs, as do singers, age, and if an artist like Madonna breathes new life into old hits, I welcome it. I'm not one of those that goes to a concert expecting to hear EXACTLY what's on a CD or stream. I've always appreciated remixes, reboots, new arrangements, and the like.

Even the stagecraft of this show is phenomenal. Stages extend out into the crowd, and there were several gigantic screens on stage and throughout the venue that were used to great effect. This is actually a celebration of Madonna's career -- whether it's her final concert tour is hard to say, but it is exactly that: a celebration of her career. The screens were used to show both still images and video throughout the 80s, 90s, and this century, following Madonna through all those years. And as she's always been a gay icon and a gay ally, "Live to Tell" is dedicated to many people lost to AIDS throughout the years, with their pictures filling the screens. Finally, the Mistress of Ceremonies (of a sort) is Bob the Drag Queen, and he is perfection from the opening of the show throughout the various guises he portrays throughout.

I can't imagine the necessity of this warning, but there is the usual sex mixed with religion in the show, and no one does that better than Madonna! There is also a bit of female nudity to the waist, but only I believe, during one song. Madonna uses "salty" language, as usual, but it seems more tempered and not used for shock value as it was in 1990. Madonna speaks during the show, about her career, and the love she has for her fans, both in Brazil and the world over. And although she probably gave the same speeches in every show on this tour, it seemed sincere and not pandering.

If you have the opportunity to find this concert somewhere, DON'T miss it! I am hoping that it's released on 4K Blu-ray because although Globoplay did a great job, there were still some digital artifacts due to some portions that had too much information on the screen, and it would be great to have this without their logo on the screen throughout. HIGHLY recommended.

Bridge of Destiny (2020)

Nothing more than pretty pictures and A LOT of melodrama

[3/10 · 9 May 2024]

I have no idea what I just watched, and I rewound several times because I thought I'd missed something, but no, it's just an incomprehensible story. I thought maybe the subtitles were "off," but no, they seemed to be right in the context of what the actors were saying. The film itself is mostly very pretty to look at, both the actors and the countryside of Vietnam.

As near as I can tell, two men in 1999, fall in love. One is a field worker, and the other is a "master" of some kind -- maybe his family owns the fields the other works. Their love cannot be, of course, due to prejudice and all of the other usual reasons. The wayward master son finally agrees to marry a woman, and then we skip 20 years to 2019, where the story continues.

That's really all I'm sure I understood. SOMEONE becomes the antagonist of the field worker's now heteronormative family, and this someone seems to be connected, somehow, some way, to the original master son. As the other reviewer stated very well, this someone character is a major role in the film, and somehow knows everything from 20 years before. He is too young to be the original character, and also doesn't look like him, but then the original woman who the "master" son was going to marry refers to him as her husband, which also doesn't make sense because he is young enough to be her son, yet she is also the woman who was thrown down on a bridge (the titular Bridge of Destiny, I assume), and is implied to have miscarried her original child, so I came out of the film having NO idea who this character was. Oh, and in case you missed it, this woman has heart problems. Broken, I assume.

Does this sound like a good time? Have at it then! I won't be watching this again, I know that. Find another film for the evening.

Independence Day (1996)

Have people forgotten how to suspend disbelief?

[10/10 · 27 April 2024]

I really had no intentions of writing a review of this film, but I watched it tonight in 4K and thought I'd drop in here to see what others had to say. I didn't read a lot of reviews back in 1996 and just thought this was a great film. Don't mistake me, it's not, "The Godfather," or "2001: A Space Odyssey," but it IS a very watchable film that, for me, still holds up today.

I didn't then or now, expect a realistic film depicting what would happen if Earth were visited by alien beings because that's not what this was. It's a summer blockbuster that back in 1996 was a crowd pleaser. Back then, apparently, people were more able to suspend their disbelief at what they were seeing and just enjoyed the film for what it was.

Now, it just seems that people want to nit-pick this film to death. Even Roger Ebert did it. I read through his review and then the comments below it and found it hard to accept that either Ebert or the people commenting there were taking this film so seriously. Why did this happen? How did that happen? How come Will Smith left his soon-to-be wife and son behind when he left to go fight the aliens? Why didn't they just destroy everything at one time? The CGI is dated (No, it's not!). And on and on with the buzz killing.

I'm seeing this a lot more in the past few years. People just ripping things apart for usually dubious reasons. Will Smith hadn't slapped anyone at the Oscars when this film was made. Randy Quaid was a relatively normal person when this film was made. The Twin Towers still stood in Manhattan. The 2008 housing crisis was still 12 years away. COVID was more than two decades in the future. And yes, Jeff Goldblum always talks like that, and it's wonderful!

In sum, I enjoyed this movie tonight as much as I did when it first came out. CGI still looks great, and if it didn't, surely 4K would have made that even more obvious. I don't have complaints about the plot. It is what it is. Some of the cliches people are complaining about actually CAME from this movie. What I did see that I wasn't really expecting was a confirmation of my own opinion that the best possible thing that could happen to America and the whole Earth right now is an alien invasion, because it seems like the only thing that might bring us back together as one human race. Nothing else seems to be working, and it definitely works that way in this movie.

It's a good time, this film, and deserves the classic status it holds. A hard 10 from me and definitely recommended if you haven't seen it already, or even if you have. Give it another go.

The Talented Mr. Ripley (1999)

The best Ripley

[10/10 · 19 April 2024]

It's 25 years later, and this film still stands above the rest. I recently watched Netflix's "Ripley," and although good, it had many flaws, one of the biggest being the ages of Tom and Dickie. This story depends on all of its pieces in place, and the idea that Dickie, well into his 30s in "Ripley" still depending on an allowance from his father is ridiculous. Expanding from that major flaw is the fact that Tom and Dickie are supposed to be the same age, or near to it, and Andrew Scott, although a fine actor and a fine Ripley, doesn't fit the bill.

Contrast this with Tom and Phillippe in "Purple Noon" and although it's clear that those characters are the right age, the story is so disjointed that one is hardly aware of where characters are, what they're talking about, or their motivation for doing things. First, you're dumped into the middle of the story and hardly get any exposition of what came before, then Tom kills Philippe in a boat, but seems to have no motivation to do that except that they've been talking about "what ifs." I have never understood the high praise for "Purple Noon," when about the only thing it has going for it is Alain Delon acting as eye-candy. They couldn't even manage to get the ending right, thereby ruining all that came before it.

But then I come to 1999's "The Talented Mr. Ripley," which in my mind is a perfect film. I realized tonight, while seeing it for probably the tenth time since '99, that Matt Damon is probably the creepiest Tom Ripley ever put to celluloid. For some reason, on this viewing, rather than rooting for him and hoping he'd get away with everything he was trying to get away with, the performance actually made me a little uncomfortable. It could be that I know the film so well, I knew what was going on with Ripley at all times. Jude Law is well-named as "Dick(ie)." Marge, at one point, tried to paint him as some sort of misunderstood god by voicing the opinion that when you're in Dickie's gaze, you feel like the only person on Earth, but when he turns to someone else, it's very cold. Yes, well, that seems to be Marge's romantic justification of his horrible behavior towards her, and eventually most everyone. Dickie is, to use 1950s vernacular, a cad. Did he deserve to die for it? Probably not, but then, he seemed to have no idea that he was in a small boat with a sociopath.

The background characters were also pitch-perfect. Silvana, Dickie's father, and ALL of the Italians. The film is beautifully shot, and Italy never looked so good! The addition of Meredith Logue, brilliantly played by Cate Blanchett was a masterstroke on the part of the screenwriter. Here is this woman that is not in the original story, always managing to show up at the most inopportune times. From the first time you see her to the next time is probably over an hour, and there she is! She's brilliantly written and acted.

Jack Davenport's Peter Smith-Kingsley, also not in the original story was there, I believe, to bring out the homosexual aspects of the story a little more blatantly than had been done before. It's not seen hardly at all in "Purple Noon," and "Ripley" makes that Tom asexual. This film leaned into the gay angle a bit heavier than others, and I think it was the right choice. It gave Ripley the opening to show a tiny bit of humanity amongst all the sociopathy. Tom and Peter could have made a go of it, but then there's Meredith again, who only knows Ripley as Dickie. So, Tom is left with the choice to continue getting away with all he has to either kill Meredith, her aunt and "Co.," or to kill Peter. There is really no choice when stuck on a ship.

Philip Seymour Hoffman is absolutely the best Freddie Miles by miles! "Purple Noon" gave us a bland, nondescript Freddie, while "Ripley" gave us a serene, controlled, interesting Freddie Miles, but not really in a good way. Freddie should be the large and in charge colorful rogue that he is in Hoffman's portrayal, and nothing else. This is a dark story, God knows, so Freddie should bring in all the color. The only version that accomplishes that is Hoffman, RIP. I HATE that he's gone!

So, I say, read the book, watch all the versions you can, but this one, to me, is perfection, start to finish. HIGHLY recommended.

Ringu (1998)

Yes, boring, but also...

[3/10 · 2 April 2024]

I just watched the US version of "The Ring" last night and decided to give this one a watch to see the supposedly, "one that started it all." No, not even a little. I don't even care that there wasn't ANY moment of fright in it, I would have taken a drama -- much like "The Ring" -- over what I got. There were several things that were different that I was very glad the US version had gotten rid of: the whole well saga, for example. What was the thinking behind having to drain the well, only to end up in the same place the US version ended up? Even without seeing "The Ring," the idea to drain the well was nonsensical -- if you can stand up in it, you don't need to drain it to, I guess, find an old body.

And the thing I haven't seen anyone talk about is the horrendous acting. It may be my lack of knowledge of Japanese cinema and/or culture, but there were so many jarring moments of ACTING that I was constantly pulled out of the film. Do people act that way in Japan? Talking quietly, and then suddenly SHOUTING SOMETHING at another character? I'm not coming from a racist viewpoint, but from one that simply doesn't understand the acting style in this film, it's really ridiculous. I've seen many Japanese films that don't do this. I just don't get the sudden screaming dialogue that, according to the subtitles, wouldn't have been screamed anyway. WTH?

At any rate, I can't recommend this unless you're being a "Ring" completist. This is definitely one time that the US version is so much better than the original, so watch it if you must, but your time would be spent better watch "The Ring" again instead.

The Truth vs. Alex Jones (2024)

Each of my stars is x10!

[10/10 · 30 March 2024]

I was trying to remember if I'd ever felt more satisfaction from a documentary before than this one. The satisfaction comes from the fact that not only is it a well-made film, but it also documents the mighty fall of Alex Jones. He may still be "broadcasting" on his whatever site, but I don't think he will ever have the power and reach he once had. As it turns out, there ARE limits to what he continues to try to claim are his "First Amendment Rights." You can't defame people and get away with it, and he certainly defamed people, both living and dead.

The thing about this film is that I never knew just how bad this situation was. This is NOT a doc that you can skip if you know the basic story. I'd heard about Alex Jones through the years and his "theories" about Sandy Hook, but I didn't know just how malicious and damaging to grieving people he was. The doc reveals that with court testimony. It details how the parents of the murdered children were harassed for a decade -- A DECADE! -- by Jones and his followers. And all so Jones could make money off the backs of murdered children. I guess even now, after all this country has been through for the past eight years, I CAN still be shocked by what some people will do to fulfill the wishes of a stochastic terrorist. I don't have much religion in my life, but I can say that Evil truly does walk the Earth in several different guises, Alex Jones being only one of them.

With all of that said, this ends up being a very satisfying story because in the end, Jones gets a little of what's coming to him. The Satan Construction Corporation is currently hard at work on those extra levels of Hell they're going to need for these people. Highly recommended whether you're an Alex Jones fan or not. A solid 10 like the best HBO documentaries often are.

American Conspiracy: The Octopus Murders (2024)

Just STOP it!

[5/10 · 28 March 2024]

I had avoided this doc series for a few weeks because it first of all had the word "conspiracy" in the title, and secondly because it didn't seem to be that interesting. I should have paid attention to my gut instinct.

I don't know if all Netflix docs follow this formula, but it was pretty good in the first two episodes, then took a nosedive fast in the third. This was, apparently, a HUGE story in the early 90s, that of a journalist either committing suicide or being murdered in pursuit of a story of a vast right-wing conspiracy involving purloined government software that they stole from the developer, nefarious plots and schemes in Reagan getting elected, running guns for the Contras, triple murders, Indian reservations, and lions and tigers and bears. The many twists, turns, and switchbacks in this are hard to believe, and even harder to prove. In addition, Christian Hansen, the journalist in this, basically gets to the point of believing everyone involved is insane and that he's wasted ten years of his life on this case. Also, the director should be only a disembodied voice behind the camera if he has to be seen or heard at all. What was all that camera time about?

I stopped caring about half-way through the third of four episodes but stuck it out until the end. Then, in its last minutes, Christian gets a call from Michael Riconosciuto, who has already started to sound like Mike Lindell with a NEW theory and some NEW surefire evidence, and tells Christian to meet him because, "PEOPLE ARE DEAD!!!" The name "Michael Riconosciuto" was invoked at least a hundred times during the series and was played up to be a REALLY. BIG. SOURCE. And as it turned out, by the end the evidence suggests that he was nothing more than a fabulist, suffering from paranoid delusion.

So, honestly, through all of that, I don't know any more about anything than I did before I watched it. I never quite understood what the point was in "investigating" a 30+ year old suicide/murder, and then interspersing a governmental conspiracy that can never be proved within it. As others have said, don't waste your time on this. It's not really as compelling as it first seems, and at best, it could have been a 90-minute documentary. 5 stars because it is the very definition of average.

Star Trek: Picard (2020–2023)

Perfect show, start to finish.

[10/10 · 20 March 2024]

I think it's understood now that the question at the end of each review, "Was this review helpful?" with a Yes or No button, is not really a sign of the reader's "helpfulness" rating, but whether they agree or disagree with the review. With that said, and based on other reviews, I'd expect the No ratio on this review to be pretty high.

I simply loved this show from start to finish. Each season being its own story arc was a brilliant idea, with, I suppose, the show never quite knowing whether they'd be renewed or not. Surprisingly, the last season, which was announced well before it started airing, is the only one with a "cliffhanger," of sorts. But it's also safe to ignore it and be none the less for it. I mean, I would probably watch the show that is suggested in the last few minutes of the finale, but I'll also probably forget about it in a few weeks.

I see a large number of reviews concentrating praise on Season 3, and trashing Seasons 1 and 2. That was not my experience. Season 1, bringing Picard back to space was well done, and introduced compelling characters along the way. The story also tied back to the original series and filled in some of the story holes that were left.

Season 2: The Borg are back, what's not to love? The Borg are the TOP villains of, maybe, the entire franchise, so I really don't understand anyone who loves Star Trek finding the 2nd season anything but compelling.

Season 3, that everyone else seems to find perfect, is the one with some issues; the biggest one being the sudden replacement of the new Borg Queen introduced in Season 2 gone and finding the Alice Krige Borg Queen in her place in Season 3. I assume there's only ONE Borg Queen, so I don't know what that was about. Other than that, some of the writing in Season 3 seemed lazy, while 1 and 2 were fresh. It's actually, for me, Season 3 that was the least compelling. But I'm a viewer that enjoys change and stories that continue and expand, and Season 3 seemed to rehash old Star Trek: TNG dialogue and situations that now seem tired.

And the swearing! I loved it! Star Trek has always been a little too sanitized for me, so the swearing was a welcome addition, showing that the characters talked and acted like real people and not cardboard cutouts. It's also worth noting that our entertainment reflects the times. When TNG premiered in the late 80s, it was a great show for that time. We were coming out of the "Greed is Good" decade, and TNG was a tonic to that. Now, of course, the whole world seems in chaos, and ST: Picard reflected that. There's more violence, more swearing, and more darkness. This is a show that needs to be watched in the dark because so much of it IS literally dark. The bridges are all low lighting, the hallways, even conference rooms and what they chose to put in the holodeck. It's a dark place -- much more "Alien" and less "TNG."

But, overall, for me, a GREAT show. Due to how channels and services have abruptly ended shows for the past several years, I don't watch anything until it's completely over, so I binged the whole series in about a week or so. Watching it that way turns it into three very long movies, and I highly recommend watching it that way. You can take a break between seasons because of the show's structure. ST: Picard turned out to be all I hoped it would be and I can highly recommend it.

The Mental State (2023)

Derivative of Something

[3/10 · 8 March 2024]

This is not a great movie. I might call it decent if I could latch onto something in it that made it that way, but the story itself feels derivative of things like school shootings in general, and maybe a little bit of "We Need to Talk About Kevin," but not nearly as engaging as that film.

In addition, the overall message of the film was bad, and I'm not even sure what kind of audience the film is aimed at, or what the message was supposed to be. School shootings are bad? Stalking is bad? A lack of mental health will get you killed eventually? People who have mental health issues will eventually grab a gun and if not actually go to school and start shooting, at least LOOK like they're going to? Religion doesn't REALLY care about you unless you have the money? That's why I say the message was bad -- there seem to be several messages going on at once, none of them engaging, surprising, or helpful.

I think anyone under 25 or so would be rolling their eyes for most of the film, and anyone over 25 wouldn't really GET anything out of it. No matter what audience this was supposed to be for, I can't recommend it to anyone. 3 stars for the effort.

The Zone of Interest (2023)

Claustrophobic

[10/10 · 2 March 2024]

I have been looking forward to "The Zone of Interest" since I first heard about it, and was NOT disappointed, either by the film or its direction by Jonathan Glazer. After watching, I came here to rate, and maybe review, but got caught up in reading others' reviews. After reading 40 or 50 of them in whatever order IMDb defaults to, I'd made a decision about my rating.

This film is incredibly difficult to rate. On the one hand, it is a portrait of the commandant of Auschwitz and his family, living in their home just this side of the wall separating "normal" German life from one of the most prolific deathcamps of Nazi Germany. On the other hand, it is also a film about the (can't think of a better word) banality of that family's life, while living next door to Auschwitz. And their lives are banal, just like most of our lives are banal. We get up in the morning, brush our teeth, eat breakfast, go to work, come home, have dinner, watch TV, or in the case of 1940s Germany, read books, and talk to our spouses before going to sleep, and starting it all over the next day. It's mostly boring, and it's certainly boring to WATCH it happen. BUT none of us LIVE NEXT DOOR TO AUSCHWITZ!

THAT was the thought that kept me glued to this film from start to finish. Whatever this family did in its everyday, boring, banal existence, they live next door to Auschwitz, and they are so inured to it, that they don't even notice, except when some elements become either a "prize" for the family like a fur coat for the wife or some new teeth for a son's collection, or a problem, like human cremains in the river, or unwanted ash in the garden.

After about 45 minutes of this film, I realized that the film is best at being claustrophobic. The viewer is trapped in this place with this insane bunch of people. Everything has a wall around it, or a locked door, or a light that is being turned off, or nighttime scenes that make little sense, but add to the feeling of being inside one of those nightmares where you can't find your way out. And another reviewer focused on the dog, Dilla. The dog knew what was going on and was aware of everything, all the time. Agitated, always agitated.

I've seen reviews here calling the film boring, or slow, or having no plot, and I have to agree; the film is slow, boring, and has very little plot, and that's the point. The "banality of evil" is exactly what it says -- banal. Banal is slow, boring and has no plot because that's what it is. In exactly the same way as our own individual lives are banal, so were the lives of the people depicted in this film, BUT the big difference is not only did they live where they lived, but DAD was in charge of the mechanics of the millions of murders taking place just on the other side of their garden wall. THAT is the evilest aspect of the film and the story. This film will stay with me for a long time. I highly recommend it.

Who Invited Them (2022)

You don't really know how bad until 20 minutes before the end.

[3/10 · 23 February 2024]

Lazy, stupid nonsense, but, unlike a lot of reviewers here and professionally, I tend to watch a movie for what it is as it happens. I'm not necessarily "looking" for stuff to write about later. So, no, I didn't see the "twist" coming, but when it happened, I also wasn't surprised by it, and as soon as it happens is when the movie takes a downward spiral to that stupid ending. And does that stupid ending leave open the idea of a sequel? Ugh!

Before all of that, it's pretty entertaining because if you're simply following what's happening onscreen, you're trying to figure out what's up with this invasive and uninvited couple that claim to be "the neighbors." There is a bit of comedy, but most of it is from the ridiculousness of the main character, who comes off as one of the douchiest characters there is. He's that mid-late 30s guy who is still trying to be 25 and failing miserably at it. His wife seems to blow around with the wind -- whatever someone suggests, she weighs the idea for a millisecond or two, then goes for it. The "hip" couple play them like fiddles, but you don't know why.

Then comes the "big reveal," and it is mighty lame. By the time you realize how DUMB it is, the movie's almost over and you might as well watch it to the bitter end. I'm sure there was a sign on the road that I missed along the way to define what we were watching in the last two minutes, but I'm not nearly interested enough to go back and see what it was.

I'd also like to help a fellow reviewer who has questions:

Why was the husband (Frank) who hit the dog/animal with his car such a beta male? I didn't notice that, except that he lied to his wife about hitting a branch when it was an animal (a dog?).

How was his wife (Teeny) able to find the location of the injured animal but not the house she was looking for? There was a big white cross on the side of the road to find the animal, but apparently, she didn't have GPS.

Why was she too weak to end the animal's suffering? I don't know. I'll come back to her.

Does no one have smartphones in this movie? If this movie was set in an earlier year, I could see that. NO, apparently not. They TALKED about phones, but I don't recall ever actually seeing one.

Why don't people just simply call the police? Good question, again, no phones!

How could the woman (Teeny) hold the rifle so terribly and still hit the "wrong" target? Here's where I blast that whole story arc. What was the purpose of Teeny being out in her car in the first place? She was supposedly going back to the kid's house to get his stuffed monkey, but that could have easily been left out of the script with no effect on the story at all. Her ONLY purpose seems to have been to be there to shoot Adam, which makes NO sense. If she'd managed to shoot Tom and/or Sasha, then this would have been a good use of her screen time, but all she did was shoot Adam! So dumb and unnecessary.

Why wasn't the wife (Margo) concerned at the end when the husband (Adam) was having a meltdown? I don't even know what was going on there. With the blackout between that scene and the scene before it, I thought "time had passed," and we were getting a look at Adam and Margo after the events of the movie. That whole thing could have been in Adam's head. He came away from the "incidents" probably pretty damaged, so he might have only been having his meltdown in his head. I have no clue. It wasn't well-written, and I lost the plot there. He seemed excessively paranoid, as if Tom was now living in his house and Adam was the intruder. I kind of stopped caring.

We know what cantaloupe is but what is rutabaga? Cantaloupe was "they die," rutabaga was "they live." Silly kids!

Hope that helps. That's my take on this movie and these leftover questions. I can't honestly recommend this because although it shows promise for the first hour or so, the last 20 minutes kills whatever good feeling you might have had for it. Skip it.

Lypsinka: Toxic Femininity (2024)

Surprisingly awful

[2/10 · 12 February 2024]

I LOVE Chloë Sevigny, and I LOVE John Epperson as Lypsinka, but this was simply awful. It's not that I came into it with any expectations of a Lypsinka "concert" film, I literally started watching without knowing anything about it except that "The New Group" had it streaming on their website.

I expected to like it, even without knowing anything, because of the massive talent involved, but that SCRIPT! Ugh, what the hell? I understand that most, if not all of it, was from recordings Joan Crawford made of her 1959-ish book, entitled something like, "How I Live My Life." She may made one of the first audio books! But, even with that recording as a guidepost, this still fell flat.

The film was disjointed in its editing and direction. Epperson lip-synced (what else?) the Crawford recording very well but left me cold and indifferent to it. In addition, the audio started glitching about ten minutes before the end, and I gave up on it because it was unwatchable from that point, even with the subtitles on.

I EXPECTED to like this, and I am SO disappointed that I didn't and can't possibly, in good conscience, recommend it to anyone.

Squid Game: The Challenge (2023– )

TWO for the set pieces

[2/10 · 11 December 2023]

I swore to myself a long time ago that I would NEVER be one of those reviewers that tried to review a show after only watching one episode, but here I am. I would rather have waited another year or however long it takes, for a 2nd season of Squid Game over this reality TV garbage. The show is OBVIOUSLY scripted, and I would guess had many "takes" of certain scenes, as if they were actually presenting the 2nd season of the real show, which this is definitely NOT. I wish I could say that I'll watch the rest to see if it improves, but with umpteen streaming services that have QUALITY shows on them and as all of us have a limited amount of time on Earth, I can't possibly devote one more second to this show and help give Netflix the impression that they should do this again. No! Ugh! WTH, Netflix?

Don't Look Down (2019)

Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

[3/10 · 10 December 2023]

As another reviewer said, I too am interested in LGBT cinema, but I am not willing to acquiesce to ANY film that features LGBT themes, situations, and people. A quality film is important, too. This film had a seemingly interesting premise, five people (four gay men and one straight woman) are in a high-rise Parisian apartment, dealing with their upset over relationships each of them has had with a man who is secluded in another room of the apartment. Each of the players enter the room individually, while the remaining cast remains in the apartment, drinking champaign, making apple slices, passing around chocolate, and eventually when the food runs out, eating fried sardines. It seems the upset has to do with each person's humiliation and/or discovery that the relationship they each had with "the man who shall not be named" wasn't equal in that they each fell in love, while the other man was faking it.

From THAT premise, we have a filmed stage play filled with angst, oh, so much angst! The person in the other room, (tied up or something, we never find out) is the receiver of each of the players one by one going into the room alone with the man and coming out some time later. NOTHING about what happens in the room is revealed, as it's one of their "rules" for the evening. Meanwhile, they each reveal fantasies to each other or their various perverse (their word) desires. At the end, which someone opined should take your breath away, is yet ANOTHER soliloquy as the sun comes up over Paris.

There is no genius in not fleshing out the story. There is no mystery to any of these characters. I'd say they were pretentious, but they don't even rise to that level. They're young, but WAY too old to be dealing with whatever they're dealing with in this angst filled way. MOVING ON may have been an option! WHAT exactly did this "MAN" do to each of them? We never find out. Yawn.

I can't in good faith recommend this. It's ultimately boring and pointless. I learned nothing. The characters learned nothing. I don't see the point of this film.

Rock Haven (2007)

Mary, please.

[4/10 · 9 December 2023]

Oh, man, the triteness of this movie is only outmatched by the script, which obviously wasn't longer than a 30-40-minute short film. That length would have made the film more bearable and hopefully have done away with 80% of the shots of the Pacific crashing against the rocks. If that was supposed to be a metaphor for something, it completely went over my head.

The DEEP sincerity of this film was gag-inducing at times. On a more positive note, the acting from the two boys seemed natural and realistic. I liked especially how Brady used his eyes in some scenes, quickly looking away, and then back, to avoid talking about what was being discussed. The actor who played Clifford made the most of what he had to work with, as did the actress who played his mother. They seemed like mother and son -- both free spirits. Brady's mom, on the other hand, was played as a stern, rigid, frozen Christian woman who followed her faith right off the cliff. The final scene between her and Brady should have meant more than it eventually did. With heartbroken Clifford off to Barcelona, I fully expected Brady to move in, at least temporarily, with Clifford's mom, at least until his mother came to terms with her own feelings. One thing missing from the final scene, whether intentionally or by neglect, is that Brady tells his mom that he just needs her to love him, and she responds that he will always be her son. Pointedly, she did not say that she loved him, which may have been something he needed to hear at that moment.

At the very end, I thought, "well, at least the gays didn't DIE!" But would it kill a writer/director of an LGBTQ+ movie to let it have a happy ending? So, Brady's mom has her son, Clifford has flown off to Barcelona to live with his dad (I guess due to his heartbreak), and Brady, from all his strife, feels closer to God. Whoopee!

This is not a film I will ever watch again. Overall, it's depressing, and there's enough in the world to do that without it crossing my movie screen. So, 4 stars, and a Mary, please! Recommended if you're feeling a bit masochistic.

Escaping Twin Flames (2023)

Half in and half out

[7/10 · 6 December 2023]

I'm of a mind regarding this documentary series that is on the one hand, feeling very sorry for the people that got suckered in and lost LOTS of money in the process, but on the other hand, also thinking that being suckered in by these two VERY uncharismatic people is all the suckers' own fault. How does someone get to such a place in their lives that something like Twin Flames resonates and makes sense? Should I feel bad for people who knew what they were doing "felt" wrong in the moment, but went ahead and did it anyway? I definitely feel sorry for the parents that were in this documentary who had lost their children to these two idiot criminals, but the participants themselves? I don't know.

There were things about the show that I didn't really like. For example, cameras in places they shouldn't be. When someone is going to another person's house for a supposedly first meeting in a long time, I really don't want to see the door being answered from INSIDE the house. It happens in a lot of documentaries, but this one was, for some reason, more noticeable. It made me question other things that happened during filming, like the mother receiving a text from her son who was still in the cult, while the cameras were rolling. It's not a good look in a doc like this.

For anyone still questioning whether this is a cult or not, it IS a cult. There is no question about that. It has elements of the Prosperity Gospel in it, seen when Jeff, the main cult leader, is showing off all the things he has, like a Porsche and a massive house, and his wife dressed in Chanel. He never once appeared to give a thought to the fact that the people he was showing off to were the ones that paid for all of his possessions with his overpriced "e-classes." The Scientology red flag kept going up for me too. Lots of things within the social structure of the group are certainly based on it, like the heavy control over the participants, the high cost of "moving to the next level," and the shunning of your family and friends who are only there to take your attention away from your "climb" to a higher level of blah, blah, blah.

I guess cults themselves are not illegal, but maybe at a certain level they should be. Bottom line is that what Jeff and Sheleia are doing is wrong. They are actively convincing people who seek them out that they will GUARANTEE a match with your twin flame, of whom there is only one on Earth, and conveniently, they're the only ones who can confirm an identification of your REAL twin flame through having coffee chats with God, but, you know, it will COST you. A lot. And if they don't have enough males available, they'll also convince a woman to believe that she's a man and transition. Yes, it's completely crazy, and despite that, Jeff and Shaleia are very, very rich.

Recommended, but only if you are interested in cults and how they operate. Otherwise, steer clear because it's a sad, infuriating story. Like the NXIVM people, Jeff and Shaleia belong in prison.

The Killer (2023)

Wut?

[3/10 · 20 November 2023]

I actually just went to look and make sure that this film was actually directed by THE David Fincher and not some guy that was actually David Fincher (II) or something like that. I have not been this bored with a film in a long time. I normally would have shut it off sooner than the end, but I was waiting for SOMETHING to happen that said "David Fincher." I waited in vain.

The visuals were fine, but nothing special about them -- the locations took care of that consideration. Michael Fassbender was OK, but really didn't have much to do but look intense throughout and narrate his inner thoughts on a loop. I was hanging my hopes for something to grab onto in this film and anxiously awaited Tilda Swinton, but as wonderful as her performance was, she was only on the screen for ten minutes or less. She made the most of it and was excellent, but in a film of 118 minutes, her <10 minutes are lost.

The movie is VERY meh. The only initial attraction to it is David Fincher or Michael Fassbender, and that attraction wilts within 40 minutes. THIS was Fincher's passion project for 30 years? From the man who brought us Seven, The Social Network, Panic Room, Fight Club, The Game, and the perfect film that is Zodiac, I expected more AND better. I'm out of words and thoughts and will forget this film by morning. I can't recommend this film for any reason, including insomnia. It simply serves no purpose whatsoever.

Mr. Mercedes (2017–2019)

Excellent adaptations of THREE King novels

[9/10 · 4 November 2023]

The show was called "Mr. Mercedes" for all three seasons, but actually covers the King novels, "Mr. Mercedes," "Finders Keepers," and "End of Watch." These facts seem to have escaped a lot of viewers here, even those calling themselves reviewers.

For me, the show was very well done in all three seasons, but especially Season 3, which is based on "Finders Keepers," mostly. There was a little play with all three novels as the show went on that I didn't mind at all. TV series are NOT books, so some variations should be expected, and in most cases, welcomed.

Seasons 1 and 2 followed the original novel and "End of Watch," but left out some extraneous plots from the book that didn't hurt the show at all. The only thing that I may have found fault with is Brady Hartsfield's character having almost the entire focus of both seasons. Once he's killed all the people at the job fair, then attempts another attack at the arts gala, and is beaned by Holly with a paperweight, and lands in a coma in the hospital, the tension of the show slows down quite a lot in Season 2. It eventually ramps up again, but the killers now are not actually Brady, but others, being mind-controlled by him. He lays in a bed for most of the season, with visits to his subconscious where he is trapped in a room of his own making representing his disordered mind. I didn't find Season 2 to be as compelling as Season 1. Both seasons would have averaged out to a 6 or 7.

When the show first ran, I jumped out at the end of Season 2 because at the time, I lost interest. Had I stayed, I would have discovered the greatness of Season 3. In addition to Brendan Gleeson, who I love in almost anything, you have Kate Mulgrew in a role that absolutely chewed the scenery. She was utterly fantastic and compelling, especially if your only exposure to her is from "Star Trek: Voyager." She was nominated for a Saturn Award, but her performance really deserved an Emmy.

Breeda Wool, playing Lou Linklatter, was so compelling in the 3rd season that I couldn't take my eyes off her anytime she was in a scene. Her characterization of Lou, which by the way is not in the novels, was phenomenal. Why she wasn't even nominated for an award from SOMEBODY, I will never understand. In addition to Lou, the character of Holly, played by Justine Lupe, is perfection. She should have played Holly in "The Outsider" too. She is almost exactly what I saw when I read the novels before I'd even seen the show. She IS Holly Gibney!

Season 3 was also a perfect example of taking the bits and pieces from the original source material and making them different without losing the overall story. A pet peeve of mine are people who read a book and then later see the movie/TV show and complain because it wasn't EXACTLY like the book. Who wants that? I like seeing works of literature expanded upon or otherwise used as a basis for something else. Rote duplication of a novel to movie is boring. At least to me.

So, all in all, I gave the series a 9 because Season 3 really made up for any deficiencies there might have been in the first 2 seasons. Dropping the idea that Bill Hodges was dying of pancreatic cancer, from the book, was also an excellent idea for the show because it would have sucked all the air out of any other story. Recommended for people who like an *adaptation* of a set of novels and not a straight filmed version of them.

Casey Anthony: Where the Truth Lies (2022)

"Just because you're a liar doesn't mean you're a murderer."

[10/10 · 22 October 2023]

One of the cops that worked on the Casey Anthony said the quote above, except he said it about George Anthony, Casey's father. George had been caught in several inconsistent statements regarding the disappearance of his granddaughter Caylee, and this quote was said to the documentarian who produced this fantastic documentary, and he said it without ANY irony at all. All Casey Anthony was convicted of was lying to police during the investigation, but it seems, to this cop, "being a liar doesn't make you a murderer" only applied to George.

This turned into a "Casey Anthony Saturday" for me. At the time the case happened, I hadn't paid too much attention to it because I was working a lot. I started the day with "Casey Anthony: An American Murder Mystery" from Investigation Discovery, then moved on to this. ID's mini-series was released in 2017 and gives a good overview of the case, which is necessary to continue into this series. I noticed, even then, there was something "off" about Casey Anthony's parents, but to me, the mother was a bit stranger than her father. Her father was portrayed as a sympathetic figure who had been maligned and slandered at Casey's trial. But was he?

I've been avoiding this documentary for almost two years because I was very firmly convinced from things I'd read and seen that Casey Anthony got away with murder. What else explained her behavior back in 2008? She had no answers for certain questions, like, "where is Caylee?" and to other questions she answered with lies. Her defense of her father starting a pattern of her molestation when she was 8 years old, continuing with her brother doing the same when she was 12 sounded fantastical at best, and just convenient for her defense, at worst.

This mini-series will give you the answers to these continuing questions. And they're not pretty. I've read several one-star reviews here that paint Casey Anthony the same way she was portrayed by the media in 2011 during her trial. Some people cannot be objective to things they've made up their minds about, I suppose, because I was also in the "Casey is Guilty AF" Camp, and I didn't expect anything in this doc to change that, but it did. There is a ring of truth to everything Casey says in this presentation, and most of the big revelations happen in the last episode, so you have to stick with it to the end. I came here after episode 1 to see what people were thinking and found what I expected -- I wasn't that convinced either at the end of the episode. In order to appreciate the full story, you have to stick it out.

I have an opinion about George Anthony, and it's not relevant to a review of this doc, but in order for Casey to move on with her life, which she clearly hasn't been able to do, it's something that she should perhaps pursue. As she says, and is true, there are no statute of limitations for George's apparent crimes in Florida. But that decision is hers and I can only hope that she can find some kind of closure for herself. One good thing that can be said is that she has been able to find a proper family to be a part of. That may be the best thing for her at this point, and something she's experiencing for the first time.

Highly recommended for the open-minded.

Pet Sematary: Bloodlines (2023)

Liked it a lot

[9/10 · 16 October 2023]

All the hate reviews here are disappointing and also untrue. I'm not sure what people expected, but I got exactly what I expected, so I'm happy with it. I love expansions of stories that I know well and this one is another one that is well-written, well-acted, and is unbelievably well done for a first feature from this director.

It seems as though reviewers these days are all frustrated filmmakers and never really consider anything in the actual film they're watching but what THEY think it should have been, and not what it is. That is not the way to watch films. In fact, it's insulting to everyone who work on the films being reviewed from this viewpoint. Film criticism is fine, but knocking a film because it didn't meet preconceived notions is not. A movie is not an omelette you order at a diner.

With all that said, "Pet Sematary: Bloodlines" is a fine film in the Pet Sematary saga. I did finally learn that it's a prequel to the 2019 remake, so that Jud Crandell's age in this film made a bit more sense. There were a few things that seemed mis-edited, especially toward the end. But, for my money, seeing David Duchovny, Henry Thomas, and Pam Grier (!) in the same film are worth the price of admission.

If you haven't yet decided what "Pet Sematary: Bloodlines" is SUPPOSED to be, according to your own whims, it's highly recommended.

OJ25 (2020– )

Eye opening so many years later.

[10/10 · 10 October 2023]

I have a tendency to revisit things I find interesting again and again over the course of years. I hadn't really paid too much attention to the OJ trial in the last several years and only recently became aware of this series, and am I glad I did!

It is, by far, one of the best overall documentaries of the case. It's also very interesting to me how (and I can only speak for myself) differently I see this case now than I did when it originally happened. Then, I was pretty sure that OJ was guilty. After seeing this series, I'm 100% convinced of it. And don't mistake me, this series shows no bias at all. It's a very objective look at the OJ trial and nothing more.

It's much easier now to look at this footage objectively after 25 (now 28) years and take in all of the evidence there was against him. Although the story and the two murders are still horrendous, I don't have as much of an emotional connection to it as I did in 1994-95. And, for me, objectively speaking, the defense steamrolled over the prosecution with innuendo, assumptions, and in some cases, out and out falsehoods.

I will never understand how anyone can look at the blood evidence alone and come to any other conclusion but that he's guilty. It's easy to say things like, "the police planted it," which is a thoughtless and easy conspiracy theory to make, but there would have had to have been FAR too many people involved for it to work, from all the detectives to the criminalists. So, if there's no conspiracy, that leaves the obvious. The case, by the way, is considered unsolved to this day. No other credible suspect has ever emerged.

If you're looking to revisit the OJ Simpson trial, which could very convincingly be called the first "reality show," check this out on the Court TV website where you can stream it. And that's no joke, I firmly believe that without the OJ trial, the glut of reality shows that followed would never have happened like they did. There is even a Kardashian involved in the trial! Only in America.

Rotting in the Sun (2023)

Only one saving grace to this film...

[5/10 · 23 September 2023]

... and that was the masterful performance by Catalina Saavedra, playing Señora Vero. She had a lot to work with inside this plot, and was the absolute best part of the film.

People are calling this a film with two protagonists. And yes, I suppose that strictly speaking, that's true. There is a switch in viewpoints about forty minutes in, and that's when the film takes a turn that it never recovers from. The protagonist after that point is superficial, annoying in the extreme, and exactly like you'd expect a "social influencer" to be. I suppose in that way, he is successful in the role. But, to turn the whole film over to this guy makes the viewing experience trying. I get satire, I didn't get this.

The plot was good for what it was. I only wish that there were better people put in front of the camera to play it out. I can't in good conscience recommend this, but if you must, it IS worth it for Catalina Saavedra's performance. The 5-star is for that and most of the background actors.

Dark Side of the 2000s (2023– )

A little more "celebrity" driven than expected from VICE

[3/10 · 16 September 2023]

I have to agree with the other reviewer in that the topics here were not well-thought out. Instead of the usual compelling narrative I'm used to seeing from a VICE documentary, I saw something that looked like it was produced by Entertainment Tonight. The series is called "Dark Side of the 2000s," but there was nothing compelling here, unless you consider Paris Hilton having a beef with Lindsay Lohan and/or Nicole Ritchie compelling. Episode 1 about "Jon & Kate Plus 8" actually was well done in that I knew nothing about that show going in other than it was one of the first successful "reality" shows on the air -- after the OJ Simpson trial, of course.

I watched the next two episodes, expecting at least something to hang onto in a serious way, what with the "Dark Side" of it all, but it simply wasn't there. I skipped ahead to the last episode about Siegfried & Roy and that was interesting but didn't move me to want to see any of the other episodes.

If VICE had actually done a show that hit the "Dark Side of the 2000s," like the 9/11 attacks, the unnecessary wars started by the US, the Swift-Boating of John Kerry, the racism accompanying the running of Barack Obama for president, and so many other dark warnings from that decade, it could have been a show worthy of VICE, instead, there's THIS. I would skip this one, unless you're into celebrity culture, which is fine, just not my bag.