Reviews

7 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Barbarian (2022)
8/10
Y'all...
16 January 2023
Warning: Spoilers
I can't believe I have to write this review but after reading a vast amount of these, I can't not because y'all are so ridiculously blind to give this film such bad reviews.

First off, in response to those who keep stating Tess makes dumb decisions, from the trivia: '(Cregger wrote and adapted a short that) consisted entirely of a conversation in which a woman continues to ignore a series of mounting red flags.' Let me just say this - She is a woman. She is a woman of colour. She is a woman of colour who just got out of an abusive relationship. She is a woman of colour who just got out of an abusive relationship in an unfamiliar area and situation. She is on guard. She doesn't have anywhere else to go. All of her actions are actually understandable when you consider the history of her character and the history of women in general, if you can look outside your privilege and recognise that panic makes us do dumb things in the moment that don't make sense.

She doesn't drink anything he makes for her; she takes a photo of his licence (presumably for later evidence, or to send to a friend for safety purposes); she is wary of every single thing he says but stays polite and goes against her better judgement multiple times because that's what women have been taught to do.

Opinions like those expressed in other reviews are literally the reason why incels exist; patriarchy put both men and women in these boxes, you don't like us in them and you sure hell don't like it when we break out of them.

As to why the homeless man stays and doesn't trust cops - he's Black, homeless and I'm guessing doesn't have a lot of choices. Better the devil you know, y'know?

The tunnels and the probably spring-loaded, self closing door - obviously Frank built them.

The neighbourhood - y'all were okay with IT, where the entire town knew something was going on but did nothing? You understand 'don't ask, don't tell' in terms of military but don't understand people keeping themselves to themselves for fear of subjecting themselves to something worse by getting involved?

Why she goes back for AJ - because she doesn't know what we know (that he's just about the worst person ever), because she's human and sees another human in danger, because society has cast women as nurturers, even if it cost them their safety and sanity.

Missing women and man without wife or baby buying baby supplies - first of all, do you know how many people go missing and no one notices? Particularly those of Indigenous decent but just in general, it's a lot. When they were searching for Gabby Petito, they found like seven flipping bodies that no one was even looking for. Frank could've gone to other towns, man, that's just painfully obvious.

A convention filling up the hotels - I had a mate who landed in the UK years ago only to find the entirety of the accommodation was booked out for a U2 concert and he spent the night wandering around with his back pack.

Everyone seems to take issue with Tess' behaviour, but barely anyone has mentioned AJ's. That he just keeps measuring when he finds the bucket-bed-camera room, because he DOES NOT RECOGNISE THE DANGER INHERENT IN THAT SET UP, such as a woman would immediately. This also true of Keith, who has to SEE the room to apparently know it's bad news. The fact that AJ drops not one, but TWO potentially life saving weapons. You're fine with him shooting the wrong person in a moment of panic, but not fine with the decisions Tess makes in an anxiety-inducing and seemingly never-ending situation. I love how many people think that they'd behave in a perfectly rational manner in times of great stress, it's amazing.

Anything else? Oh, why is it called Barbarian? Again, from the trivia: 'The term "barbarian" originated in Ancient Rome. Romans would call non-Latin speakers "barbarians" because their languages sounded like "bar bar bar bar" to their ears which is similar to the vocalizations of the mother when trying to say "baby". The other more obvious reference is Frank kidnapping and raping women and their offspring being objectively barbaric. Also, Frank is, quite simply, a resident of Barbary Street, ie. 'a Barbarian'.' Enough, y'all. Check your privilege and appreciate this movie for what it is - an intelligent, thoughtful look at the complexities of men and women and what trauma does to a person.
2 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The X-Files: The Rain King (1999)
Season 6, Episode 8
5/10
Coming to you from 2021
5 October 2021
Warning: Spoilers
So, I enjoy this episode. The acting of the supporting cast, cute M&S dialogue, some adorable comedic moments, etc etc. It's all entertaining and you can have a pleasant time.

However, I'm coming to you from 2021, where I'm looking at this innocently portrayed Holman going, what happens if she doesn't love you back, incel? Mulder states quite clearly that Holman is going to kill someone if he doesn't tell her how he feels, and her initial rejection of him prompts Mulder to make a joke about building an arc and gathering the animals.

Y'all keep reiterating the light-heartedness of this episode, but the reality is actually dark af. He seems harmless, yet he has caused tornados, droughts, floods, economic devastation, a car accident, the death of an animal, the maiming of a fellow classmate and much more, for what? Love?

In a show that is continually praised for genre bending and defying convention, it would have been great to see this exact storyline, but when she says no, that's...okay. He accepts her answer, because he values her as a complete and autonomous woman with agency, realises he needs some help to express his emotions and learns to control his libido enough that it's not causing irreparable damage to those around him. That'd be great.

Sorry if this is too woke for some, and while I recognise that this was written and aired 22 years ago, the instances of male violence against women during an unrequited love situation is no joke. They had an opportunity to defy social norms and entertainment tropes and they didn't. It's disappointing, but, if you ignore all of that, yeah, it's fluffy, light-hearted and has a happy ending. Yay.
4 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Mentalist: Red John (2013)
Season 6, Episode 8
8/10
Y'all...
18 September 2021
Warning: Spoilers
I'm late to the party, it's 2021 and I've JUST found out who Red John is. I watched S1 when it came out, got it on DVD, then never continued with the show. So here I am, watching it on Prime this year, and questioning my partner, who knows who RJ is, but not to the point where I accidentally find out before the S6 reveal.

So, majority hated it. I didn't, and here's why. Anyone who thought that wimpy coroner from the first ep was even a contender, needs a lesson in TV. Too obvious, too fanboy, didn't even realise a RJ copycat was a copycat and Jane took an immediate and lasting dislike to him. If Red John was going to choose a persona to hide behind, would that have been it? No chance.

I felt sad for both Malcom McDowell's cult leader Bret Stiles (though he had his faults, a most enjoyable character) and Reed Diamond's Ray Haffner. They weren't involved in the network at all and died as collateral damage. Shame.

FBI agent Reede Smith was clearly the muscle, no chance he was a leader. And Gale Bertram, too obvious. He has the power, but he was clearly seen conferring with, or rather deferring to, someone after his interactions with Jane. He was reporting to someone, they weren't reporting to him.

And Bob Kirkland, while creepy and overstepping his bounds repeatedly, was not a real suspect in my mind. He was not at all covert in trying to get Jane's information on RJ and his I'm-trying-to-emulate-Christopher-Walken-to-intimidate-you thing was not convincing. Appreciated his back story, but would have liked confirmation as to his brother's whereabouts.

I know Xander Berkeley as the foster dad in T2, and my absolute favourite X-Files episode, homage to 'The Thing', 'Ice' (S1E8). So good choice.

Everyone was so shocked and repulsed by his interpretation of Red John when revealed, this old man begging for his life. But at the end of the day, he is just a man. He has been built up, and theorised about, and made to sound like a god, cult leader, saviour, psychic, mastermind and genius all rolled in to one. People can be great, but they aren't perfect. That man does not exist. Just like Hannibal Lecter would never exist in real life, neither would Red John. And when threatened, when your life is in danger, you will beg. You will be scared of dying. And don't get me started on the people saying he wouldn't fall for the pigeon. ANYONE gets a bird thrown in their face, they're gonna react, lol. You can't help it.

Yes, Bradley Whitford was a superior villian, he always is. But would we have been satisfied with that? Doubt it. Because at that point, literally no one they gave you would have been satisfying. It's just like Twin Peaks - they didn't reveal the killer in S1, were forced by the public and producers to do so in the middle of S2, and the series died in the ass soon after. This show managed to resist for six seasons, keep us entertained and intrigued that entire time and then give us a result that while disappointing in some ways, was real. Staying on Jane's face the entire time he strangled him was uncomfortable and tortuous, but real and necessary.

I could go on, but the overall message is, they created a phenomenal mystery that kept us engaged for six seasons. There are still people gaining from that suspense in 2021, like myself. Nothing could match the build up, but we were given plenty and I am grateful for it. Worth the wait, and worth the watch.
19 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Brooklyn Nine-Nine: Debbie (2020)
Season 7, Episode 5
5/10
Oh, Debbie
20 May 2020
Warning: Spoilers
I really thought they were going in a whole different direction for Debbie. When she stole the coke and guns I was like, is she setting up a sting to catch the guy who killed her twin sister and it's gonna be rad and she's gonna bond with the 99 and Boyle could have a protégé and so on and so forth? But no. The sister wasn't mentioned, though she gained a brother and went off chop for money. A strange choice, but maybe they tried her out, it wasn't working so they got rid of her. Shame. She had potential. Ah well, still the best ensemble cast in television history. Glad it's still being made.
14 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The X-Files: Sanguinarium (1996)
Season 4, Episode 6
8/10
Clarity
24 February 2020
Warning: Spoilers
So, some reviewers seem confused as to the storyline here. Though I'll admit they did a heck of a job with misdirection, I thought the villain was pretty clear by the end. Patients are dying in ridiculously graphic and horrific ways, as their plastic surgery doctors go rogue and fatally mutilate them. None of them seem to have much recollection or motivation as to why this is occurring. A nurse, played by the wonderfully freaky O-Lan Jones, seems suss af, happily placing pentagrams about the surgery suites and on patients. The other clinic doctors are also suspicious, chatting away in a room with a pentagram table about some sort of ominous cover-up. There's gore galore, as mentioned by other reviewers, and M&S pursue a witchcraft and occult line of reasoning due to the ritualistic symbols and some other bits and pieces. Turns out the lead doctor, Jack Franklin, has been using black magic and blood sacrifice to trade for a new, beautiful face every ten years. The patients killed have their birthdates correspond to some witchy sabbath high holidays and are payment for this fancy face upgrade. The nurse, also Wiccan, attempts to protect patients from him, albeit in rather sinister-looking ways, but his magic is too strong and she ends up dead as well. The other doctors, seemingly in on it, were instead concerned about the occurrence of similar patient deaths 10 years before. These were also part of Franklin's deal, but they were unaware, and just covering their backs, lest they end up with a giant malpractice lawsuit. Franklin is one of the few villains that manages to escape M&S, but given that he can tear his own face off and start anew, you might give them a break. I especially liked the touch of Mulder constantly checking his face throughout the episode, as if he were in need of surgery. Decent ep, I liked it, but thought others might need some clarity.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Only Living Witness becomes a documentary
28 February 2019
Warning: Spoilers
I'm confused by these people saying they already knew so much about Ted Bundy and yet no one seems to have read The Only Living Witness by Stephen Michaud & Hugh Aynesworth - the two journalists who feature significantly in the documentary, speaking regularly about their 'conversations with a killer'. Everything in this documentary is literally taken directly from the book, right down to the recordings, the vague childhood, the third person compartmentalisation when discussing the specifics of the crimes, the changes the police made to their case sharing and procedures following Bundy's elusiveness, his escapes, up to and including his final confessions before his execution. Yeah, there's Anne Rule, but she's not the be all and end all of Bundy research. Well made documentary but definitely not ground breaking, as the book was released 1989 and contains the exact same information. I always felt for Bundy's victims because for many, the last decision they ever made was to help another human in need (i.e. the guy on crutches or with a cast carrying his books) and for that, they were brutally murdered. That, to me, is chilling. His trying-to-sound-like-an-intellectual ramblings were not.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Law & Order: Special Victims Unit: Confession (2008)
Season 10, Episode 2
7/10
Reply to Mr Halo
31 August 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Yo, Andariel Halo - how did you manage to watch the episode TWICE and still not get the very basics of the story? Yes, the episode was outlandish, as per usual, and there were some ridiculous and unbelievable turns, but the motivation for the characters' actions were made very, very clear. It was emphasised throughout Mr Berlin's (Noonan) impassioned speeches that he had a great respect for the law, hence his decision to live as a abstinent pedophile. His whole philosophy was accepting who he was and the way he was made, within the bounds of the law. The episode clearly states that the 17 year old boy 'snapped' and molested a child, then wrote about it in graphic detail on Berlin's site, imploring him to experience the 'bliss' for himself. As a man whose mission is to live, teach and monitor the 'look but don't touch' mantra, Eric's (Allman) actions were a giant slap in the face. Berlin also recognised the tremendous harm Eric had caused this child, equating sexual assault with death as it basically kills their innocence, hope, soul, etc., thus he thought the punishment should fit the crime and brutally murdered him.

Now, I am in no way justifying his philosophy, or actions, or those of the stepfather or son - pretty much everyone in this episode had some major, major shades of grey going on in just about every interaction. But that's the beauty of SVU - every single person in it is morally ambiguous to some degree: Olivia is self righteous and over-involved, Elliot has anger management issues and is a workaholic, Fin was an absent dad, John has multiple failed marriages and is a conspiracy nut, Donald was an alcoholic and Casey and Chester were disbarred and arrested respectively, due to over-zealousness and vigilante behaviour on their last case.

You keep pointing out that the kid committed no crime, but the statistics show that repeated and prolonged fantasies lead to getting more comfortable with the idea and eventually acting on those thoughts. If you don't believe it, please google Peter Woodcock, or just about any psychological profile of any sexual serial killer. Eric committed a crime against an unknown child and died horribly as a result. Did he deserve to be sodomized with a baseball bat and stabbed repeatedly with blunt knives? Who can say? That's the point - we aren't god, justice isn't in our hands and what he deserved to get for his crime is not for us to decide.

In addition, anyone who has had a 'sexual fantasy about anyone under 18' probably should be looked at - unless you're within the stated age range to avoid statutory rape, then it's against the law. Thoughts are the beginning of actions and everybody has to start somewhere. The difference between homosexuality and pedophilia is simple - in homosexual relationships, or any adult relationships for that matter, the balance of power has the potential to be equal. This may not always be the case, but at least it is possible. In an adult/child relationship, there is no such option; the power - be it physical, emotional, sexual, what have you - is always going to be land in the adult's favour. And that has lasting effects for the child's sense of self, trust in others, mental stability, etc. They're prey. Replacing pedophilia with homosexuality in those sentences would make for prejudice and homophobia, but the two are not even comparable, so don't get all high and mighty until you recognise exactly what you're defending.
14 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed