smokeysmokeysmokey Reviews

Superhuman: The Invisible Made Visible (2020)

Watch out for fake reviews.

[10/10 · 6 May 2024]

Many negative one-star reviews from people who cannot do five minutes of research into remote viewing and similar techniques. The remote viewing community on Reddit now has 72,526 users and growing. It's has been studied by various governments for decades and is easy to learn about if you have some curiosity, and especially if you have some mediation experience. Bonus points if you don't come to the table with a big ego and a know-it-all attitude.

There are many accredited scientist in this documentary, including a neuroscientist that studied children and adults with equipment to test for light entering the mask while people demonstrate this skill in a controlled and blinded (literally) laboratory setting at the University of Bari in Italy. Either this is a ruse involving tens of thousands of people worldwide, or it's a real ability. Watch the documentary and you be the judge. Better still, learn the skill and prove it to yourself. You can't go home again. Every documentary series on physic functioning or natural health has many lazy one-star reviews that can be disproven in minutes. Hmm... food for thought.

Take Your Pills: Xanax (2022)

What is this documentary about?

[4/10 · 11 March 2023]

Seems too unfocused and jumping around between different issues. There seemed to be no conclusions to the people's stories who were taking part of the documentary. Started out not bad, but eventually as a viewer you had no idea where you were. No story arc. No clear journey for each of the film's characters.

Every time they hit on something that might make the viewer question the Xanax drug they came back to reassure us that these drugs were a good thing. And at the end they slip in positive information about SSRI's without mentioning the mountains of critical information on those.

The trials for many of these pills were conducted only on the short term, which to me makes the drug companies criminals. You should not be legally allowed to prescribe a person a brain altering mainstream medical drug long term if said drug was never studied long term. I also question how the companies who make the profit from the drug are allowed to be the one who tests the drug for themselves? That's not how safety testing works in the motor industry. How this charade is set up is ripe for cutting corners and lying with statistics. I mean, we're talking about companies here who've been fined billions many times.

If you want to watch a better anti-psych tablets documentary watch Medicating Normal. It's a proper documentary.

Kumaré (2011)

An invaluable lesson?

[7/10 · 6 January 2023]

Hailing from New York with his New York accent, filmmaker Vikram Gandhi transforms himself in growing out his beard and his hair long in pretending to be a guru named Kumaré from India. Documentary writing credited to Eklavya Sakpal.

Vikram, directing himself in this documentary, does the lulled followers of his guru character in the film a service by setting up the circumstance whereby they unwittingly can play out the role of been taken advantage of by a cult leader without the usual financial and abusive repercussions. One wonders was it a good thing they got this out of their system now in a safe way rather than for real later?

The films' participants and the viewer learn some valuable lessons about how easily regular good people can be taken advantage of by a seemingly charismatic stranger. The irony of the film may be its lead character Kumaré and his teaching that we are our own best guru is perhaps the truth that we all needed to hear.

Confess, Fletch (2022)

As good as the original ...

[1/10 · 6 December 2022]

... aside from plot, screenplay, dialogue, acting, editing, comic timing, casting, cinematography, directing, music, and the woke.

Chevy Chase was made for this character back in the day. His brisk confident speaking voice; his dry wit and natural comic timing, along with the music used in the film and the humorous direction. Ryan Reynolds reminds me a lot of Chase and probably would have been better cast for this role.

Oh, how I miss the seventies, eighties and nineties movies. You know, when the camera was a character and had a point of view? When the camera aided the telling of the story. And wasn't just used to point at and record the actors. Why must every second streaming film now visually resemble a documentary? And what's with the flat colour correction on the film? The whole thing looks washed out and indoor scenes are much too dull. Visually, the film looks depressing and that absolutely took from the comedy the film was aiming for.

Script-wise why is the writer/director obsessed with skin colour? Randomly throwing in woke speak where it doesn't belong. Such self-conscious dialogue does not belong in a Fletch film. Fletch's whole character is supposed to be about sarcasm, and a Fletch film, levity.

The Goop Lab (2020– )

The pseudoscience reviews.

[10/10 · 23 November 2022]

Having watched this series in full, I can say with a certain degree of confidence the boatload of 1-star reviews feel coordinated, with many likely written by the same person, using the same recycled arguments. With a web development background you get used to spotting this kind of thing. Let's be honest, there's a lot of money in people not being healed and staying in their expensive, chronic condition for life.

I must rate this 10-stars. If other reviews were good faith reviews, I would give it 7 out of 10. Slightly above average short-form, mostly natural health docu-series. While these subject matter are not new to me, I did find it interesting to watch the six 30-minute episodes. Many folks between the ages 20 and 50 could watch all six episodes of this (on Netflix) and come away having learned something new and perhaps having been challenged along the way. This series is for adults and not kids.

One line summary of the episodes:

1. Magic mushrooms. 2. Wim Hof: the ice-man. 3. Orgasm and the vulva. 4. Acupuncture and diet. 5. Reiki-like healing. 6. Mediumship and psychic functioning.

Someone who hates this series might say this of each episode:

1. = "Scary and dangerous." 2. = "Dangerous." 3. = "Ew, naked people." 4. = "This is woo; age is math." 5. = "This doesn't work. No, I have not tried it, but I just know." 6. = "Woo." - click!

My take:

1. Having attended several psychedelics retreats and being somewhat familiar with these experience, I was touched and I laughed. Do yourself a favour and don't judge something too harshly if you haven't experienced it. These are not party drugs. You're viewing a therapeutic process which I have both witnessed in others and experienced firsthand. Maybe not for everyone, so do what's best for you.

2. Safe in the right context and with an experienced instructor. Felt freezing watching this one.

3. This episode is more suited for female viewers, but I'm not a prude, and really, it was no big deal to watch. Americans who are afraid with seeing the naked human body, proceed with caution. It's 30 minutes. I learned some new things, as did the women in the episode: the part people call the vagina is the vulva; the vagina is the canal.

4. My least favourite episode. The focus on diet is good (even if my diet is carnivore, i.e. The opposite). Everyone knows less processed whole foods are beneficial. Some good advice given regrading staying active. I personally prefer not to number everything and say, "now that I eat this way it makes me equivalent to this kind of age." Life is too short for such paralysis by analysis. Besides, people age at different rates and for a range of complex and different reasons. To me, scoring people's health in this way is not the best way to approach life, or your health.

5. I have not experienced this kind of healing before, but I would be open to learning about it. It seems similar to Reiki healing, which I have experienced, and the participants seemed to get something out of it. Shouldn't that matter? Could this methodology be conclusively proven to an ardent sceptic? At this point in time, no. Does that mean "woo" is a justifiable dismissal of this stuff, and an excuse to turn off the series? I would say no, but I guess it depends on how fixed your beliefs are. You may be clever, but you don't know everything. There's a reason why yoga and other forms of practice involve the body. Your body is not merely there to carry your head around. Some have suggested your body is part of your conscious experience, and further, consciousness is the foundation of all reality. Some day society as a whole will understand more about consciousness and will have more answers to some of these deeper questions. Just because we don't understand something or cannot explain it succinctly doesn't mean it's not true. A friend I know and trust has performed distant healing on me (Reiki) and I've been able to accurately tell them what part of my body they were working on. This happened, and whether you believe it or not is completely irrelevant to that fact. Energy healing is a real thing. Discount it out of hand at your own expense.

6. I have some personal history in the area of psychic experiences having taken part in plant medicine retreats on multiple occasions. Such experiences are pretty common around that kind of thing, and sometimes can occur days or even weeks before attending. Some of these brews mess with your experience of time in a funny way... consciousness? Outside of these substances I have had other psychic experiences of significance. Can I prove my experiences were legit to you, the reader, and therefore prove psychic functioning? I cannot. I have never been to a medium and would be quite sceptical of them as there are many tricksters in this world. However, I would not be against the prospect of a legit medium given my personal experiences. I won't ruin the specifics of episodes six for you.

Don't judge this series based on good or bad reviews, especially when many of the reviews seem peculiarly similar. Watch it for yourself. The best episodes are one, two, five and six. Females may benefit from episode three.

"Rationalisation is a defence mechanism." - Prof. Vernon M. Neppe.

The Three Stooges (2012)

In colour and not black & white?

[5/10 · 2 October 2022]

Not a major remake fan in general. In this case a modern feature length remake of the trio made famous by their one hundred and ninety short films between 1922 and '70.

Perhaps the greatest sin of all is making this Three Stooges production in colour.

Do yourself a favour and make this movie much, much better by turning down the colour on your TV to its lowest setting-the point at which the picture becomes black and white.

Give it a try and you'll see this Stooges' film is instantly ten times better and more familiar. Why this was not completely obvious to the Farrelly Brothers during the planning of this movie I don't understand. And if the studios were demanding colour then The Farrelly Brothers should have played hardball saying they would rather not make the film.

The story is mediocre; the gags are Stooges' gags; some of the acting is good, and some poor. The film being in colour is unforgivable. The Three Stooges is and always will be seared into the public consciousness as short sketch films in black and white. Do yourself a favour and watch it in B&W. The visual gags lend themselves to black and white better. I went as far as to convert my copy of the film to a permanent B&W copy using the application Handbrake on my computer. If I can help it I will never watch this film in colour again.

Ariel Phenomenon (2022)

Liked it quite a bit, but...

[10/10 · 9 June 2022]

Cannot wait for a director's cut. Honestly wanted it to be longer (30+ minutes). I would say self-hosting the film for streaming was a miscalculation and a bad idea. Randy and company should put the film up on a various pay-to-rent streaming platforms to allow for a more seamless rental experience.

The process of streaming the film is too involved and has too many issues, even still. Could not get the film to play for me in Safari at all. Got it to play in Firefox, but at first also had issues in Firefox. In both browsers I turned off all browser extensions, to be sure that was not the issue. It was not. In Firefox playing also failed for me once mid-film. Had to start over and find where I was in the timeline again. Try hosting a home viewing of the film with these playback issues. I would not.

Crowd-funders should be offered a download file to keep, as was promised six years ago during a crowdfunding round. Crowd-funders should not need to wait down the line for this.

I give Randy ten stars largely because of the years and sheer effort involved in bringing this project together into this film, which I believe to be a true story.

I find people who cannot accept these legit events with many obviously sincere witnesses, do so out of fear. We do not control the universe. Our bodies and egos die at end of our lives, guys... get over yourselves.

The soul or spirit are our real energy bodies. Our consciousness or awareness extends beyond the body, through our eyes and our other senses. We will never be able to figure all of this out scientifically, because consciousness is involved in the phenomenon. Look to phenomena such as human-to-animal and animal-to-human communication (otherwise known as animal-to animal communication) to get a peek into the possible in consciousness (many documentaries on YouTube on these subjects. You will say this cannot be real until the day you except it as real).

We are conscious beings living in an interconnected web of consciousness. Until people can admit to this truth we will never be able to evolve much further beyond throwing technology at every problem. Technology will evolve, but we won't really. In fact, as technology evolves there's a good chance we could devolve. We are the key to our problems. Our stubbornness and our closed-mindedness prevents us from seeing larger realities and unlocking the impossible. Not technologically, but reality wise.

How did the beings hop across the ground without touching the ground? How did they appear to move in slow motion and yet move around the children from place to place very quickly? Why did the scenes witnessed by the children appear to repeat themselves over and over from their perspective? What is awareness? How could the beings transmit images and see into the minds of the children without speaking? Consciousness is our bigger reality and the key to all of these questions.

Randy, please consider putting the film up on Vimeo and try your best to get the film up on Netflix streaming service. I'm not on Prime, but I'm sure Prime users would be happy to have it there, too. This would encourage myself and others to tell more people to go watch the film. Currently would be uncomfortable telling people to go watch, considering the issues I had playing the film. This was after all of the technical streaming issues were supposed to have been fixed. You need to meet viewers where they are and give them what they want.

Very glad Randy didn't allow Hollywood to "sci-fi" the film. Frankly, I would have preferred even less music in the film, especially regarding any music that sounded even remotely "sci-fi". Classical music is where it's at for this documentary.

The Jerk (1979)

One disconnected unfunny sketch after another.

[3/10 · 5 April 2022]

One hour and a half of Steve Martin playing a cliché unintelligent person with a cliché goofy voice the entire film. Out of nowhere and completely out of character he invents an eye glasses thing and becomes ultra-wealthy where he can leave his going nowhere gas station attendant job.

He moves to Beverly Hills and falls for all the trappings of wealth. His character has no likeable traits. He's bad with money, which is annoying to watch because you can see where the story is going the entire time... and he continually drinks and has no understanding of the world or its culture.

The viewer is supposed to find all of these qualities ironically hilarious, you see, we're in on the joke: Steve Martin playing the character isn't actually stupid, he's just acting like it. A comic genius at work!

A not funny one-dimensional character developed on the back of a paper napkin. In my estimation the film has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. It's not even funny for what it is. Even Police Academy was better-better music and characters.

Three O'Clock High (1987)

Good editing and cinematography

[5/10 · 4 December 2021]

Good editing; cinematography of the clock appeared to be an homage to High Noon and was well executed.

Started out promising with some cool sequences and what was interesting is they did in fact get to fight in the end. In that sense it delivered! There wasn't a cop-out: didn't fight in the end with some lame plot excuse.

The movie would have been better if Buddy's character wasn't so one-dimensional. He was reading and knew math, but it would have been even better if they took that idea to more of an extreme and showed him to be a bit of Good-Will-Hunting-type-genius, so we had a reason to look up to him as a person of some talent. There was also no backstory to him. For instance, how did everyone in the school have opinions of Buddy before he stepped foot in the school? This was not explained nor justified.

But the lamest part of all was the next day after the fight in the school store. The students come to save the day by buying sheets of white paper for one dollar a pop (is that enough?). They all just collectively decided this like a lame-ass low budget Disney TV movie cliché. Why not instead have his male and female friend go around the school collecting money to save the store? Whereby, a students says, "sure, I can give five bucks, Jerry works there". And others throw money in during that sequence. The less is more approach.

And finally, the lower budget nature of the flick meant they never licensed decent popular songs. Often these high school teenage movies live or die by the soundtrack. This one died.

Mirage Men (2013)

The lesson is clear as day.

[5/10 · 1 December 2021]

Never trust anyone working for government and be wary of others who tell of the fantastical. Trust instead if you can independent witnesses with nothing to gain. Level-headed people with one sighting, maybe two. Most of all trust your intuition.

In this documentary we learn among other things Doty made sure we understood he was "doing his job". We also learn you cannot trust a thing that comes out of his mouth. Not then... and certainly not now.

He was basically a manipulative lying heartless man working for a soulless machine that feeds on being in control of others: you see it in his empty eyes. On behalf of powerful interests this man destroyed people's lives. A confidence trickster; liar; charlatan; snake. You'd be naive to believe he's not still playing this role. Now he attends UFO conferences "as a citizen". Hilarious! Avoid him and don't talk to him no matter what. Retire Doty... give up the ghost and go away. Your game has past its sell-by-date. Pack up your racket and don't let the door hit you on the way out.

I don't love this film, but some of the editing was quite good. Mainly the subject matter would leave a bad taste in your mouth. Not that you wouldn't know government was capable of this stuff. Just when you see it up close it's more repulsive, inhuman and harder to stomach.

Some others in this field to steer clear of: Steven Greer and Timothy Good. The tea test-if you wouldn't trust them to make you tea then don't trust what they say. In fact, not only don't trust what they say, don't waste any of your valuable time on them.

Some you can trust: UFO documentary filmmaker James Fox and ufologist Richard Dolan. Not to imply they are defacto always right. They are after all human. They seem trustworthy as people, is the point. Dolan has a YouTube channel which is easy enough to find.

I've seen most documentaries on this subject matter and James Fox makes the best ones. His recent documentary is The Phenomenon (2020). To be sure you have found the correct documentary you'll notice it is has a running time of 1h 40m and has James Fox listed as director on its IMDb page. Be sure to avoid the Australian TV documentary of the same name. It's another waste of time with the usual sensational editing and loud annoying music.

In summary: trust yourself.

Third Eye Spies (2019)

Phew, that editing!

[4/10 · 29 November 2021]

Wanted to like it more. Interesting material, most of which was not new to me. Having Targ in the doc was such an opportunity while he's still here with us. My problem with the documentary is it's over-edited. It's edited in such an ADHD-manner as to be not enjoyable and even uncomfortable to sit through. It very likely will give you a headache. As with all of these projects you need a person with taste for decent editing who can say "no". A convoluted and staccato visual experience. Seriously, the edit cuts every five seconds and constantly montages without a break. Not in an artistic, impressionist jazz way... but in a let's give the viewer a headache, kind of way. Still not entirely finished after my third viewing: maybe that's why they call it "third eye"... it takes three or more viewings to suffer through.

The Candidate (1972)

Overrated, this one.

[4/10 · 23 November 2021]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, good acting doesn't necessarily make a good movie. For me no matter the genre a good movie must be first and foremost satisfying, and in that sense this film did not deliver. Be a film sad, funny, deep or serious it must satisfy.

The editing for much of the film is all over the place. Yes, they are trying to convey the whole chaotic political primary thing, but instead I felt more a sense of a chaotic edit room and confused filmmaker.

For the first 15 minutes of the film I had no idea what was going on because the audio was so poorly recorded. This happened several times during the film too. People appeared to mumble key lines. What they said I had no idea. Yes, I get what the film was trying to do and how the viewer was to find a new keen sense of cynicism for the film provoked what cynicism they already had, but the director was at times meandering around not knowing where he was going. The film never really convinced the viewer the characters were anything more than their caricature.

Boyle's character got all the best material, and boy, he certainly didn't waste it. Good performance. Not enough to make me want to see the movie again, however. The movie had me thinking too much and not feeling enough.

I don't know, I wanted to like this one more and I stayed up late to finish it, but regret doing so. I reckon director Peter Weir would have taken this material much further and given it more what it needed. Don't ask me what they sound crew were up to. Probably the directors fault.

Good performances in an otherwise messy film that lacked a pointed focus and vision to drive the message home. The script needed much more work. That was probably what happened-trying to make a profound movie from a not so enlightening script.

The Fantasticks (2000)

My review will be short and sweet

[1/10 · 4 November 2021]

The worst movie musical I've seen. Couldn't wait for it to be over. Any sane person will want their viewing time back.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: musicals surely need a good story line, good directing, goid casting, good acting, good singing and good everything else, but musicals live or die by the songs themselves. If the songs are not good the musical will absolutely suck. That's what happened here.

One reviewer on here said the entire point of the original play was as little props and set and possible so the audience can fill out the scenes in their unique imaginations. Another said the tempo in the songs was changed from the stage play version, the harmonies were changed and the best song or two were oddly missing and the story elements were all mixed around. But I'm not here to review a play I didn't see. I'm here to review a movie I wish I hadn't.

I rarely say this. Honestly: don't see this movie. Save your time. You're welcome, don't mention it.

Wildcats (1986)

Half the movie is montages to unknown repetitive music

[4/10 · 27 October 2021]

I didn't hear one song I'm the film I recognised. Filler footage to unrecognisable tunes throughout the entire movie. After the 8th time it gets old.

Casting of the ex-husband didn't fit the part: he played the controlling male character role right down the line, entirely cliche: I wanted to shove him off the screen. The entire film is cliche after cliche. Every scene is a setup for the next part of the story with little actually believable. You know exactly what's coming next every time before it happens. The wire frame of the script would practically poke your eye out, like the overly groomed whiskers of the spoiled on-screen terrier. There are very few funny jokes in the film-not many. Most completely miss this mark. Editing and sharpness of dialogue are poor.

The film is trying to be the Police Academy of high school American Football movies, but without the great characters and comic moments; without all those one liners; the memorable original score; the acting and directing.

Please give me my two hours back.

The Quiet Man (1952)

What is this?

[3/10 · 13 March 2020]

Best director? Best cinematography? What film were they watching? What film are they all reviewing?

Wife beater; not terribly believable acting; wooden Wayne; cheap jokes; the IRA; some crap about a dowry. The film is a collection of stringed together clichés and shots of Irish landscapes, with many green screens (or however they did it back then). The emperor's new clothes.

Decidedly average and at times below average lighthearted Saturday afternoon whatever's on the box type film. With some wife beating thrown in for good measure. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but masterpiece this film is not. It's not that it hasn't aged well because it was from 1952. There are plenty of films from back then that are as good today as they were back then. High Noon immediately comes to mind. Oliver Twist, 1948. And so on. That's filmmaking.

This film is IMO just as I said. Some lighthearted random Saturday watch. And not on a yearly basis. Honestly, if you come fresh to this movie without ever having seen it before I'm confident you'll be left bewildered wondering if all the 10-star reviews were written by people as high as a kite.

Some funny moments in the film for sure, but overall an average picture with reviews written through rose tinted glasses. And some truly questionable head-scratching sequences where O'Hara's character is treated like trash which for whatever reason the viewer is asked to find amusing.

Australia (2008)

Missed opportunity.

[5/10 · 7 February 2020]

The opportunity was massive to focus on the myths and culture and history of Oz and its Aboriginal people. One of the world's oldest cultures going back 40,000 years. My aunt from Ireland moved to Oz fifty years ago, she would visit the bush to deliver babies. Sometimes they would come visit the hospital and the next day both mother and baby would disappear back to the bush.

The kid character and King George ate up the screen. Perfect casting as ever there was. They suited very much the dramatic manner in which their scenes were shot and their acting was spot on. Why so few reviewers mentioned them is beyond me? Theirs were the standout scenes in the film.

Kidman and Jackman had too many kissing scenes. Perhaps ten. Not needed and repetitive. I have nothing against Kidman and Jackman as actors, but frankly the film would have been better without their characters. The mysterious nature and drama of the boy and elder relationship and the myths around their culture by itself would have made a good film.

How about a film done entirely in their native Aboriginal language with sparse dialogue and subtitles? There's a classic in there somewhere. From this perspective I see this film as a missed opportunity. A couple of humorous breaks were needed, too. Think: Shawshank.

P. S. All of the GCI looked fake, like in Baz's other film: The Great Gatsby. I'm not against CGI, but if included the CGI needs to be exceptional and 9/10 probably needs to be done by ILM. Otherwise leave it out.

The Devil We Know (2018)

Must-see documentary film.

[8/10 · 17 December 2018]

Very well made film. The whole thing was informative and well directed. I was particularly impressed with the editing. Certain sequences, especially one near the middle of the film are Oscar worthy. Content of the film is invaluable and well communicated. This is a BBC Storyville documentary film and is of higher quality than what you typically see on Netflix, from younger inexperienced filmmakers. BBC Storyville released another good documentary last year that is also worth seeing: The Work (2017). Different writers/directors, yet still good.

The pacing in this is better than your average Netflix documentary, thanks not just to better editing, directing and writing, but the presentation being in documentary film format, and not the stretched-out documentary series format we see so much of now. Where documentaries which should be 2 hours are stretched out over 6 to 10 and puffed out with much repetition (an awful trend to increase viewing time for their shareholders at the expense of quality and people's time). Wild Wild Country being a prime example of such abuse of the viewer's time, which should have been two episodes and not six. Or preferably documentary film format, like this hidden gem-where filmmakers are forced to cut the unnecessary. If you can find it, watch it. A theatrical release would have been handy. No sign of it on DVD or streaming at this point-Dec 2018. Update: someone uploaded it to YouTube ;-)

Won't You Be My Neighbor? (2018)

Missed opportunity.

[5/10 · 30 August 2018]

As a filmmaker/film buff and a person who has a deep reverence for Fred Rogers, I found myself frustrated by this film. The filmmakers seemed overburdened with information and unsure who they were trying to convey. As if they have never heard of Fred Rogers before, and while stopping at this planet tried to make a film about this earthling. At times the film seemed to be going for sensationalism which didn't work.

Filmmaking is difficult and I don't know if I'd do any better, but I must provide an honest review based on my watching experience.

The Oscar winning editor and genius human being Walter Murch likes to say that editing is about timing and rhythm and is comparable to a dance. Well, the editing lacked such life and often felt emotionally detached. Case in point: if you watch the footage of Fred speaking to the Washington senator on YouTube, there it's more moving than how it was cut together in this film. We didn't need to see the whole clip, but the heart was cut out of the scene.

Waiting to see this film I found myself worrying if it was overhyped. This turned out to be the case. But the worst part in all of this may be that more characters will die and the great documentary on Fred Rogers may forever remain untold.

The Fundamentals of Caring (2016)

Proof a film can be ruined with bad music.

[4/10 · 24 July 2016]

Every time I tried to get into this movie that God-awful score would chime in. A combination of elevator music and unlicensed mall tracks. Next thing this Leonard Cohen song came out of nowhere like a glass of water in a desert-gone too quickly. Now, I've become accustomed to these things bothering me more than others, so suffice to say the music killed this film for me, anyway.

Thankfully the acting was quite good. The cinematography was generic. You know, don't use drones just because you can. A movie is not a car advertisement, it's a film. Put the camera where the story dictates, not where it looks pretty. A great filmmaker can do both, but we can't all be great. The camera is a character: it should have a point of view. What are we saying with this angle? Ah, forget that, the people from the camera-crane rental are here.

On the plus side the chemistry between Rudd and Roberts was great. Roberts was good as usual. Rudd did a fine job. A more straight role suits him. He should try drama more often.

Sleepwalk with Me (2012)

Make me care!!!

[3/10 · 26 June 2016]

I found the whole movie patronizing to the audience. What struck me the most about this movie is in living memory it's easily the least I've ever cared about all the characters of a film in a long time. Someone Mike trusted should have told him "I hate to say this Mike but I don't like single character in this film".

Abby treats him like crap the whole way and he won't tell her to take a hike? I don't get it. I get that this happens in life, but in a film it makes both characters seem one-dimensional and boring. Something like that is frustrating to watch.

And why doesn't he see a doctor? Makes no sense. He clearly has a sleep disorder!

The most interesting piece of acting in the film was from the comic who told him to use what he said in his act—it really looked as if he wasn't acting in that scene.

Mike himself did some interesting acting but needs some acting lessons to help him speak with better diction. His constant mumbling brought me often to where I didn't care what happened his character.

The saddest part of all this is you can tell Mike has talent and is probably quite funny in real life.

The script itself wasn't ready. They needed someone with film chops involved (a producer etc.) to help advise them. I know first hand how difficult it is to make a film so I hate being so honest in my criticism but it's all we have. I made a short film and it's a piece of crap. You must be honest if you are to improve. I wouldn't give this film any award.

I think it's highly probable it received more favorable attention than it deserved because Ira Glass was connected with it. There's a reason why good films take years to come to fruition. Filmmaking is hard. Try again.

Free Hugs (2011)

Watch this space.

[6/10 · 20 October 2015]

Solid directorial/writer debut from Wilde.

This was somewhat of a surprise, in the sense that directing is hard thing and so many people do it badly. For the most part you can change that 6/10 to a 7 given how critical I tend to slant my ratings.

Wilde proves here she can direct. And that she can write conversational dialogue. An exceedingly difficult discipline. Real dialogue from real people's lips, like in life. It's no secret that Wilde is a big fan of Joe Swanberg's work. He directed her in Drinking Buddies and hasn't stopped talking about this experience since. And rightly so, it's a superbly crafted film. Swanberg somehow manages to capture an energy in that movie like few films I've seen - an aliveness!

It's clear Swanberg has stumbled upon a manner of filmmaking that seems to create this great intangible, energy. Not all his films work, but when they do they work so damn well. And since he's stepped away from the role of cinematographer while directing that seems to have helped him greatly. The reason I mention Swanberg is this review is Wilde made it before she worked with him, but it looks like it was made after and influence by her experience on Drinking Buddies. I was sure until I checked. An impressive feat.

I don't know where Wilde got her writing/directing chops but she should nurture and explore them further.

Watch this space.