jennifer626 Reviews

Bridgerton (2020– )

Season 2: A dull remake of Season 1

[6/10 · 27 March 2022]

The costumes, settings, music are all beautiful, but we've seen them before. This season lacks the substance and intrigue that led so many to bingewatch the first. A gaping hole is left with the resolution of Simon and Daphne's romance. The love triangle between Anthony, Kate and Edwina feels forced, with none of the actors particularly charismatic. The heightened focus on Eloise is detrimental, with the actress' eyerolls, overreaction, and unrealistic conduct reminiscent of Anna Chlumsky as Vivian in Inventing Anna. The other subplots are so redundant that they could have been crafted from film left on the editing floor in Season 1 and weren't enthralling on the first go-round (e.g., Penelope's unrequited infatuation with Colin).

My rating of 6 is the average of a 7 for Season 1 and a 5 for Season 2.

Inventing Anna (2022– )

Overall a disappointment

[5/10 · 13 March 2022]

Watching the series was as entertaining as leafing through a gossip magazine in a dentist's office. It's something to do to pass the time, and once in a while you spot something intriguing, but most of the time you're rolling your eyes and checking the clock.

Shonda Rhimes' primary error was deconstructing a genuinely engaging story and replacing it with "completely true, except for totally made up" patchwork. Her characters often behave illogically and lack motivation because the events that led to their real-life decisions are misrepresented or omitted altogether.

The creation and depiction of "Vivian" is particularly irritating and unnecessary. Vivian's behavior was unrealistically unprofessional (particularly when interacting with her managers), her communication skills were terrible, and she appeared to be a rookie journalist rather than a seasoned reporter. Anna Chlumsky's insistence on an endless series of exaggerated facial expressions was a constant reminder that Vivian was an invention herself, because no one that incompetent could have successfully wrested an interview from "the" Anna. The show would have been much better if it simply described IRL reporter Jessica's work and relationship with Anna.

When the series ends, you still won't understand how and why the elite New Yorkers fell for the long con. If you have a spark of curiosity remaining, check out the Vanity Fair article by the "real" Rachel (and ponder over Rachel's likely reaction to how she is portrayed by Rhimes).

Here After (2020)

Interesting concept, mediocre execution

[5/10 · 29 January 2022]

The plotline was promising and novel: a dysfunctional bachelor must find his soulmate after he's already died. Production values were surprisingly high for this low-budget film. The biggest problem was an amateurish script that was intermittently predictable, redundant and woefully inadequate. The movie would also have benefitted from a male lead with more charisma and authenticity. Christina Ricci was fine.

The Voyeurs (2021)

Unwatchable

[2/10 · 12 October 2021]

A man who talks like he's chewing marbles and a female who appears to be 12 years old get their first place together.

The first half of the film is watching them watch the couple across the street have sex, while engaged in dialogue even more insipid than you may be imagining.

Something happens, there is more insipid dialogue, then something else happens that is supposed to be unexpected but you totally see coming.

As terrible as the Blumhouse films recently released to Amazon (Black as Night, Bingo Hell).

Within (I) (2009)

Great for passing time as you do something else

[6/10 · 26 July 2020]

There are at least 3 movies entitled "Within." This one does not involve either a haunted house or a villain who hides in a family's crawl space. It features a young girl named Rachel, who can sometimes see malevolent spirits that are invisible to the rest of the world. In the first few minutes of the movie, Rachel's mother is killed by a troubled man who appears to be controlled by one of them. After Rachel and her father relocate, Rachel discovers that an evil spirit may be responsible for a series of tragedies affecting her classmates and the community.

The movie was billed as horror and suspense, but to my disappointment, it was neither. I would call it a dark drama. I still watched the film in its entirety, because I became engaged in Rachel's fate and if/how she conquered the evil spirits. The actresses who play Rachel and mean girl Michelle are quite good for their age. They are certainly more capable than most of the adults, who are largely unknown. Rachel's father visibly shifts from one emotion to the next, Michelle's father the football coach takes "melodramatic" to a new level, and the after-school babysitter appears to be the grandmother of someone the producers owed a favor.

"Within" could have yet been a success if the direction and editing were more crisp. Long, awkward silences and obvious "enter stage left" staging constantly remind the audience they are watching a movie. Poor timing takes the fear out of intended jump scares and instead contributes to a too-slow burn. Gaping plot holes abound, particularly for the teacher's long-missing brother and each of Michelle's sisters. Way too much time is spent in conversation between 9-year-olds, regardless of how realistic it may be.

I would not pay for this movie, but I was fine watching it on Amazon Prime as I paid bills. I think a rating between 4 and 6 is fair. I ultimately chose "6" to help counteract the reviewers who assigned low ratings to the wrong movie.

Light of My Life (I) (2019)

A lesson on the dangers of yes-men

[5/10 · 9 December 2019]

When an individual holds too much sway over the creation of a film, the end product almost always suffers. Tom Cruise, well-known for his tight control over the Mission Impossible franchise, micromanaged the 2017 remake of "The Mummy" to death. "Light of my Life" does not pretend to be a big-budget blockbuster, but its quality is undermined for a similar reason.

Casey Affleck is the director, writer, and lead actor in this film. When he wrote the many monologues for the father to sermonize, no one took him aside and advised him to cut their number and length. When he delivered the monologues, no one told him that he needed to make his stuttering monotone more lilting and engaging. And clearly no one informed Casey as director that beginning the movie with a 12-minute (truth!) recitation of a Noah's Ark derivative story would kill audience interest at the outset.

And that is the frustration I had throughout this movie. There were enough variations on the road trip theme that this could have been an enthralling movie. The father and daughter aren't merely trying to survive a post-apocalyptic environment. He needs to protect her from the real-life horrors that young women risk today, but on an astronomically larger scale.

The movie shines when it illustrates these risks and progresses the plot by driving them in their quest for the ultimate safe house. When the pair was forced to gauge the trustworthiness of new companions or they were fleeing from undesired ones, I was engaged and cheering them on. But active moments make up far too little of the film; if you watch the trailer, you've seen clips from most of them. Independent advisors would undoubtedly have counseled Affleck accordingly.

The movie also brushes past the details of both the epidemic and life after the epidemic. When the couple visited a government dispensary or the father mentioned how critical it was to have proper ID, I wanted to learn more about the world had morphed in response to the loss of half of its population. But no, the film doggedly returned to more rambling from the father as the two cower in a foxhole.

I watched the whole movie because I was interested enough in the ending, but I strung it out over 3 days to minimize the tedium. If you decide to see it, fast forward through the first 12 minutes. You'll thank me, I promise.

Daybreak (I) (2019)

Shockingly brilliant!

[9/10 · 20 November 2019]

I immediately fell in love with this show and binged the entire first season over the weekend. Hopefully Netflix won't cancel the series like the last one I adored...The OA.😡

This witty dark comedy is a post apocalyptic tribute to Ferris Bueller, except the location is now California, Matthew Broderick plays the principal, and Cameron has been replaced by a gay black football player who thinks he's a samurai. We follow Josh Wheeler (modern Ferris) in his quest to find his girlfriend Sam. After nuclear bioweapons devastated the world, the teens divide into tribes based on their high school cliques (jocks, cheerleaders, geeks, Kardashian wannabes, even the 4H club make appearances) The adults have either turned to gel or become Ghoulies, flesh-eating mutations that repeat their last cogent thoughts ("I need to cancel my Facebook account because it's too divisive.."...hee!)

The producers have tremendous fun breaking the 4th wall, then reinventing the show's genre, tone and narrator in each successive episode while maintaining continuity and building upon the engaging storyline. Follow the script and settings closely for Easter eggs galore. The cast is top-notch: it's such a relief to have teenagers played by actual teens, and the actors show display both incredible nuance and comic timing. Extra credit to 12 year old Alyvia Alyn Lind, who convincingly plays a troubled child prodigy with more layers than an onion.

I've read some reviews that complain about the "left-leaning" dialogue and plot lines. Trust me, if this were a show celebrating progressives, I'd have hit the thumbs down button and moved on in 10 minutes. Daybreak revels in mocking the PC tropes that appear with sincerity on mainstream media. If you think that the show's election of "Gender Neutral Homecoming Royalty" was meant to be instructional, take a deep breath, then sit back and enjoy the irony.

If you crossed Heathers, Mean Girls, Glee and Dawn of the Dead...you still wouldn't get a show as awesome as Daybreak.

Emergence (2019–2020)

Plodding script, poorly cast

[5/10 · 29 October 2019]

I lasted through 4 episodes. I wanted to like Emergence because I'm a fan of the X Files/Fringe/Revolution genre. Unfortunately, the networks seem to be cancelling an increasing number of funky apocalyptic sci-fi series after just one season (I see you, The Passage). So, I take what I can get and cross my fingers that at least 1 such show will survive.

But, the chances of survival for Emergence look slim. The plot is moving only slightly faster than a slug. The conversations between the characters are 90% exposition (show, don't tell). The cast members seem like a random group that got off the elevator together....well, random while meeting obvious diversity goals.

Allison Tolman in particular is miscast in the lead role as police chief. She's playing it as Fargo New England, screwing up her mouth and staring into the wind for one awkwardly long pause after another. The role would greatly benefit from the depiction of leadership abilities, instinct, and drive (if not charisma equivalent to the mysterious reporter with the foreign accent), but all of these are in short supply.

The Emergence producers did shell out for stellar reviews, but they should have given their contractors a longer list of talking points than: " instantly hooked," "love that they show real people/have a relatable cast," "the little girl who plays Piper is amazing!" and "there is so much eerie suspense and atmosphere." Ugh. A 7.4 show this is not.

Carriers (2009)

I've never rooted so much for the hero's death.

[5/10 · 14 October 2019]

The movie revolves around the fate of 4 unpleasant millennials mid-way through an apocalypse caused by a gruesome virus. They've instituted rules that are meant to keep them from getting infected. Some of these seem rational, like "disinfect stuff touched by decaying people."

Too bad they didn't include rules like "let's avoid acting like the cast of Jackass." I don't want to spoil their clever pranks, so I'll compare them to the geniuses who tried to drive blindfolded using only the GPS, like Sandra Bullock in Birdbox.

There are predictable lessons about karma, a few mild jump scares, and plenty of times to take bathroom breaks.

NOS4A2 (2019–2020)

A cold mess

[4/10 · 25 June 2019]

I cancelled my DVR pass partway into the 4th episode. One of the least scary "horror" series I've ever seen, NOS4A2 suffers from poor casting, a spotty script, a slow, rambling plot, and laughable prosthetics on Zachary Quinto as old Charles Manx.

The details thrown in to make the show seem more authentic are the wrong details. The producers' condescending view of blue collar America drives every aspect of The Brat's characterization, from her drab home life to her mop-headed appearance to her part-time job scrubbing toilets. She can't even have an attractive moment when she's psychic, as they afflict her with pinkeye! She effectively wears a t-shirt throughout that reads, "Why, Yes, I am a Townie."

And they need to decide whether their demographics are Disney Channel or HBO. Either the goofy Scrabble tile medium delivers a poor girl's version of Hannah Montana, OR she seduces girls into suddenly explicit scenes in the library stacks. It's disconcerting and inappropriate to choose "all of the above."

By now, we should have more than a glimpse of the cryo-children in Christmasland. Instead, we're delving for another half hour into Bing's tedious backstory.

Another AMC show that has lost nearly all the goodwill and high hopes I had at the outset. Please hurry up and release Hugh Howey's "Wool" (and don't screw it up!).

The End? (2017)

An SNL Sketch

[3/10 · 25 June 2019]

There are several movies that feature an elevator as the primary setting, from "Devil" to the aptly named "Elevator." This is the worst of the lot.

The protagonist is a cookie-cutter shallow businessman who sleeps around on his wife and treats everyone like his minions. Since the movie doggedly stays with him, 85% of the scenes do take place in the elevator. And man, does it get old. The first half of the movie depicts him calling the building engineer, the elevator repairman, his wife, his assistant and his secretary in a series of conversations that proceed as follows:

Businessman: "I'm stuck in the elevator, please help me!"

Other Person: (nonchalantly) "Oh, I'm sure everything will be fine. I am just casually stuck in traffic/watching TV/checking the generator. Hmm, what's that I see?" (pause) "Oh no! HELPPPPP!" (screaming)

(Call disconnects)

This would make a fabulous SNL sketch for the end of the world, but a terrible movie.

The End? can't come soon enough.

Hereditary (2018)

Overrated but worth a watch

[6/10 · 21 June 2019]

Before watching Hereditary, I read a number of reviews that called it not only the best horror movie in 2018, but a competitor to The Exorcist. This set my expectations far too high, and it took me a while to get past being miffed and acknowledge the film's good qualities. Prepare yourself for an occasionally engaging but uneven film with a few novel twists, and hopefully you won't experience the same level of disappointment.

The film is premised on the audience not truly understanding the nature of the characters. However, neither the characters as presented nor their interactions with each other ring true. Mother Annie (Toni Collette) is an artist who builds miniature worlds, often replicating personal environments such as her mother's sickbed. We're expected to believe that her work is in demand and that she is behind in creating new pieces for a gallery showing, but her art exists only as a conceit, a literal demonstration to the audience of her mental state. Her mismatched husband Steve (Gabriel Byrne) is the world's worst psychiatrist, alternately enabling and ignoring the disturbing behavior of his wife and children. Their teenage son Peter is a stoner with a crush on the girl who sits in front of him. He is the most authentic of the family members, but the decisions forced upon him by the script - most of them related to Peter's sister Charlie - highlight that he exists only on film.

Charlie is the most contrived of the lot, and it's not because of the reasons provided by the movie. Her matted, unwashed bob and cheap, oversized clothing are too shabby for a homeless girl, let alone one from an upper middle class home. It's impossible to believe that she is 13, let alone a girl who would attend (and whose mother would insist she attend) a high school party with drugs and booze. None of the revelations about Charlie fit with the developmentally delayed misfit portrayed.

It's difficult to divulge more about the film's shortcomings without including spoilers. The positives are that the pace is relatively quick; there are some enjoyable jump scares; and regardless of its logic, the ending is unpredictable. Paying close attention to the narrative and settings from the outset will make the final discoveries more rewarding.

The Darkest Dawn (2016)

75 minutes of a dull English travelogue

[3/10 · 15 June 2019]

The Darkest Dawn is an excellent illustration of why you should avoid "passion projects" where the director writes the script, casts himself as the lead, and may even serve as Key Grip.

Fleeing from generally off-screen aliens as well as the requisite groups of roving bandits that form to take advantage of these situations, our protagonists walk, crawl, run, swim and boat from, through and toward various English towns that include Hungerford (site of the film's prequel), Oxford, Manchester and London. We know this only through occasional awkwardly delivered updates, as for the greater part of the movie, it's neither clear nor relevant where they actually are. The settings include a dilapidated estate; a dilapidated barn; a dilapidated chapel; and an inexorably long tunnel through a series of dilapidated basements. And those snapshots are effectively what I remember from the film, after watching it 4 hours ago.

Well, I do remember the actress who allegedly holds the camera for the found-film footage, because she bizarrely grins, jokes, and makes cutesy tween faces every time she is responsible for delivering exposition. Her huge toothy smile was one of the (unintentionally) creepiest aspects of the film. The characters otherwise melt into each other, lacking both distinct personalities and motivations.

The plot is equally vague. The girl and her sister follow whatever man is closest to their vicinity, adopting each new companion's mission and destination in turn. It doesn't work out very well for anyone, but you really won't care.

The most praise I can bestow is that the special effects were better than expected for a film with a £70K budget. I would have guessed at least £100K.

The Visit (I) (2015)

Flawed but entertaining

[6/10 · 23 January 2016]

Shyamalan has suffered like few other directors as a result of his later films not measuring up to the exacting standards set by The Sixth Sense and Signs. Part of this is self-inflicted, because he has refused to veer from the"M. Night Shyamalan" formula: modern fairy tale crafted to take an unexpected turn approximately two-thirds into the fun. When the twist fails to impress or the fairy tale is dull, the movie disappoints audiences on on two levels. Not only is the movie judged mediocre, but it is criticized for failing to deliver on the promise made by Shyamalan's earlier efforts.

The fairy tale and twist delivered by The Visit do not disappoint. Hansel and Gretel effectively employ today's media and technology for narration and exposition, leading the viewer down an increasingly foreboding path. The fear and anxiety caused by Nana and Pop-Pop's odd behavior appeal to our politically incorrect subconscious: we shy away and are even repulsed by displays of dementia and senility, no matter how clinically explicable we understand those displays to be. I was pleasantly surprised that the predicted twist was not predictable, and I felt a sincere surge of a-ha! at its revelation.

The Visit falls short with respect to the traditional elements of film-making. The children, particularly the brother, are portrayed as cloying, non-credible 1980s sitcom characters with cheesy lines. Attempts at humor come off like a toast at a Dirty Dancing era summer camp in the Catskills. The siblings show no sign of being actual teenagers from the 21st century until approximately 45 minutes into the film, when they interview each other for their "documentary" and reveal certain vulnerabilities. The forced nature of this scene serves to highlight the otherwise inauthentic personalities assigned to them by the director and script. The mother's character is painted with the same superficial gloss, a problem magnified by her limited time on screen. These weaknesses prevented me from empathizing with the family members and reminded me throughout that I was indeed watching a movie.

Perhaps Shyamalan was so focused on invoking his brand upon The Visit that he was distracted from maintaining its essential quality. Like many other viewers, I still look forward to the film where he regains that balance.

Beautiful Boy (2010)

Hits too close to home -- quietly moving piece

[7/10 · 28 April 2013]

I watched this film last night, two weeks after the bombing at the Boston Marathon, where some virtual bystanders are still wringing their hands about how "normal" and "sweet" Suspect #2 was. The parents are angry and either in utter denial or (at least with respect to the mother) in silent conspiracy, claiming that the brothers were framed and they could not have been terrorists.

The characters and plot line in "Beautiful Boy" resemble the Sandy Hook horror even more closely. Imagine that Nancy Lanza was not killed by her son and that Peter Lanza still lived at home, unhappy and on the verge of moving out. Their anguished discussions, how they individually deal with the guilt and grief, their desperate investigation of their son's life for clues as to how and why, the blame and heartbroken accusations that they hurl at each other - - these are so spot on that the film can be uncomfortable and unnerving.

The movie also masterfully captures the wide spectrum of others' reactions. The brother and sister-in-law who offer their home and as much love and sympathy as they can, but still emit occasional flashes of blame and fear for how their own son could be impacted by their presence. A young author who the wife believes is a friend, until she finds him hunting through her son's belongings for material for the book he wants to write. The open house held for the home, where media vultures, neighbors with cameras, and the thrill-seeking curious thoughtlessly devour the cookies the wife baked, hoping that they would make the house smell better.

Michael Sheen and Maria Bello play the roles of husband and wife with precision and depth. Moon Bloodgood (soon to return in the upcoming "Falling Skies" season) seems somewhat dispassionate and impersonal in her interactions with others as the sister-in-law, but that is a criticism I have for most of her performances. The scene where she expresses frustration to her husband about Maria taking over control of the home comes across as rehearsed. Alan Tudyk (currently in "Suburgatory") as the brother is more sympathetic to the plight of his family, but also displays a limited range of emotion. The son, played by Kyle Gallner, is mesmerizing in his few moments of screen time, and I feel that the movie would have been much stronger if we were permitted to see a little more of his college environment and the days leading up to the shooting.

However, I recognize that is the very point of the movie - - we want to understand how people make these terrible decisions, but we never can see enough evidence because ultimately there is nothing that can justify such evil. The parents, who are arguably the ones who should have the best chance of understanding their children's motivations and conduct, are often as lost and confused as the rest of the world, with the added component of trying to comprehend the degree of their own culpability. Those dynamics are nicely captured in this film.

Saturday Night Live: Jamie Foxx/Ne-Yo (2012) Season 38, Episode 9

Hopefully a short-lived plunge into horribleness

[2/10 · 9 December 2012]

I have been pleasantly surprised at the high quality of SNL episodes this season - - clever writing, laugh-out-loud sketches, and several new cast members who are really talented and have terrific timing. Until this fall, I fell squarely into the camp of "SNL hasn't been the same since the cast from the late 80s - mid 90s"; I thought many seasons were outright unwatchable after 1996. Last night's episode made me wonder if I hadn't rushed to judgment in irrational exuberance. The live audience must have agreed, since they were barely detectable other than the usual responsive laughs during Seth Meyer's Weekend Update.

The opening sketch featured Jay Pharaoh in his increasingly apt portrayal of Obama and Bill Hader as the beleaguered Speaker of the House, John Boehner. "Obama" described all the various ways in which Boehner had been subjected to schoolyard torture by the other Republicans anytime he tentatively mentioned a budget that included tax increases. Mild smiles at best, and far below the sharp wit and spot-on characterizations of the campaign sketches. However, this was literally the only skit that didn't aggressively feature/mock/highlight urban black culture. It's tiresome when any subject overpowers the show, but even worse when the sketches just aren't funny. I even saw my dog yawn while Jamie repeated for 5 minutes "b****, you don' know what you talking' about" to whites wearing Christmas sweaters in one of SNL's worst game show skits ever. Humor seemed to have been replaced by an underlying tone of nastiness and undisguised racism throughout the episode, including an extremely off-putting monologue in which Jamie bragged about the number of white people he killed in his latest film.

The women members of the cast were barely in evidence, other than a mildly amusing appearance by Mrs. Claus during Weekend Update and two porn stars selling Swarovski crystals with Jamie as the bling huckster. The cast was disengaged and clearly knew it was an off night; during the traditional goodbye hugs, the long-term regulars acted as if they had just watched an elementary school play and politely clapped while giving each other sideway glances of "Wow, that was even worse than I thought it would be." I'm praying that next week will reveal this show was a momentary glitch in SNL's newfound success.

Chronicle (2012)

Sleeper movie that should have received much more attention

[8/10 · 17 November 2012]

I stumbled across this title when I was looking through the On Demand library for a movie I haven't seen yet. I was encouraged by the positive reviews on IMDb, and they turned out to be right on target.

Chronicle compellingly explores how "real" teenagers might react to unexpectedly receiving extraordinary powers. Although I recognized none of the three young leads (or any of the supporting cast, for that matter), each actor brought depth and humanity to his role and we should see more of Dane DeHaan (Andrew) and Alex Russell (Matt)in the near future.

The teens acquire their new skills early in the film, and the first hour is spent establishing their characters and relationships. Each one deals with the abilities differently, and the movie grows increasingly dark and suspenseful as they unsuccessfully attempt to set moral guidelines for their conduct. I was literally on the edge of my seat during the last 20 minutes as the fragile framework snapped.

Definitely recommend, you will not be disappointed.

Contagion (2011)

Great cast overcome by bad editing, gaping plot holes, and shallow characters

[4/10 · 16 January 2012]

We were looking forward to seeing "Contagion" on PPV and ordered it the first day it was available. The first 15-20 minutes were mesmerizing, then the movie lapsed into mediocrity.

I won't detail the plot, the outstanding cast or the thinly drawn characters, which other reviewers have captured perfectly. In my opinion, there are two major flaws in this film - - each caused by a combination of poor writing and editing - - which prevent the film from being truly engaging and effective.

The first problem is the lack of consistency and rationale in the characters' decision-making. For example, Matt Damon is a grieving father who will do anything to protect his daughter and one surviving family member. He prevents her from opening the door to take flowers from her boyfriend because he doesn't want her to touch anyone or anything from the outside and contract the virus. (The boyfriend has no signs of contagion.) But in the next scene featuring these characters, he has taken his daughter to the grocery store to look for any remaining goods, elbowing away the looters running through the aisles. How do 500 strangers pawing through cereal pose less danger to the daughter than one lovelorn teenager on the other side of a screen door?

The second problem is the introduction of several major characters and plot threads that receive huge emphasis at the beginning of the film, then vanish without explanation or are resolved in a manner devoid of logic. For example, Marion Cotillard plays a WHO representative who is aggressively investigating the origin of the virus and attempting to find a cure. She's kidnapped by a co-worker and taken to his remote village in rural China. Purportedly, the village can only survive the epidemic if she is held hostage and exchanged for rare vials of the vaccine.

This plot line is entirely implausible because:

* No vaccine exists at the time Marion is taken hostage. The kidnappers could not know if & when it would be developed. They also would have no way of knowing that due to the vaccine's composition and the small number of facilities that can manufacture it, the vaccine will be available in extremely limited quantities. Thus, the kidnappers are assigned a motive -- improving the village's position in the waiting list for the vaccine - - that they could not possibly have at the time of the kidnapping.

* When Marion is taken out of her lab to a small village without any research capabilities, she can no longer make progress on finding a cure. Taking her away from her work could significantly delay (if not prevent) the creation of a vaccine and the end of epidemic. Her co- worker would be well aware of this consequence, and this is at complete odds with the kidnappers' goal of saving their neighbors.

* We are expected to believe that in a global epidemic with hundreds of millions dying and governments collapsing, the WHO will pay attention to the demands of one small town and one kidnapped employee (who hasn't been tortured or threatened in any way). But not only does the WHO respond, it coordinates with the U.S. government to put together a sophisticated negotiation team and sends them to an alley in Hong Kong to secure Marion's release. There is simply no way that valuable time and resources would be spent on such a mission.

* Marion is briefly seen at the village teaching a class of small children and sweetly smiling down at them. Later, the WHO pays her "ransom" by delivering a case of purported vaccine to the kidnappers. She is freed and gets into the van with the WHO response team. When they tell her that the syringes actually contained a placebo, she leaps back into the kidnappers' van to return to the village. WHY? Stockholm Syndrome? "Is she in love with her co-worker?" wondered my friend. We don't know, and we never find out, because we never see her again.

In another mishandled plot thread concerning the source of the virus, we are reminded with just a few minutes left in the film that it began on Day 2. We are then presented with a 6-scene montage of Day 1, hand touching sequential hand, tracing Gwyneth's infection back to its origin. The montage is jarring only because it has no connection to the scenes that immediately precede it. Anticlimactic and mind-numbingly predictable, it then "reveals" a source that was explicitly identified by some flat-voiced doctor much earlier in the movie.

Finally, the movie raises a number of ethical questions that all would have benefited from more than superficial exploration. A blogger uses scare tactics and spreads false information about the virus in order to gain media attention. The film merely observes his conduct with detachment, and we remain similarly disengaged. The issue of "who" should receive rare vaccination shots is briefly touched upon, but falls short of meaningful analysis. We had a much more impassioned and thought-provoking debate about the overcrowded lifeboat scenario in my high school sociology course.

"Contagion" has solid production values and some heartfelt attempts by the cast to make the most of their one-dimensional characters. Not dreck, but I am giving it a 4/10 rating primarily because of the numerous and distracting plot flaws. This director and cast, empowered by a phenomenal budget, should have been able to make a substantially better film.

The Fourth Kind (2009)

Nothing to be outraged about, but just...boring

[3/10 · 22 January 2011]

This movie does everything possible to claim that it's based on a real story. It's not. It's a marketing gimmick, like War of the Worlds. The good people of Alaska were so incensed by the misrepresentations that they sued Universal and won.

That said, there are many reviewers on this site and elsewhere who are fiercely outraged over the "deception." To me, that suggests that they are embarrassed that they initially fell for the obvious shtick. No other emotions are really generated by this film -- it's half fake-documentary with obvious actors playing the "real" people, and half "dramatic portrayal" of a story that was exceedingly dull and non-terrifying. If you have a deep-seated phobia about aliens who appear as owls and make you levitate, then perhaps you'll be scared. Or, like the vast majority of the reviewers who gave the movie a 10-star rating, you believe that you too have been abducted by aliens and the government is even now listening to you breathe.

Rational viewers who haven't yet been abducted by E.T. are more likely to see this film and utter, "Meh."

Swimming with Sharks (1994)

Delightful discovery

[8/10 · 19 December 2010]

I was so depressed after watching "The Men Who Stare At Goats" that I actively sought out Kevin Spacey movies to help redeem my perceptions of him. I saw "K-Pax" last week, which was adequately engaging, then found "Swimming with Sharks" on the IFC. What a find! This low-cost(less than $1M) film must not have had a very big marketing budget -- it completely escaped me at the time -- but it's one of the best performances Kevin Spacey I've ever seen. An abusive, self-indulgent, arrogant boss in the film industry, his role easily translates into that of a recognizable evil boss in any field. Spacey nicely runs the gamut of expression from god-like to humbled. His once-idealistic assistant is played by Frank Whaley, who never really saw his full potential subsequently develop in his career but has had nice turns in Pulp Fiction and a number of high-production TV series. Whaley too should be commended for his ability to grow the character from a wide-eyed beginning his dream job, to a vengeful warrior out for blood. The film centers on the dysfunctional relationship between these two and is weak only when it attempts to introduce minor roles featuring Michelle Forbes (Maryann on "True Blood") and Benecio del Toro (though these actors perform well with what they've been given).

The Men Who Stare at Goats (2009)

Could have been so much better

[4/10 · 4 December 2010]

I really wanted to like this movie, with its stellar cast and creative and quirky concept. Featuring Ewan MacGregor, George Clooney and Kevin Spacey (who's been gone for far too long) I imagined a blend of "Big Fish," "Inglorious Basterds" and "Burn After Reading," all of which were slightly self-indulgent but more than made up for it with the multi-layered characters, production values, and engaging plot lines. This film had all of the intellectual smugness of those movies but none of the wit. It wanders directionless and completely fails to engage, not just a stream of consciousness but a series of puddles. The characters are shallow, dull stereotypes -- Jeff Daniels as the New Age hippie (and the most nails-on-a-chalkboard irritating of them all), Ewan MacGregor the intrigued naive, George the straight-faced convert. The idea of conducting a war through the use of questionable psychic abilities could have been anywhere from laugh-out-loud funny to well-played dark comedy, and indeed, it seems that the movie tries for the entire range of comic effect, but it doesn't succeed in any. If you're dying to see the comic stylings of George Clooney, try the classic "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" (or the aforementioned "Burn After Reading," which features the wonderful Frances McDormand and Brad Pitt as a dim personal trainer).

Extreme Movie (2008)

Save yourself

[1/10 · 30 October 2010]

I've read IMDb reviews for years, either to research a movie before I see it, or check out whether others agree with my thoughts after the fact. I hope I've caught you as someone who hasn't yet seen this, because I registered with the site for the sole purpose of warning you. This "movie" is really just a series of moving pictures from the backlot of a fourth-tier porn studio that decided to have its actors get together between takes and try to put something "funny" together. To discount it as offensive and gross would be unfair to offensive and gross movies; it's just...pointless. No acting, no plot, no special effects, no jokes, just the constant repetition of naughty words and breast shots. Though I put this movie on in the background while I was cleaning the house (yes, I am intentionally including that disclaimer to distance myself as much as possible), I still feel that an hour of my life is forever tainted. DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME.