targa9 Reviews

The Illusionist (2006)

Beautifully shot, but huge plot holes

[7/10 · 27 April 2024]

I felt this was a fairly straightforward film about a gifted child magician who fell in love with a girl outside of his class, and she with him, and many years later, he's in town and she, being engaged to the crown prince, is in the audience, and they recognize each other.

Good start, and I cared about these characters. However, the crown prince (Sewell) was written very two-dimensionally, utterly devoid of any real charm--just a petty, jealous man who may have already beaten and killed one of his fiancees before.

In short, the magician Eisenheim (Norton) and the girl, Duchess of Teschen (Biel), requite their love and decide to escape Vienna and the crown prince. However, we are led to believe that the prince stabbed her in the neck with his sword, and she never made the rendezvous with Eisenheim the night they planned to escape. The film shows us Eisenheim's concern, but this is all fake, because in reality (SPOILER)....the entire thing was staged by he and she so that her fake death would finally release her to run away with Eisenheim, and the prince would not "hunt us down and have us killed" as the duchess warned, had she been alive. The entire town of Vienna mourns for her, and afterward Eisenheim does a series of magic shows focusing on raising dead spirits, including the duchess, which arouses the ire of Inspector Uhl, who works for the prince.

The denouement, therefore, shows Inspector Uhl (Giamatti) finally figuring out that the crown prince, not some poor sap rotting in jail, may have killed the duchess, he confronts him, where the prince shoots himself in the head with a pistol. Uhl is for some reason relieved of his duties, and Eisenheim manages to give him a "hint' that all may not be as it seems, and the end shows that the duchess has indeed escaped death and is waiting for her lover at a horse stable outside of town. Happy ending, right?

***PLOT HOLES***

First, it is never quite clear what Uhl's motivation is in trying to persecute Eisenheim. Even after the death of the duchess, it is Uhl, not the crown prince, who wants to persecute the magician ("What is this magician to me?" asks the prince), even after he is not a suspect in the duchess's death. So what--he does shows that bring to life "dead spirits"--how is that crown business? Only after he raises the Duchess's spirit, and the people start accusing the prince of murder, does it make sense.

Second, what happened to the Duchess's body? About 100 people saw her floating dead in a creek. We are led to believe that Eisenheim made her "appear dead" and then revived her with some potion. Um...she's the DUCHESS OF TESCHEN--the police are going to take her body! She is going to be buried! So we are to believe, at the end of the film, that the magician easily 'disappeared' the duchess's body or replaced it with someone else's? I don't think so!

Third, what about the poor sap rotting in jail who did NOT kill anyone? How is THAT a happy ending? Why would he confess? Who is he? The film callously disregards his plight, as do the magician and the duchess.

Fourth, after they faked the death, why did Eisenheim stick around and do these "dead spirit shows" anyway, esp. Bringing back to life the "Duchess"? Was it to just mess with Uhl and the prince? Realistically, once they faked the duchess's death, they should have absconded right afterwards. But no, the magician sticks around and forces the prince's men to persecute and harrass him FOR NO REASON.

Finally, I did not buy that someone so dim as Inspector Uhl, who at once did not suspect the magician, but did not suspect the prince either, would have figured out, at the very end, through the slightest of clues, that Eisenheim eloped with the living Duchess, engineering the entire "illusion" of her death. He goes back to the stable and finds 2 clues, a jewel from the prince's sword, and the wood locket the magician gave to the duchess as a child. He grabs both and confronts the prince, accusing him of murder. After the suicide, Uhl leaves the castle and is given a notebook by a street urchin. The notebook is the same one Uhl found the schematic of the locket, and somehow it's supposed to mean something. What? He quickly checks his pocket, and the locket is missing--the magician crept up and picked his pocket! Huh? He tries to chase down a man he suspects of being Eisenheim in disguise, but ends up losing him at the train station, and suddenly realizes that the entire realm has been tricked by this magician--the duchess is ALIVE and the magician and she have escaped together. The inspector laughs and the cleverness.

Well, it's not clear what the book of the orange tree trick, the locket, the locket instructions, or the pickpocketing of the locket would have to do with Uhl being made to think the entire thing was a trick. Again, DUCHESS'S BODY?? That would be a massive trick in itself to disappear the body and let the realm think they buried her. But because this movie wanted so much to have this "twist", they tried to flimsily wrap it up in the last few minutes, and it does not hold up to scrutiny.

Anyway, it was an okay movie and it had a happy ending (ignoring the falsely imprisoned man).

Some had issue with the fact that Eisenheim's incredible illusions were not explained at all. This is a fair point at the end, because a little boy walking along the aisle that nobody can touch truly is a shocking illusion. However, it's a movie, and CGI was used to give artistic license, and make us feel what the audience felt, that this was no mere magician, but a sorcerer, and that did not hurt the movie.

This movie was not as good or tightly-wrapped as the much-superior "The Prestige", which came out the same year.

Perry Mason: The Case of the One-Eyed Witness (1958) Season 1, Episode 23

Doesn't make sense

[6/10 · 7 January 2024]

This episode was puzzling and too convoluted. First of all, we are to believe that the motive of the blackmailer, once he was found ripping off his partner, Marian's husband, is to kill his partner somehow. This he succeeds in doing by shooting him in the head at home, in his wife's home. However, he has to also take suspicion off himself, so he concocts a bomb to go off in his own place, to blow up a French waiter, about the same size and build as himself (he isn't), an hour after Mason visited his house, and after Mason witnessed a woman walking inside. First of all, how did he have explosives ready so quickly? And since his target, Marian's husband, was actually in his place, not at home, wouldn't he be blown up? From what we know, Samuel Carlin, Arthur Fargo and another woman (likely his confederate, Diana Maynard) were all in Carlin's house about 1-2 hours after Mason left, and yet hid himself behind a bush in someone's driveway (not suspicious that?) across the street to observe a bomb go off. In any case, we are to believe, as it plays out, that Carlin somehow got the French waiter to come to his house that night, after telling that waiter to tell his boss that he quit the job, and blew him up so the police would think Carlin was dead, meanwhile he hired Diana Maynard to testify to the police that Marian Fargo, Mason's client, did indeed board a bus 3 hours earlier than other witnesses claim, thus giving Fargo an alibi for the murder of her husband? Why? Why go to all that trouble to give her an alibi? If Carlin did not hire Diana Maynard to sit with and testify that Fargo was on the bus with her, then Fargo would go down for the crime of killing her husband, and there would be no need for Maynard to even get involved. As it stood, Fargo could claim that Carlin was blackmailing her to keep her brother out of jail, but since Carlin was blown up with an explosive, they'd have to prove she had opportunity to do so, but why would she kill her husband in her own home? And why was she leaving on a bus anyway? To force the exchange of Gallagher's paperwork for the money? This episode was way too convoluted. It started badly, with Paul claiming that the body they took out of the building was too badly burned to identify, yet he told Perry that the body had a bullet in his skull. Shoddy.

A Savage Nature (2020)

Horribly underrated!

[8/10 · 6 May 2023]

This indy gem is tight, has a good story, dialog, and memorable characters. Seems like the bad reviews (just read them) are made by inarticulate dummies. There is suspense, danger, and a pair of excellent, memorable villains. You won't see what's coming, either. There is not a wasted scene. Jon Hudson Odom is a standout--his villain bristles with malignant energy, and his partner in crime, played by Joseph Carlson, is a grounded, hicksville dropout, but also unafraid and dangerous. The two are up to no good, and how the events play out is highly entertaining. The young couple, played by Johanna Wicker and Steve Polites, have a strained relationship, but why? Everything is perfectly explained, and I was just being drawn into this movie. This movie is not slow, boring, or "arty"--it is a hidden gem in a forest of bad, indulgent indies. Director/writer Paul Awad has come up with a most solid entry into the home-invasion genre. See it!

Last Call (III) (2019)

Ending ruined it

[4/10 · 21 February 2023]

As if it's not bad enough the movie starts off with the annoying split screen, and then continues this throughout the entire movie, and there are violins playing, and it's about SUICIDE....

*********SPOILERS FOLLOW*********

I sat through this entire thing, enjoying the quality acting and tension, only for the ending to show that he did not get saved.

Most confusedly, we hear pounding on the door, and I thought I heard them break the door down, but they did NOT show any people enter his apartment. So I guess he died. Right? Nobody seems to care about this critical ending. Weird. Too busy writing puffery about the 'continuous take'. Ugh.

Here's another big problem. Our heroine finds out his NAME by doing some quick internet-savvy searches, and confirming by calling his wife on the phone. As soon as she had his name, she should have IMMEDIATELY called 911 back and said, "Yes, I have his full name now". Because they were asking her for that when she called, and she couldn't tell them anything but is first name. But NO, she just cries and keeps talking to him, and even though she knows his name, does NOT try harder to determine where he lives so they can send help.

Plot hole.

The acting was great. But I couldn't give a HOOT about "the continuous shot". I mean seriously, people? Would it really MATTER if the director did a few "cuts" here or there? No. It would NOT have hurt the film ONE BIT. So that tells me that the "continuous take" schtick is only a gimmick (like the overrated "Birdman" movie), if I didn't even notice it, and if someone told me there were cuts or not, I would not have cared. Also, we are SUPPOSED to be interested in this man's life, the value of a human LIFE, and SUICIDE. But instead, all the puffery reviews are raving about the cinematography, the "one-take shot", and of course, the "split screen" (which was appropriate for this movie, but not innovative, of course). It's as if these arty film reviewers don't really care about the denouement at all, story be damned. Instead it's "continuous take, continuous take". Give it a rest, people!

How DEPRESSING is it to watch a movie about a man who is thinking of committing suicide...and then in the end...we are led to believe...he succeeded? We are shown a photo of the daughter on the fridge for 5 full minutes, then END! So all she did was give him someone to talk to before he died?? But even IF the EMTs did come and save him, it would not have cured his ills, and he would probably attempt it some other time. I did not SEE when he took the pills--that was too subtle, I guess. He was mixing some drink in the kitchen, but if he took pills then, it was obscured by all the cocktail stuff he was doing, so it was too easy to miss.

So, NO NO NO NO. Do NOT make a movie where we finally get to care about a sad schlump who killed his kid while drunk-driving, and wants to kill himself, and a woman who talks him out of it...only for him to SUCCEED in his mortal quest. Terrible!

Critical Thinking (2020)

True story, but cliche storyline

[5/10 · 12 January 2023]

The movie never really spent time showing us how these kids trained to become better chess players. Showing them the odd Morphy game here and there with whoops and hollers is not great training. The film should have showed them spending time playing chess with each other, studying the game. The Cuban boy had a rating of 2300, which is International Master. So if he was roped into the school just to become part of their chess team, he's what you call a "ringer". There's a segment where the teacher (Leguizamo) tries to answer a question about why "our people" are not represented. The answer was typical liberal claptrap, and the teacher missed a great opportunity to say, "but Jose Raul Capablanca WAS represented--in fact idolized by millions and was the reigning World Chess Champ for many years." And how they identify more with a foreigner ("our people") than an American is telling.

I thought the father was going to be a positive influence, since the movie starts with them playing chess, but he turned out to just be a total, brutal ass. The actors did a good job and there was chemistry and camaraderie.

As a tournament chess player, however, I must point out the many awful cliches: For one, players don't STARE at each other so much during games. Most all the time their focus is on the board. Most players do not try and "eyeball" their opponents. The "eyeballing" scenes should have been limited to only those moves the player thought was trappy or surprising, to see his opponent's reaction. Instead, every single chess game both opponents are eyeballing each other. Ridiculous. Secondly, they represented the game as BLITZ--a chess variant where both players have very little time to move their pieces, so watching those games is indeed nothing but move, slap clock, move, slap clock, etc. But in reality, the tournaments they played at are serious, classical time control tournaments, and so MOST of the time it would be quiet and players would be just staring at the board. Instead, we see a flurry of chess moves (slamming down the pieces, also ridiculous), followed by slapping the clock, eyeballing, jack-jawing, and other horrible behavior.

The most disappointing part of this movie is that it is called "Critical Thinking" and so I thought it would try to make a tie between the consequences of "bad moves" on the chessboard and the "bad moves" in life. The character Ito, for example, seems to make some bad moves, but it's not clear exactly why he needs to sell drugs for money, and we didn't see the scene where he was fired. Why was he fired? Because he left for a tournament without telling his boss? If so, it's no wonder. But the movie doesn't tell us--we just see Ito spiraling down, making bad decisions, but there's no real parallel to chess. In fact, at one point Ito even says, "We won--so what? What did we win?" He cannot see the value of chess to his life, so neither can the rest of us.

I thought there were many missed opportunities, such as when the teacher gives his "pep talk" and talks about each of them tapping into their inner "intangibles", bringing "themselves to the game". What does that even mean? Instead, he should exhort them to not move too quickly, calculate deeper, be objective as possible, and to play the BOARD, not your opponent. Instead, it's like the team won because they dug deep into their PERSONALITIES, which is something more appropriate for boxing, not chess. A chess game can be lost by a single mistake, and with this young, brash, impulsive crew--the best advice would be for them to be humble, and to actually RESPECT (but not fear) their opponent, and to look at the board objectively. "Tap into your intangibles"--not a very catchy slogan for a pep talk.

I give it 5 stars for being a true story, and for showing the young/older original real-life people the film is based on.

Metamorphosis (III) (2022)

How NOT to write and direct a movie

[1/10 · 10 October 2022]

Another typically bad junior director movie--more concerned with "atmosphere" and acid-lighting than with actual story, dialog, characters.

Why do they keep doing this? So here are some hints for the junior director/writer the NEXT time he wants to make a movie:

1. LIGHT your scene enough so we can tell what the hell is happening. Much of this film takes place in dark areas, and we cannot make out shapes because we are not NOCTURNAL.

2. SHOW us the objects your characters are holding, looking at, reaching for, etc. The man threw some box down the hill. The acid-lighting showed us what looks like a little box. Later in the movie, they show us crawling toward the box. What is it? Who knows and who cares. The director doesn't tell us.

Also, when someone is reading something small, MAGNIFY the image so we can see it. Knowing her phone went off and seeing some fuzzy characters tells us NOTHING.

3. Have your characters act in PLAUSIBLE ways. It is not plausible, for instance, to have the wife see the man chew his arm over a campfire one night, and the next day only say, "I'm here for you if you want to talk to me".

That's STUPID. That would only make sense if (a) he's done this before and (b) it is a prelude to a common depression which she is aware of. But she didn't even KNOW he was seeing a psychiatrist before this trip. So when you see your husband chewing his own arm, the thing to do is (a) run out there and say, "Honey, what are you doing? Are you okay??" But she goes back to sleep. Then at least at the breakfast table she should say, "Honey, WTF were you doing last night? I saw you chewing your arm at a fire? Why are you sitting at a fire outside at night?" Instead, the dialog is "You can talk to me, honey". What crap writing. Another example: wife finds hubby crumpled in a bloody shower stall. Blood everywhere. She checks his fingers (to see where he's bleeding?). She doesn't ask him ANYTHING like "what happened? Are you bleeding? Where is this blood from?" Instead, she concludes he's in need of major medical attention, then runs out to this boathouse and lightly taps on the window saying "help?" in a mousey voice. Since she's able to get no one, instead of returning to her husbanding in the bloody shower, she STAYS OUT ALL NIGHT. What? None of this is plausible, or even interesting. It's just STUPID and lazy, insensitive writing. Finally, even though she knows the husband is seriously physically ill, instead of trying to convince him to get off the island to see a doctor, or say "I'm going to get a doctor for you", she says, "I'm leaving the island...with or without you." NICE. That's exactly how a loving wife does NOT act once she sees her husband has contracted some serious disease.

Earlier, the wife goes to the dock and sees what looks like a car battery with something on top of it (dark, amorphous, who knows?), but later tells her husband "the battery is missing"! No it's not! It's on the DOCK. We all saw it. Tell him the truth--say, "Honey, why the hell is the car battery sitting on the dock with the boats?" Idiot writer!

4. Explain your characters' motivations, and have them be credible. The best part of the movie was the husband complaining about working long hours, trying to prop up her art career, and feeling resentful. That bit of dialogue makes sense, and even garners SYMPATHY for the husband. And you NEED sympathetic characters for every movie. But that was it. The rest of the movie was him shouting at her, scaring her, and acting weird. I get it--he's turning into some monster. But STILL why have him be such a douche? Makes no sense. Doesn't tie into anything. Instead, he just slowly morphs into some disgusting animal that eats raw flesh, spends time with his rifle, vomits, at times sick and crumpled up, at other times running like he's in perfect health. It's just insane and stupid, and shows that the director has no real ideas--he just wants to gross/freak us out over this "metamorphosis", which has NOTHING over any wolfman movie we've all seen before.

5. Learn fight choreography. Toward the end of the movie, the two hunters are chasing the wife. Then, without showing us the husband coming out of the bushes to tackle one hunter, the very next scene is him on top of one of the hunters, killing him. What? That's it? Worse, the next hunter approaches the woman with a knife--CUT to scene of husband on top of second hunter, killing him. What? That's IT? That's how you show an attack? You leave OUT the attack part? Absolutely crappy fight choreography--lazy, amateurish, and shows what an absolute piece of rubbish this entire movie is--because THIS was supposed to be the climax, the best this movie can be--the fact that, despite his metamorphosis into some animal/monster, he cares ENOUGH about his wife to defend her from psycho-hunters (who, by the way, are also just contrived, cut-out "villains" with unconvincing motivations to go after this couple in the first place--just tacked on). But no--the director ROBS us of any cool "wolf-man jumps from the bushes and lands on the hunter's chesk, ripping his heart out with his teeth" moment. Instead, the director tells the actor, "OK you get on top of him here, and you start pretending to chew into him--ACTION!" Come on, learn how to choreograph violence, you numbskull.

6. If you're going to make someone a "painter"--convince us she's a REAL painter, and convince us a husband would pay all the bills to help her career. Show her leafing through her success photos--galleries, etc. She'd have to have SOME track record, Because NOBODY would become the bread-winner for someone who makes a few art-school chicken scratches for a face on canvas (with muddy charcoal, nonetheless). Bring us INTO her world as a painter, perhaps incorporate it into the plot, instead of just having her come back to find her excrescence destroyed with a hole in the center, and her getting mad. Use flashbacks and hire an actual painter as a consultant of how it would be credible. But as it is, you expect us to believe a spouse would become the breadwinner for someone who quit nursing school to "dabble" in paint? Give me a break!

I turned the movie off after the second hunter was being attacked. This is just a dismal, hollow mess of a movie, with inscrutable actions by the protagonists, dark/dim lighting to where you don't know what is happening, and the ending showed that the director/writer just wanted to make some grim, atmospheric drama, and we're just all supposed to go for it, even though nothing makes any sense whatsoever.

Typical garbage from a neophyte writer/director. Avoid at all costs.

Siberia (2018)

God-awful

[1/10 · 23 August 2022]

So many gratuitous sex scenes, bordering on soft-porn. Gangsters who can't just make million dollar diamond deals without the seller being forced to have oral sex in front of them, so they can be "blood brothers". Too many groups of people (the South Africans, the Spetznas gang, Boris Volkov, Andrei and Pyotr and our hero, the girl's immediate family and friends--but no real exposition explaining anything).

When he left the girl in the hotel to give Boris the single blue diamond, I thought that he was going to get busted, giving Boris the fakie, and his "girlfriend" taking the real diamond and scramming. That would have been good. But nooo...can't have actual suspenseful writing. Instead, his girlfriend inexplicably shows up at the meet, and is forced to perform oral sex on the gangster, or else! Of course she leaves what she thought was going to be a cocaine-and-booze party as if she'd been raped. Well...nobody told you to infiltrate a black-market million dollar diamond deal, dummy! And why would a gangster interested in diamonds FORCE his seller to do such disgusting things?

Anyway, there was way too much time spent on the stupid sex and relationship with this Katya woman, who already had a beau, apparently (and our hero Lucas already married, too), as well as her vulgar family and friends (all male by the way). Very little explanatory dialog on what's happening--what did the S. Africans want? Why did the Russian police (FSB) force Lucas to sell the fake diamonds to Boris? What was the point of that? They didn't even show the cops busting him. Instead, they said "if you don't do this for us, Lucas, you know what will happen to the girl." What? I thought they were Russia's FBI? Instead, they act like gangsters.

Then in the end we see the dead (but not frozen?) body of I guess is Pyotr, sitting in a chair, with bloody marks on his arms as if he died of hypothermia during a heroin overdose in some shack? If so, why wasn't he in his house? What was he doing in that little shack? How did Lucas find him? And why was Katya's brother so nice to him? And why did Lucas linger around, when he should have been on a plane outta there? And how did Boris's men find out the diamonds were fakes, if Boris himself told the spectrometer guy "we trust him. Put it away"? I guess they used it after his "blood brother" left?

We never got to see the bad-ass Spetznas gang leader. And how did a fake diamond end up in a candle in the crappy Siberian motel? Pyotr left it there? Why? Did he expect Lucas to find it?

The entire movie was a confusing stinker, and every 15 minutes it was sweaty, gritty soft-porn sex between big-toothed Katya and Lucas, and I disliked both of them: him, for cheating on his wife (explaining it as "squinting" at things? ) and her for falling so fast and hard for this inarticulate American diamond smuggler, when instead she had a good man (by all accounts), "Anton" to be with. No scene rang true or felt authentic. Terrible writing and screenplay. And Keanu's deadpan, boring delivery, where he says. Everything. So. Carefully. And. Disjointed--wears on you after a while. And he is given VERY little dialog, I guess to make him some "man of mystery".

1 point for the cinematography.

Better Call Saul: Waterworks (2022) Season 6, Episode 12

Another padded episode...

[3/10 · 9 August 2022]

I don't understand all the rave reviews. I guess people are okay with long, drawn out scenes of nothing happening, no exposition. They are wowed by the excellent acting and direction, that they think the writing can just skip.

It can't. So many missed opportunities and wasted moments. Again. Howard's wife asks Kim straight out, "Why are you doing this?"--something we ALL want to really know. Kim stares at her. Instead of giving her some good line, some excellent dialog, Gilligan spends time showing her car driving away. Wasted.

It is also not convincing that Kim has basically devolved into this pedestrian domesticated wife, complete with a dead-end boring job and a suffocating social life. We get it--she felt guilty about Howard, but still that is not enough to explain her complete transformation from swinging big legal deals and facing down drug cartel leaders to what she has become. Maybe for 1 year afterward, but not the several years that have passed. This episode, like others, is filled with contrived waiting scenes, such as Kim standing in Saul's waiting room after he signs the divorce papers, all the pedestrian details of Kim's job (just to show us how completely shell-shocked she is), her complete inability to even TALK to Saul, a man she loved, properly, despite being a highly intelligent, articulate attorney.

The show is classy, superbly directed and with great music, and even the "large strokes" of the writing are decent. What is missing is EXPOSITION. This show likes to throw you into the middle of a scene, where there is almost no context (sometimes zero), and let it play for 10 minutes, and only much later do they "reveal" what the scene was about. Hitchcock was great at mystery because he gave you a little context and motive to get you thinking; Gilligan thinks he can direct "mysterious scenes" by simply not telling you what the scene is about. While this episode has more exposition than others (the tedious mall theft episode comes to mind), I was again left disappointed that so little happened in one hour. Only the action and fear scenes are the best, such as the episode of Nacho on the run, or Lalo closing in on Gus after killing Howard. But all these long, lingering, silent closeups on expressionless faces, closeups of beepers being laid down on the table, potatoes being sliced, dough being cut into Cinnabuns, is akin to watching water drip, cars drive by, and staring at people in a cafe. It's lazy dialog and writing, not crisp. The only reason I think people give "10" to these episodes is that they are so easily pleased by the excellent direction and music--they are so wowed by these superficialities, they don't demand more out of scenes, or their time in watching a show. In essence, BCS is such an inferior show to BB precisely because it's so incredibly padded out, and very little happens (think of all the boring episodes with Kim and Jimmy drama), whereas BB started with a bang, stayed dangerous and edgy all the way through, while BCS tries to come off classy and mysterious, but just wastes our time. Think about Gus going into that private wine bar and having a conversation with the wine steward, who then fetches a favorite bottle for them to share together. Suddenly, for no reason, Gus just up and leaves. At first I thought perhaps he was worried that the cartel hired someone to poison him, but that was not clear, esp. Since the steward was going to share the damn bottle. No exposition or explanation on that. Yet that scene took about 10 minutes of screen time. Such inefficient writing and wasted scenes. And that scene was typical. I'll just be glad to watch the final episode and be forever done with this second-rate spinoff from BB.

Ozark: A Hard Way to Go (2022) Season 4, Episode 14

Terrible last season!

[2/10 · 3 May 2022]

The last season in general was padded out to the extreme. First, since WHEN did Ruth dig "rap music"? Suddenly she's a big fan and even runs into a famous rapper in Chicago and has a bonding moment with him. Yet she watches "Duck Dynasty" too? Give me a break. I think the show's creators just thought the padding-out of Ruth's revenge on Javi would be "cool" to do it with a lot of annoying rap music. Like every time she drove. Always.

Secondly, the entire IDEA that Ruth would pose any sort of threat to the leader of a Mexican drug cartel is absurd. First, he'd be surrounded by security, right? Wrong. Secondly, she doesn't even know what he looks like, right? Wrong--the KIDS tell her! (which incidentally, ends up getting her killed in the end--great job, blabbermouths). Finally, she successfully tailed Marty and Wendy all over Chicago, and through the suburbs without them noticing? So she then threatens to kill them with a gun unless they go up to the office and invite Javi so she can kill him. Wendy actually calls Javi (but blames Marty for it in the end). So she gets revenge and leaves. OK good. Javi was a nasty character.

But THEN we have to endure Ruth's emotional meanderings and talking with Wyatt's ghost and reminiscences. It felt forced. Wyatt was a dumbass, hooking up with Darlene and not leaving when the violence got too thick (even though he had a perfect chance). He was a relative innocent, sure, but I didn't buy this great bond and sleeping together on top of the motor home since youth, and talks about pools, etc. Anyway, it was sappy nonsense for such an "edgy" show.

So much junk went on, from Mel Sattim's investigation into the death of the mob lawyer to his obsession with Ben's disappearance, to the grandfather coming back to claim the children (outstanding performance by Richard Thomas), to Omar Navarro's impossible rage against Wendy--to then him suddenly dealing nice with the Byrds, to Rachel coming back, Ruth going "clean", there was too much stuff piled on for it to be in the slightest believable that Wendy and Marty could spend enough time with enough "pillars of the community" to get all that donor money and hold that impossible casino boat bash at the end. They just did NOT have the time to do that. A few phone calls here and there and meetings with the pharmaceutical chick is not going to cut it. The writing here is pretty weak.

Finally, the kids. It's consistent that they want "out", esp. Because of Wendy, who is a soulless nasty b**tch, as Rachel put it. But the Byrds pull a few dirty tricks and suddenly the kids are back with the parents as if nothing happened. What happened was this: Marty THREATENED to out Ruth to the cartel, so Ruth, UNDER DURESS, holds a gun on Wendy's father to get him to "confess" that he is only taking the children to get revenge on their mother. That's enough for them to say, "welp, better to stay with our psycho mother!" Here's the worst part--after she spills her guts in the mental hospital (ever notice how she's just lounging around watching TV and not forced to take drugs, have stupid meetings, or participate in group therapies, like REAL mental health places?--how unrealistic and lazy of the writers!)--she gets into the car with Marty and the kids in the back, and says to Marty, "YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO THREATEN RUTH"--in front of the kids! So now the kids KNOW that Ruth didn't out their grandfather because she cared, but because Marty threatened her with something! Yet it doesn't matter!

Then, we are treated to deja-vu: their car almost gets hit by an out-of-control semi and they flip and roll off the road, as in the first episode of this season (which turned out to be a flash-forward which helps the plot how?). All it does is make us confused, because I thought they already went through that crash, so I'm thinking, "Wendy is on drugs and she's imagining all this". Nope. It's just a useless scene where they all come out unscathed and Wendy gets to tell the cartel priest, "it's fate. We survived the crash so it's a sign!" Whatever. Gratuitous.

Then, Nelson, the cartel thug, is following Ruth, apparently because after he spooked Rachel, Ruth redirected all the casino proceeds through clean banks; in other words, defying the cartel's orders. So she's thinking she might die. Before she does, she drives to the sheriff and spills her guts to save the innocent lowlife in jail for the murder of Wyatt, then walks outside and sees Nelson's SUV gone. She calls Rachel at home to warn her, who shoots him dead when he arrives, and they bury him under the newly constructed pool.

HUGE PLOT HOLE: Ever notice that these cartel guys never tell any of their bosses where they are going, and they are alone when getting killed? From the very beginning of Ozark, the cartel seems to have very bad/no intel on exactly where their members are, and the Byrds and company successfully find ways to "disappear" cartel members, even Javi the boss, and get away with shrugging their shoulders? What crap! Camilla's only clue to where Javi was that night was a phone call about a deal. The rest is guesswork. What about his driver? He had a driver waiting for him outside the Chicago pharmaceutical woman's office building. Suddenly, he gets killed by Ruth, and there are SECURITY cams the cartel could easily get their hands on, and Javi's driver, and not to mention where Javi told people he was going--and yet Marty and Wendy can just play dumb? Same with Nelson--he disappears and Omar doesn't even know where he was going or what he was doing? What sort of cartel is this? I believe Amazon or UPS has more control of where there people are!

Finally, at the very end, Mel Sattim, the former cop-turned-PI finds Ben's ashes (illegally seized and perhaps inadmissible in court) and confronts the Byrds on their property at night after breaking and entering into their house. He waits outside to lecture them. Alone. We have no idea if he told anyone where he was or what he was doing. But I was feeling GOOD about how the evil Byrds were FINALLY going to get taken down. But then JONAH shows up and, even though the director tries to pull a Sopranos ending by blacking out the screen (very cheap), the gunshot clearly demonstrates that Jonah, the boy who spend a few seasons trying to GET AWAY from his evil parents, is perfectly fine with killing a man who cared enough about justice and finding Ben's ashes (Ben, whom Jonah loved), just to keep his family together? That's not consistent at all!

Anyway, I liked the first 2 seasons of this show, but as the show wore on, I realized that it was pretty sloppily written, and they just threw impossible things together that didn't add up. How Wendy can have a one-on-one with Omar Navarro, who vows to kill her and her family, then LIE to the FBI chief about "how the meeting went" and have her BELIEVE Wendy is ludicrous. The entire thing would have been recorded, or at the very least, the FBI would have been present. They would not allow some individual like Wendy to have a "secret meeting" with Navarro and promise stuff, only to rely on what Wendy said as the truth! And again, where did the Byrds find all the time to solicit donors for their foundation without spending massive amounts of personal time in the presence of their donors? That sort of business is personal, and requires face-to-face meetings. Instead, Wendy, between chats with drug cartel bosses, pharma-girl, between large glasses of merlot, simply gets on her phone and asks her skinny gay lawyer friend, "how're we doin?" And all this leads to a very successful donor bash on top of a riverboat casino? I don't buy it.

The best part of this season was Richard Thomas. His character was complex and interesting, and even when he played a drunken sexist, he was restrained and his performance was absolutely amazing. The rest of the cast did their jobs well, but their characters were pretty detestable, especially Wendy (who should have died violently), the stupid kids who blabbed, and even Ruth, who was too stupid to live (hence the Langmore curse, stupidity). Her vulgar mouth knew no bounds, even in the presence of the FBI, a judge, or cartel bosses, right. (Oh, and I lived near the Ozarks, and they don't talk with Alabama drawls! Julia Garner is a good actress, but that accent is WAY off). Marty having the wrong guy killed was stupid. He didn't suspect, after all that torture, that he wasn't the one? His jealousy of Javi and cooking the books a bit (which he confessed to) was enough to have him killed? And THEN they find out Camilla is the one behind the attempt on her brother's life, and that woman is allowed to TAKE OVER?? She even comes to the Riverboat casino party at the end and makes vulgar threats on peoples' lives! It's ridiculous! All those high-society types and they see this cartel woman, and yet Wendy said, "In that world it is ALL appearances!" Oh well, Ozark was entertaining enough.

Hellbound (2021– )

Boring and MAKES NO SENSE

[2/10 · 10 December 2021]

The initial concept is interesting--these people are "selected" to go to hell and told exactly what date and time that will happen. So then these 3 huge behemoths (hell creatures) appear out of nowhere and beat the crap out of the overly-conscious victims (I mean seriously, one bash in the head from those creatures and they would be knocked out). In fact, it was gratuitous, because if people know these creatures are coming, why don't they take heroin or some drug that makes them immune to pain? Because these creatures don't just send you to hell; they torture you first. But any human would quickly get knocked out by one punch, but instead, it shows them screaming until the very end. Gratuitous.

OK, so then there's this cult called "Arrowhead" that builds up, that believes these Hell creatures were sent by GOD and the message is to live "more righteously" (obviously, right?). I mean, if God revealed himself today, and started sending people to hell in the most graphic way, wouldn't we all start turning into Christians overnight? You'd think so. But not this "Arrowhead" group! Their idea of "living rightously" apparently means to beat the crap out of (even to death) anyone who is...not like them! That's right? They beat to death this old lady, only because she was with a lawyer woman whom was simply trying to do her job to protect some person (she never prevented the hell monsters). So they just go after the cop, too, and end up kicking him, like they're full of hate. WHY?? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If they were Christians, they would be doing the EXACT OPPOSITE and trying to be good, peaceful, meek people waiting for Judgment. But no, they listen to this Gilbert-Godfried-voiced annoying streamer guy with war-paint on his face, and it's all about find out who the "infidels" (unbelievers are) and....beating them to a pulp! This happens so often, esp. In the 2nd and 3rd episode, I shut it off. I mean what's the point?

Besides this, the show was boring and missed opportunities. For example, the woman with 2 kids who was sent to hell--we never found out what her sins were! She's just a working mom, so I was hoping the show would question our perceptions and show us how evil she was. But nobody figures out anything, yet the Arrowhead group are so convinced that she MUST have been an evil sinner regardless! The daughter of the cop gets roped in by the charm of the Arrowhead leader (the "chairman"), but then he convinces her to find and then jointly KILL the suspect in her mother's murder? I was hoping they would show us that the old drunk man was innocent, but again, that plot point went nowhere. They just incinerate his body, and dump him into some field, I guess, as propaganda (why would they need it??). And why would she so willingly go along with murder? Stupid.

Finally, we are to believe that a local police department is supposed to deal with these astounding incidents of hell monsters (on video!) beating and burning to death citizens? The feds never get involved? Just a local police precinct? And those in that precinct are targeted and beaten up by the "believers"? The show thinks we are IDIOTS.

This show is no Squid Game, that's for sure.

Star Trek (1966–1969)

Dated and campy

[5/10 · 30 December 2020]

Not sure why this show was so popular. I watched it when I was a kid, and it seemed cool, but as an adult, it's terribly dated, campy, and the constant struggle is about how superior human "emotions" are to worlds and systems which downplay them. Far from opening our minds to new worlds and ways of thinking, this show is actually reactionary and reaffirms traditional values and ways of dealing with things. McCoy is insufferable as the badgering, irascible doctor who constantly insults Spock, and their predictable exchanges provide the coda for many an episode. Scotty is also over-emotional, and often disobeys commands in order to "help out a lass". Chekhov is another stereotypical character, whose Russian "pride" and mop hair are cringey. Only Uhura, Zulu, Spock and Kirk are watchable. The music score is cheap and repetitive, using the exact same scores for fight scenes or other mood scenes. Some of the stories start out very interestingly, only to wind up as some simple fight or miraculous escape or reconciliation. But should I expect? The show was made in the late 60s, is very colorful (even the insides of caves have red, green, blue lights), and Spock makes the show almost worth watching. I guess I just don't understand how devotees can still like the original series, since it is pretty much a cringe-fest of dated stereotypes, repetitive music, stupid fight scenes (unconvincing two-handed "chops" , bad stunt doubles, and judo throws prevail to the same "fight music"), and saccharine sentiments and convenient wrap-ups. The show is also pretty lazy, since just about every planet they go to resembles earth, and everyone speaks English, and there's really nothing "alien" about it other than strange costumes and customs. Many episodes simply occur in a contemporary American environment, which I found quite lazy and cheap. I realize they had a tight budget, but that is irrelevant in judging the entertainment value of the show today. It's pretty much a cheese-fest, with only a couple episodes (I'm now on the 3rd season) memorable and interesting. The best thing about this show is how pretty it is, with technicolor, beautiful people, and the relentless "logic" of Spock. As for Spock's "logic", this too is oversimplified to us, since there is really no examination between reason and irrationalism, and logic itself is quite a narrow field consisting primarily of "syllogisms", or codified arguments, or else mathematical logic, or electronic logic of nand/and/or/nor gates of transistors. We must assume that Spock, being likened more to a heartless computer than anything else, is talking about "transistor logic", but this means he is a calculating machine, and such a machine requires lots of data to be effective. Often, Spock has very little data to make his reports, and so the word "logic" is bandied about in a general way, where in fact, "Stoic" would be more appropriate. Logic requires specific information to work, yet we hear Spock talk about "logic" as if it were a total belief system, instead of merely a tool for calculation (which he can do incredibly fast, like a computer, in his head). We don't call modern computers "logical" , but rather "extremely fast calculators or data processors", the logic of calculations being implicit. But "logic" is talked about on this show as a mantle of reason, which is a shame, because the engineer and the doctor, in fact just about everyone on board, should be an extremely rational creature, having certainly gone through trials and testing to make it aboard a starship, right? Yet only Spock has the "logic" purview, while the others are allowed to act like hormonal teens or curmudgeons or lotharios. They probably do that to show the "contrast" between Spock's "reason" and their "human" qualities, pitting these 2 qualities against each other, when in fact, reason is what separates man from the lower animals. So the show does a disservice to our capacities of reason, outfitting only one member of the crew with the sang-froid of deeply rational thinking, while the rest of the crew can act "human", i.e., like short-sighted overemotional, irrational ninnies.

The Punisher (2017–2019)

A punishing watch

[1/10 · 30 August 2020]

I expected a superhero. Instead I get a soldier with a sort of PTSD who waits until he's beat to a bloody pulp before doing anything.

He also has a chance to kill a bad guy, but then he says "dying's easy" and lets the bad guy go.

Jon Bernthal has this stupid, confused look--his eyeballs flitting from here to there, looking at nothing, while he breathes in huffs, and growls out tough-man talk. He's just a dumb brute, barely able to hold his anger in check, but then they show him making an earbud call to a target while sniping him, or operating a computer. Right.

Gratuitous blood. Gratuitous sex. And too much boring philosophical talk, and by philosophy, I mean, soldiers wondering what they did over was wrong or something, and spending 10 minutes talking about it. A lot of mumbling, dead silence, and emoting.

Stupid flashbacks about his dead wife,the same slow-mo, heavenly-lit scene where she asks him if he's sleeping in. Don't bother showing us their lives together, as in what he actually misses about her, no. We're too stupid for that. Just keep showing us her pretty face, and play the flashback repeatedly, with a few different words, and that will suffice to know that her death causes him to wreak revenge upon the world.

But I read that the COMIC was better, in that the Punisher really was a superhero--he had devilishly clever skills and power, and could defeat Daredevil and others. And he didn't kill for revenge; he killed because he hated bad guys--all bad guys. But this TV show portrays the Punisher as very human, beaten to a pulp, shot, and otherwise suffering the sort of "punishment" that would put ordinary men into a quick coma. So perhaps THAT is his superpower? The ability to be beaten in the face for an hour, but come out with a few bruises, and, a shower later, he just has a few nicks on his face and he's back to work? No hematoma, no closed eyes, no coma. And this Punisher kills because of revenge--revenge for his dead family, which he cannot stop thinking about. So he's just about killed everyone involved in getting his family killed (Mexican drug cartel? what?) and so now what? How's he going to continue? In the last episode of the first season, he only has one man to kill to complete his revenge...but he lets him go. Then he goes to GROUP therapy, and his last lines in the first season are, "I'm scared."

The entire Homeland Security vs CIA angle was also overused. Instead of being some badass who just wants to kill bad guys, Frank Castle (aka The Punisher) ends up in the middle of a pissing contest between the 2 agencies, and has to deal with them, instead of dealing with regular people. It would be interesting, for example, like in the Sopranos--to have some otherworldly (or underworld) character run into average people and deal with them in their unique, harsh ways. But no, Castle ONLY deals with govt agents, or super-bad guys who run guns or run mercenary op companies. Castle never buys groceries or takes public transportation, or deals with a bum. Boring. In the Sopranos, you got to see the mobsters run into avg schmucks who thought they were tough, only to be "dealt with". That added variety. Not this.

Finally, I kept thinking of Perry Mason. This was a show I gave up on because, frankly, it was hard to keep up with it--so much quick dialogue, facts being thrown at you, and fast pacing--you had to be ON to enjoy that show. But with THIS show, you can be lighting your 4th bong hit and still follow it. It makes me wonder if the people back then were just sharper than people today, because they could follow a show like Mason, which came out each week, and "get it", whereas this show doesn't require you to know or remember too much at all--just go with the emotional scenes and slow-mo flashbacks, and you'll be fine.

The Andy Griffith Show: Big Brother (1967) Season 7, Episode 28

Howard tries to be a Big Brother

[8/10 · 3 July 2020]

Andy convinces Howard Sprague to be a Big Brother to a troubled yet very bright teen boy. Howard jumps full into it, and gets the teen to agree to a plan of studying 3 nights a week together. But the kid's older sister is pretty and charming, flirting with Howard, and the teen encourages Howard to drive her to work (at a dance club) and back on the study nights, so the teen can goof off. Howard sees more and more of the sister, and starts to dress like a "hep cat" and dances with her about every night. But Andy finds out about the teen's poor marks from the principal, and confronts Howard, then the teen. Andy tells the boy that Howard has shirked his duties and his goals (of taking a civil service exam), and this deeply affects the teen, who sees if an upright man such as Howard can be so distracted from his goals and dreams, he doesn't want to end up like that, and therefore starts cracking the books and improving in school. After Howard is confronted by Andy, he is offended, but then Andy tells him that Howard's own example of shirking his own life goals scared the kid straight. In the last scene, Andy drops into the boy's house and sees him diligently studying, and the boy tells Andy that Howard is again out with his sister, but this time at the public library studying for his own civil service exam!

My only quibble with this episode is that when Howard excitedly tries to tell Andy about the kid he's mentoring, it is ANDY who continually interrupts him and peppers him about the kid's older sister, and has no interest whatsoever in Howard's Big Brother progress, despite Andy goading him into it. When Howard seems put off, Andy furrows his brow as if he's surprised. So that was quite inconsistent.

Outlaw King (2018)

Couldn't get into it

[2/10 · 29 June 2020]

I usually like medieval sagas. This film essentially starts off where Braveheart ended. But unlike that much superior film, this film lacks all spark and personality. It starts out in a very muddy field with tents, with the various princes and kings of Scotland and Wales bowing down to the English king (Edward I, apparently). However, Edward's son was, in reality, an effeminate homosexual, but here he's portrayed as a young bull. So that was a glaring error.

Secondly, much ado is made about the new wife for Robert the Bruce (Chris Pine). She's very pretty, but Bruce treats her very gently, as if she would be disgusted to be with him, and has to "endure" the wedding party. What? This is not realistic. Bruce (as played by Pine) is certainly handsome enough to have confidence with women, and if gifted such a bride, would act very confidently with her, and she in turn would probably be greatly relieved that he was young, handsome and treated her decently. Instead, he acts as if he's still courting her. Silly. Worse, when he has to make a decision to go to WAR, and asks her to leave the room, she acts indignant as if she has a right to know battle plans and stuff. She overhears anyway, and then confirms with him that she "chooses" Bruce, even though she came from Ireland. Well, that's nice. What sort of progressive claptrap is this?

Thirdly, there's a scene where Bruce goes to pay taxes, and at a border Scottish town, the Brits bring a dismembered part of Wallace's carcass and hangs it for display. The people go nuts, and who, again, looks scared and indecisive? Robert the Bruce. THIS is the guy who's going to lead Scotland against England? So he immediately goes back, and for this ONE incident alone, decides to break his sworn oath and wage war on England. What? Wallace was already in hiding or considered dead. The fact the English caught him and dismembered him as a warning might be depressing, but not a cause for war.

Fourthly, Bruce asks a powerful Scottish baron, John Comyn, to join his silly war. Even sillier, Comyn refuses, but THEN tells Bruce he will snitch on him, get him hanged, and Comyn will be crowned king. At this, Bruce (of course) stabs him. What's wrong with this is if Comyn was at such enmity with Bruce, why did he meet him alone, with no guards, and then reveal he will tell Edward of Bruce's treachery? Would he not know Bruce might kill him? Not very wise behavior. Comyn's face looked war-scarred, so would he be so incredibly stupid and leave his guard down like that, knowing Bruce had nothing to lose?

Fifthly, Bruce declares war on England and meets the king's rep, Aymer de Valence, who agrees to Bruce's foolish suggestion of settling the war with a swordmatch with Valence. Not only is this ignorant of England's apparent "dragon banner policy" (which Bruce should be familiar with) which allows Valence to arrange a sneak attack at night against Bruce while his camp is drunk and merry-making, but to imagine for one second that such a thing as "Scottish independence" will be decided, and agreed to by Longshanks, over a duel with one of his subordinates, is ludicrous. So Bruce's foolishness cost him many men that night.

Finally, I lost interest when Bruce's men, already decimated, were rowing boats in some lake and were attacked by some OTHER Scottish band. In the midst of them being slaughtered (again) I shut it off. I mean, film makers sometimes don't understand how to make a character believable as a leader. Chris Pine's expression the entire time is quiet, serious concern. That doesn't get people to follow you! Plus, before he could even kill any English, his entire army is practically wiped out. So how are they even going to put up a fight? And unlike Braveheart, which very clearly showed the despicable depredations of the English against the Scottish, this film starts out with a PEACE AGREEMENT between the Scottish and Irish nobles and Edward I, so we are not even given a real motive why the Scots want independence so badly, and why they would fight so dearly for it. We are shown a "Douglas" whose father's lands were stolen from him, and that's about it. But with Bruce, it seems the entire motive was to avenge Wallace or something. It's just not credible. I felt the movie was pretty boring, and it didn't invest itself with any real character or personality or motives--we are just supposed to go along for the ride because, well, Braveheart.

The Andy Griffith Show: A New Doctor in Town (1966) Season 7, Episode 15

Helen the crusader

[7/10 · 29 June 2020]

This one is about a new (very young) doctor (William Christopher, "Father Mulcahey" of M*A*S*H) comes to town to replace the outgoing doctor, who moved. At first, Andy and Helen try to reassure everyone (skeptical Clara and Floyd, esp.) that, despite being very green, he's qualified and that they should put their health in his hands. But when Opie's tonsils act up and the doctor says they have to come out, Andy has second thoughts of letting the new doctor do it, due to his lack of experience. A good episode, but I felt Helen's browbeating of Andy to put HIS OWN SON under some new doctor's care, just so she can feel good about supporting the new doctor, crossed a line. Andy should have straightened her out that, no matter what he said, it's his son, not hers, and an operation on your son is not the same thing as simply letting a new doctor do a checkup.

Deep Impact (1998)

Schmaltzy, manipulative, cringey

[2/10 · 6 April 2020]

First of all, it's fairly obvious from the casting that PC norms were followed. Make sure you have a woman, black man, and old guy on the space crew, a black man for president (with a team of black advisers) and a crew of female White House reporters. Oh, but for Mission Control, get that guy from That 70s Show--he looks like he could work there.

Usually, I have no problem with actors--they usually way outclass the writing. But Tea Leoni is AWFUL as a White House reporter--she speaks like a dumb blonde. She is not sharp and articulate, and her family backstory of her not forgiving her dad for leaving and marrying another woman--is not convincing.

The space crew OF COURSE has a couple mavericks aboard, who, even though they signed up to follow orders from Mission Control (which was largely absent in this movie, btw--unlike Apollo 13, when Mission Control was a real entity), choose to make their OWN selfish decisions, putting everybody at risk. So the one guy actually says, "I'm going in!" to dislodge a nuke-drillbit from being stuck (it didn't go deep enough). Of course, there's plenty of room for him to plunge into the depths, even though the nuke drillbit itself is narrower than his waist. And of course, he has almost ONE MINUTE to spare to get back to the surface, before the sun hits, and starts creating steam geysers all over the place. As for that, the crotchety old pilot (Duvall) decides to make his OWN decision too, and so much for discipline. Everyone just does what they want. And what about the stupidity of following a comet in its coma (tail), where all the rocks and debris can hit and vaporize the spacecraft? If they can go as fast as the comet, why not come from the outside? Stupid. Of course, the spaceship gets hit by boulders, and it's like a Star Trek episode for a few minutes, with smoke and electrical sparks flying, but they fix everything, so it's okay. Realistically, their mission fails, so later on they decide to ram their nuke-filled ship into the 2nd big comet chunk, and go out in a blaze of glory, while it disintegrates harmlessly before hitting Earth.

Another huge problem I had with the movie was the "lottery"--where 1 million people are chosen to live in a vast underground bunker in Missouri, but 200,000 engineers and scientists are already chosen. So of course, they pick Tea Leoni, because that's probable, right? And the entire family of the kid? I thought it was RANDOMLY selected by a computer? Such BS. If anything, it shows that you cannot trust the government to pick randomly--those in power just take care of their own. And if that Elijah Wood kid isn't enough, he decides to MARRY his girlfriend, so she can go as "his wife". But she doesn't WANT to go, and would rather hang back and DIE with her parents! Her parents don't force her to go, so she stays back. But Elijah, once he and his family travel from VA to MO and are ready to enter the bunkers, says, "I'm not going" and his parents sob, and say "good luck, son" and give him a watch to trade in barter. First of all, what parent would think a 15-year old kid's "love" is worth his life? Most parents would demand he stay, no matter what. Secondly, who's going to want that watch, in a world that will experience an extinction-level event?

So he travels with Mexican immigrants (what?) and goes back to the house of the girl, but she and her family have left. So he takes the motorcycle and heads to the highway and finds them, and THEN she wants to go with him?? Oh, and the first comet hits already, and the tidal wave it causes is traveling the SPEED OF SOUND, but Elijah takes the girl, and a baby (where did that come from?) and outruns the tidal wave with the motorcycle! Yay! He heads to higher ground, and all is well.

Oh, and while all this is going on, there's a lot of schmaltzy music cloyingly dripped over every single scene, and lots of people saying tearful goodbyes to each other.

And Tea Leoni also sacrifices her own free pass to give to a fellow reporter and her baby. How heroic! Come on. She chooses instead to die at the foot of a massive tidal wave on a childhood beach with her estranged father. Oooh.

The only reason I gave this 2 stars is because of the screen presence of Morgan Freeman, Robert Duvall and Maximilian Schell. The rest of the cast (even Vanessa Redgrave) was forgettable. Also, the tidal wave and destruction was pretty cool. Those who complain about special effects will ALWAYS complain, but I had no problem with the effects, but the schmaltz, the unrealistic maverick decisions of the space crew, the unrealistic heroism, the music, and the bad acting of Tea Leoni (a major character).

If you don't mind schmaltzy "blockbuster" family-type movies, then you might actually find this movie enjoyable.

Street Games (2009 Video)

Nothing to see here

[4/10 · 9 March 2020]

As a former rated club player at the SF Mechanics Institute, who would sometimes play the street hustlers on Powell, I was interested to see they made a film about these guys. I was hoping for something more about chess--like what it is about chess, vs other games (checkers, bridge, cards) that attracts these fanatics who hang out all day, even in poor weather.

Instead, the documentary simply showed that these guys are every bit the stereotypical homeless hit-the-skids types with delusions of grandeur combined with pettiness and probably a criminal background. It's superficial, because that is what we already see when we walk by the tables. Learning about "David's" getting shot in the face, and how he could have saved LA from burning, and that angels visit him (and sometimes get rough with him) is just a profile of insanity, not about chess hustlers.

And YES, they're chess HUSTLERS-let's be clear. At the beginning, one guy talks about "buying the business" from another guy (that is, the "business" of setting up tables and hustling tourists for dollars when the hustlers win a game). Here's how it works (because I've been on the receiving end: The hustler says it's $1 or $2 just to even PLAY him. If you win, you get $2 (you break even). If you lose, you lose $2. If the hustler loses, he won't want to play you again, because he'll lose money. And when they lose, they often do not even pay (I know, I've beaten them, and these cheapskates say "come to me tomorrow"--in fact, you can even hear one guy saying that to a sucker on the video). One time, I asked a hustler for a light from his BIC lighter, and he handed me his cigarette instead (to light with) and said, "Butane costs money". Combine this atmosphere with cacophonic street noises, and it is an unpleasant way to play chess. They've taken a noble game, and turned it into some street hustle. Nobody I see plays long, untimed games. They just want to hustle some tourist dollars.

Playing strength of these hustlers probably approaches the expert level (2000 UCSF) in some cases, but usually averaging around 1700, I'd say. I doubt they could beat masters or especially IMs or GMs. They don't play too badly, and don't just play for traps (from what I've seen).

Anyway, the documentary said nothing new you probably couldn't figure out by walking by the tables. One interesting fact was that the whole "thing" got started because a couple guys got into an argument at the Mechanics Institute, and were kicked out in the early 80s, and decided to just play outside Powell St. station. Chess back then was just guys playing for free. But these weirdos have turned it into an ugly hustle. When they don't pay when you win, it's theft. I find it supremely ironic that one can be pretty good at a game of logic and consequences, yet screw one's life up so badly as to live on the streets, yet still talk s***t when one is playing blitz chess on the street. Like who are they kidding?

Finally, as someone who has had to pay expensive license fees and street vendor taxes and fees to SF to set up my own kiosk (selling artwork), it is completely unfair that they let street musicians and chess hustlers to just set up for free. After all, they're pandering for money. SF is hypocritical about that.

The Andy Griffith Show: Goober's Replacement (1966) Season 6, Episode 28

The patriarchy established

[6/10 · 9 March 2020]

Goober's girlfriend Flora (way out of his league) decides to fill-in for Goober at the garage while he goes on a fishing trip. Business booms as the sexy, tightly-dressed Flora pumps gas, adds oil, and washes windshields. She even finds plans to expand the business. All this makes Goober feel absolutely useless when he returns from his fishing trip. But Andy uses reverse psychology again to get people to do what he wants, suggesting that she and Goober will end up as successful but lonely careerists. Flora, not wanting to lose Goober, decides to quit, and all is back to normal.

Of course, dissuading a sharp and energetic woman like Flora to go into business for herself so she can stay home and mind the house while Goober pumps gas at the garage is completely sexist. But we must remember this TV show was produced about 55 years ago; while recognizing it was wrong, it's also wrong to project a modern morality on past times, as if we would have done/said different if we lived back then. We wouldn't. It's good times have changed, and a girl such as Flora would probably thrive today and get lots of encouragement.

Then when Goober comes back, instead of just telling Flora the truth (often the truth is avoided as a way to create tension, misunderstandings and comedy, but it's a horrible value to teach--just lie about your feelings to your significant others!), he lies and says he's got "business meetings" and he'll probably get some job at a big garage in Raleigh. Of course he's too proud to admit that he feels useless since she can do his job (which she can't, unless she's a mechanic, too--a significant plot hole). I notice that the truth is often discarded on this show in favor of making people feel good about themselves. Andy hates to make people feel bad about themselves, so he'll avoid the truth and flatter them or tell stories. This is part of Andy's charm. But when you think about it, there's a whole lot of lying to friends and loved ones on this show, even though mostly it's to avoid hurting their feelings, or the feelings of someone they know.

Vikings: The Key (2020) Season 6, Episode 5

The writing is terrible!

[3/10 · 26 January 2020]

This show has stopped making sense. To wit:

1) Lagertha, shield-maiden to the core, suddenly comes down with pacifism-fever and decides to "retire to the country", instead of staying with her son in his first kingship, and helping steer her tribe. This is inconsistent with her character. What happened to her? The fact that her short-term squeeze Bishop Heahmund was killed in a battle? How long were they together? This makes no sense. She abandons her sons at a critical time, and worse--she retires "to the countryside", alone, with no one to protect her? A Viking queen left alone in the country? I doubt real Viking sons would even let her do that. And a "shield maiden" turning all pacifist and burying her sword? Nope.

2) Ivar and Oleg: why on Earth is Oleg so smitten by Ivar? Why is Ivar so good with kids all of a sudden? Why is the young princeling not traumatized to see his own father die in front of him, but is playing the lute and enjoying magic tricks that very afternoon? Why are the Kievan Rus Christian already, and wearing Mongol uniforms? How on EARTH could Oleg guess what his brother would ask, or that he would ask, to test Oleg's "seer" power? This whole storyline is so padded out. Basically Oleg is supposed to be a type of Viking (true enough), and so he wants to go back to Scandinavia and "reclaim" what he feels is his, with Ivar as his puppet. OK, INVADE already! No, they're padding it out for some big battle at the end, when Ivar will meet up with Hvitserk or something. Speaking of whom...

3) Why is Hvitserk so traumatized? I thought these were VIKINGS? He lost his woman and children to Ivar---so get angry. Instead he drinks, and even takes hallucinogens to...dream up horrific visions of Ivar...coming after him?? That makes no sense. If anything, IVAR should be having the nightmares, because those visions are ones of hate and revenge; Ivar is evil, but he doesn't have a vendetta against Hvitserk; just the opposite. Worse, they pad out Hvitserk's pathetic condition for many episodes. He finally hallucinates the "seer" who gives him an impossibly cryptic message that even a sober person can't figure out, much less a mush-head like Hvitserk. Thanks a lot!

4) Bjorn: why is he not getting council about what to do about saving Harald? Estrogen-poisoning? His brothers Hvitserk and Ubbe just shrug their shoulders, saying, essentially, "sucks to be king!" What? So instead, Bjorn gets terrible advice from Lagertha on how to deal with Ivar's former guard, and instead of killing them, brands them as exiles...FOUR of them. And of course these 4 "exiles", who will be "worse than dead", since nobody would want to deal with them...suddenly...

5) gather an ARMY to attack Lagertha in her country home. What? So branding these traitors is not enough to prevent them from gathering loyal soldiers to attack Lothbrok & co? Are you kidding me? This is not explained. We are not shown how the traitor leader bribed a bunch of thieves or anything. He just appears with enough soldiers to try and sack Lagertha's village (now conveniently filled with enough people --women, of course--to put up a fight and actually fight them off). So what happens after they are fought off. They come back for MORE! Wow, branding them in the face as "untouchables" really made no difference! They're like knights, able to recruit fresh soldiers! Well, at least this terrible decision to "let them go" falls back on Lagertha, and that little boy, who's either Bjorn's or Ubbe's, I can't tell which, because neither father seems to know or is mourning him.

6) So Bjorn does the "right" thing and goes to rescue Harald from Olaf. He tries to invade by sneaking in from the water, but lo and behold, Olaf employs "Greek Fire" (first used by Eastern Roman Empire) and wards them off. But then, Olaf gets a parley session with Olaf, and Olaf, who in previous episodes seemed paranoid and mercurial, ready to kill Harald at a moment's notice, for fear of threatening his claim on the throne, suddenly, and inexplicably, turns into some Periclean consul who decides to first, suggest Bjorn should become King of Norway (what's Olaf king of, anyway?), and then, agrees to an actual legitimate "election", which Harald Finehair eventually wins. OK, so Bjorn is...mad? They glare at each other, back and forth, dozens of times. And why would Olaf agree to crown Finehair king, knowing that his own head would be on the chopping block for imprisoning him? Why is Bjorn all sullen? He did not go there to be elected King of Norway; he went there to rescue a comrade who helped him out. The ridiculous back-and-forth cutting from the voting scene to Lagertha's country scene made no sense. Switching scenes like that only makes sense if the scenes are closely related, so that what is happening in real time in one place will affect what happens in another place, without that other place knowing what is going on. Terrible direction.

7) Lagertha's fight with the outcast, where he breaks her shield into a 1/4th its size, and disarms her is in SLOW MOTION. Lagertha receives a crushing blow to the back by the outcast's axe, but she keeps taunting and fighting the man, who finally comes down with the final kill stroke, and Lagertha dies. Oh wait, NOOO...can't have that. She musters her strength and uses the splinters of her wooden shield to stab him in the neck, while disarming him of his sword and slicing his throat. Give ...me...a...break. If she's such a badass shield maiden, then show WHY she is. Don't let her win a battle based on 11th hour luck! Show her training with a new technique, such as perhaps a metal wire, and then she climbs on his back and slices his neck with the metal wire--something original like that. No, she kills him with a broken shield, basically. God awful and totally unconvincing, and manipulative also--to put the entire scene in slow motion.

8) Ivar and the little Russian prince decide to "play a practical joke on Dir" (Oleg's chained up brother). Dir had previously promised Ivar riches if he freed him from the cage. So here's the plan: -get Dir's wife to agree to get naked, and walk into an armed garrison, and slowly walk around to distract the guards. They won't chase her and seize her; they will simply slowly follow her, mesmerized, while Ivar and the boy free Dir. Now here's the "magic": Dir's wife manages to escape the armed guards, exits the compound, where she is, fully-clothed, in the company of several armed knights, who then take Dir (from where??) onto the horse, and he escapes. So what is the "practical joke" on Dir? Why did Ivar really free him, risking his own life by the paranoid, gifted, and brutal Oleg? Perhaps Ivar doesn't want to be a puppet, okay. But what is terrible is: how does Dir's wife make it out of the compound, and how does Dir himself make it out to rendezvous with them? Makes no sense. The viewer is treated like a dummy.

9) What's with the subplot of Bjorn's maid? The first scene where Grunhilde spots her looking at her man, and she tells her that "I'm sorry you feel that way" , but then says, "go on".. Go on? Go on as in "go back to your duties", or "go on and keep courting my husband"? Because she does the latter, shamelessly, and Bjorn inexplicably lays with her, even though he and Grunhilde are not having problems. Stupid, worthless plot going nowhere.

We paid for the show, so we'll watch it. But I just wanted to give my 2 cents to say exactly why this show really sucks. I'm not even talking about the loss of charisma of main characters Ragnar, Rollo, or Ecbert. I'm talking about the show making absolutely no sense, padding out sterile stories that go nowhere and have zero development, and characters acting inconsistently. The dialog is lazy and uninteresting, the episodes lack all tension, and there are even cringey PC moments (showing Lagertha's all-female "army" working together and later, 2 female Vikings duking it out in a market). Bjorn is a big disappointment, because last season, he seemed, compared to Ubbe, Ivar and Hvitserk, like the only "real adult". But now he seems like a fool. Offa's motivation is completely unclear--giving up power for what? Letting his prisoner become king? And I'm just sick of Ivar--this guy just survives and yet does not have any real charm or wiles to offer Oleg. There are many, many illogical moments with this show (for example, when an "election" is broached to Olaf, and he agrees, the next scene shows dozens of jarls and earls and kings coming to his shores--this would take weeks, but we are not show any passage of time whatsoever). Oh, and Floki--they left him buried in some cave deadfall, but we don't know if he's dead. His entire arc as some disappointed prophet, eventually allowing total carnage on his island (even though he's a badass who could have organized a good defense, and put Flatnose in his place), was disappointing to say the least. The best scene of Floki was when he was glad that Ragnar said he loved him. That's it. I don't even care if Floki appears again. Why?

This show is so done. I'm enjoying "The Last Kingdom", which is much more tightly written, has much better tension, action, humor in every show. Vikings has suffered the fate of many good shows--the writers are afraid to show how its great characters are human (and interesting), so instead they start to show them as semi-deified, enlightened beings. Thus Lagertha talks like she's Queen Elizabeth I, instead of a grizzled Viking mom. Bjorn talks like an indecisive pacifist farmer, instead of a hard-bitten warrior who kills his enemies. This show is just stupid and pathetic.

Alone in Berlin (2016)

Almost perfect, but one big flaw

[8/10 · 6 January 2020]

This movie is about a German couple who lost their son in WW2, and due to their grief, start writing subversive anti-government messages on cards, and dropping them off at random locations. It is based on a true story, adapted into a novel by Hans Fallada, a survivor (and collaborator) of the Nazi regime.

Gleeson and Thompson are perfect, as is Bruhl. The scenery, cinematography, dialog, tension, are all quite good.

There is a very big flaw, however, nobody seems to be mentioning: We are supposed to feel for this couple because they lost their son, and that much is understandable. But just because they lost their son, does it give them the right to call the regime "liars" and to suddenly turn on their government? It's not logical. After all, both parents were pro-Nazi when their son joined up (early on, the wife talks about the husband's "fuhrer", and she is part of the Nazi wives club). But just because we are talking about NAZIs, and we now know what an evil regime it was, we are to suddenly view them as a "brave couple" to act as subversives, even before they had any information at all that their government lied to them (about what, exactly?), or that the aims of their government were impure or based on lies? Makes no sense. Hindsight is 20-20, but that does not mean the actions of this couple are "heroic", anymore than if an American couple, who lost their son in WW2, started dropping off subversive pamphlets against Eisenhower or that the government's "war machine" will take your babies. In the latter case, we would understand their grief, but we would not call them "brave" to betray their own country. Yet, because it's the Nazis here, we are all to cheer the "bravery" and "sacrifice" of this couple. I don't get it. Even when the wife opens the death letter, she screams "Liars!" but we are never told exactly WHAT this "lie" is.

This basic logical point, smoothed over by current-bias (i.e. we now know how bad the Nazis were, of course, so we don't need to explain any contemporaneous subversion taken against them) is never explained in the entire movie, and seems quite sloppy, which makes me deduct 2 points from an otherwise flawless execution. I'm not sure if Fallada's book would do the same, but in this movie, we are certainly expected to view the couple as "heroes" of a sort, esp. with the concrete dedication at the end, so I just had to write this review and mention this, since it appears no one else has.

Patterns (1956)

Doesn't wear well today

[3/10 · 2 January 2020]

Well-acted by totally unrealistic film (by today's standards) of corporate hiring and firing practices. While it is true that corporations, even today, when they want to get rid of someone, often relegate them to a series of humiliations, hoping they'll resign, it is NOT realistic today for a brand-new exec to care that much about who he's replacing, and certainly not about upsetting his secretary's feelings! If anything, this film shows how much colder and crueler things are today than in the 50s, since the corporate climate today would not even countenance all the bleeding-heart pap that this movie feeds us. And at the very end, the new exec exposes how much he hates the boss's guts and is ready to just quit? Makes good melodrama, but it had me rolling my eyes. And I don't think the boss was even that wrong to say "a business should not have a cathedral atmosphere all the time". Apparently back then, workers expected it should have. Must have been great times. Ham-fisted black-and-white characters: boss= greedy and bad; new guy = wonderful and self-sacrificial and good. Typical for Serling--snappy dialog, but out-of-date social mores.

If you want a much more relevant and realistic film about how corporations deal with hiring and firing today, watch The Company Men.

Law & Order: Special Victims Unit: We Dream of Machine Elves (2019) Season 21, Episode 8

Good premise, terrible execution

[1/10 · 26 November 2019]

I thought this started out interestingly enough, because I wondered how are they going to catch these cultish kidnappers They essentially kidnapped the victim on the street at night, and there's no physical evidence, and the victim (s) is not remembering things clearly at all.

Well, they quickly figured out who they were by a miraculous driving scene where a vic remembers everything, and some footage of a "horseless chariot". But instead of nailing these perps to the wall...

The rest of the movie seemed more about Amanda's getting in touch with her college coed days as a psych student and her worship of this sociopathic cult leader professor (and come on--she really DID inhale--how stupid can that be??), having one of the perps meet her own mother (who cares? she is a KIDNAPPER!) , and is it really credible that a man who held a psychiatric practice for decades and who is a highly-functioning adult, suddenly plays the crazy card during police questioning and gets away with it? I don't think so! These are all side stories that actually sucked up the main plot and conclusion.I didn't get to see any real justice for these poor women...at all! The episode was too much about feeling for the perps! Unbelievable!

Terrible writing and terrible episode.

Mississippi Grind (2015)

Buffalo chips, mostly

[6/10 · 15 November 2019]

This movie about gamblers is a character piece, but it doesn't make a lot of sense. The Ryan Reynolds character at first seems alien, too good to be true--fronting money and hanging out with a real degenerate gambler. His motivation is to "do it for fun"...OK, so he's not an alien or supernatural being, but a weird guy who just wants some adventure. But his mercurial habit of going "Machu Pichu" (skedadlling) when the other guy is down on his luck, doesn't make quite much sense...IF he's in it for fun. And later in the movie he even lets the loser bet on a losing horse, while he bets on a winning one..why? This is never explained. The entire movie without Ryan Reynolds is a sad, pathetic portrayal of gambling addiction, and it's quite pedestrian. Ben Mendelsohn does a great job, but it's nothing we haven't seen before. The Ryan Reynolds' character IS something we haven't seen before...but he disappoints, over and over. Half the time he just sits out of the games, and lets his loser friend tell him how he did afterwards...why?

Ryan's character also seems to hook up with these women (how does he know them? Are they paid hookers? How does he get the money to pay for them?) It doesn't really make sense...THEN he lets his partner get beaten up in a restroom, even though he caused the fight. What?? Makes absolutely NO sense.

And the whole subplot of the loser gambler trying to make it big so he can "win" his wife back, only for him to visit her and try and steal from her---is not new, either.

I was very disappointed with the actual gambling scenes. Why do they always show the FACES of the gamblers, and not the actual game, the cards, the thrill? Even in the horse race, we (again) see the cliched gamblers getting all excited--we see horses, but we can't tell which one is theirs, or how close it is. I find it odd that in many movies, things are dumbed down so the viewer can access it, but with poker, we're all supposed to know that the Q river card means our main character is busted. We can't root or sweat with them, because the director chooses to focus on their faces. As a result, we can't empathize too much with their wins or losses.

In the end, the Ryan Reynolds character flits back into the gambler's life, and they go on a spree for a 3rd time. Reynolds himself seems to be trying to get back to some woman, but we never see her. It's a dissatisfying, odd movie that never quite explains its own symbolism or anything. Rather episodic, cliche in many spots, and frustrating.

The Hunter's Prayer (2017)

Cliched garbage

[3/10 · 27 October 2019]

Don't trust the good reviews here. Despite a decent director, the writing and plot is terrible. The villain is cartoonish. The girl keeps doing stupid things nobody intelligent would do. There's a lot of mumbling and quiet, "meaningful" scenes that are meaningless. Sam Worthington does a fine job with what he has. Dialog is almost cringe-level cliche.

It did move apace, however (in general), and so it wasn't like some college arthouse piece. But it was still garbage. After all these years making movies about strong men rescuing little girls, you'd think they'd come up with something new or edgy or at least intelligent, like they actually KNEW the film The Professional was made once. But no, the film is a predictable and polished turd wrapped up in a sentimental bow at the end. Skip it.

Fractured (I) (2019)

Pitch-perfect psychological thriller

[9/10 · 14 October 2019]

Like many movies, the story can go only one of 2 ways. It is 2019, and audiences used to predicting outcomes have still rated this movie in the high 6s. That should tell you that it is probably mysterious enough to jolt the "I can see it coming" crowd. But the point is not so much the twists and turns, but getting inside the character's mind and empathizing with him.

I haven't seen Sam Worthington in impressive roles, but this was excellent.

Highly entertaining and edgy thriller, with great direction, sound effects, and music. Highly recommended!