Reviews

It should be obvious to any thinking person that once one enters into the shady business of mercenary killing, no holds will be barred in dealing with you, personally, should anything go awry, and even if it is not your fault. Because, you see, you have agreed to be a tool, a machine, an implement of homicide, and implements of homicide have no rights to life

What I like about 24 Hours to Live is that it hammers this basic truism into the viewer's head to the point that it will hopefully never be forgotten. I knew that there would be some sort of interesting moral dilemma or point here, because Ethan Hawke, as far as I have seen, always selects scripts with a focus on morality. Action aficionados may find all of this philosophizing a distraction from what they really wanted to see: an action flick, but never fear: there is plenty of blood and gore to satisfy even the most sanguinary moviegoer.

Implausibilities abound, but the film succeeds on its own terms.

Catch .44 is one of these new films in the "ultra-scumbag-violence genre," of which Quentin Tarantino is the godfather. Since Tarantino himself openly claims to pilfer material from the entire history of cinema, he probably won't mind at all that the low-life cafe scene modeled directly on the famous Pulp Fiction scene is obviously stolen from him.

The problem with this film, however, is that it does not build on its mentor's work in anyway. There is some good acting, but in the end the brilliant connections and novelty of Pulp Fiction lie well above the paygrade of whoever did not mastermind Catch .44.

I'm not going to say that it was awful, but to be honest, its redeeming qualities were few and far between. I reserve the rating of 5 for movies which I intend never to watch again. I leave a rating here so that I can remember not to watch them again after I have forgotten all about them, because my mind has repressed them completely, having more worthwhile info to retain.

Knowing that the director of Anna was Luc Besson, I decided to watch the film despite my wariness of the action genre, which in recent years has dramatically increased the volume of bloodshed in direct proportion to a diminution of ideas. The film is obviously a riff on NIKITA, so lots of suspense and thrilling and chilling action scenes.

Anna is new in that it offers a feel-good CIA/KGB slant and a big shout out for girl power. So if you have a hankering for a feel-good CIA/KGB Girl Power Action flick bursting with homicides, Anna will fill the bill!

Helen Mirren was excellent, as always, and despite the various implausibilities throughout, the film came through with a surprise ending, which I'll not spoil here!

I am not sure why I am surprised at the high quality of this film, which is essentially a grim portrayal of life in post-war Cambodia, with all of the corruption and poverty and dirt that it entails. The story revolves around a group of expats who appear to be a bunch of losers who have set down stakes in Southeast Asia after having burned all bridges in their homelands.

"Atmospheric" is the word I would use to describe this very well-made film. My only complaint is that the ending was unrealistically upbeat. It simply did not fit with the rest of the piece and appeared to be one of the classic efforts to craft a Hollywood ending so as not to disappoint the audience. Without the final five minutes, I would probably have given this film an 8.

A Murder of Crows had a lot going for it, but it suffered from the addition of extra connections intended to make it more interesting but which severely diminished the overall plausibility of the story. Sure, it was impossible to guess the outcome at the outset, but that is only because it was so utterly contrived! The best creators of thrillers know that surprise endings have to be prepared early and often throughout the rest of the work, laid into the framework. Instead, the approach here seemed to be to plot out the whole movie and then just make up the most impossible to guess ending possible. Not a satisfying thriller, as a result. No one could guess how this would turn out because it would and could never, ever happen like this in reality. But I won't offer any spoilers, just watch the film and see for yourself how NOT to build a thriller.

I have to give Director Truffaut the benefit of the doubt here because he's obviously not stupid. So my best guess is that this strange creation is a sort of tone poem to the power of the femme fatale. That is what Catherine Deneuve plays, and despite being swindled nearly to penury by her, the Jean-Paul Belmondo character keeps coming back for more.

There are a few clichés which come to mind, but "Love is Blind" is ironically the most apt, for it is the irresistible beauty of Deneuve that prevents her mail-order husband from accepting the truth. She lied before, so why not again, and again, and again? Clearly the relationship is doomed, but the illusion continues on for now, strengthened by the sacrifice already made on her behalf...

Winner Take All features some fine acting and a fairly believable portrayal of gambling addiction and the desperation to which it leads. I watched this movie on Prime recently--fifty years after its release!--and was trying to place the actress. At first, I was thinking Florence Henderson from The Brady Bunch, but then from somewhere in the deep recesses of my brain erupted the answer lodged decades ago: Shirley Jackson from the Partridge Family!

Ordinarily, a made-for-tv movie is not worth even writing about, but the performances were so strong and the story convincing enough that I decided to add to the single-digit number of reviews here at imdb.

Some credit for the theatrical quality should go to the director, Paul Bogart. The cinematography, however, is pretty mediocre, as one would expect of a movie made so long ago. I watched this because I have a fascination with other people's gambling behavior, not being a gambler myself.

No one who has seen either Plein Soleil (Purple Noon) or The Talented Mr. Ripley (or read the book on which they are based) can possibly watch Saltburn without concluding during the final act that the big zinger was lifted directly from Patricia Highsmith's oeuvre. In fact, she may well have a short story along these lines. I would be surprised if she did not.

The cinematography is excellent. I do not regret having watched this film, but it is quite far from being great. It's a bit of a bait-and-switch in the sense that two-thirds of the film pretends to be a critique of class inequities. Then along comes the ending, when we come to learn the truth. Nothing was as it seemed. It's not about inequity but iniquity!

I was surprised to learn that book editors are apparently a bunch of sex maniacs. Or so it would seem from the depiction of them in Sliver. Setting that bit of absurdity to one side, I have to admit that this film was truly suspenseful up until the very end. Granted, the surprise ending is not entirely logical, but still it made for an edge-of-your seat thriller.

I don't find this film very erotic, and maybe it is more raunchy than racy, but it certainly captured my attention! It also raises a lot of interesting questions about human nature, voyeurism, etc. (Did YOU watch it all? Then you would seem to fall into the class of voyeurs, albeit unwittingly...) Sharon Stone is of course gorgeous and achieves a near soft-porn performance, so I am sure that any red-blooded male would love this unexpected "mainstream" feature film.

Denzel Washington delivers a powerhouse performance in a film which is much more than it may appear on its surface. In fact, Training Day offers an incisive analysis and anatomy of corruption, not just among police officers, but more generally. While watching this for the first time (twenty-three years late!), I was saying to myself that if Denzel did not win an Oscar, then he was robbed. Fortunately, in a rare show of excellent judgment, the Academy actually gave this amazing feat of acting the award it deserved.

This creation is so well produced and so thoughtful that I would recommend it to people who usually steer clear of action flicks. Training Day is far more complex and intelligent than what we see in most of the more recent examples of the genre (Bourne films are another rare exception from the typical mediocrity...).

Bravo Denzel! Ethan Hawke, who plays the new inductee into the Corruption Club, also did a great job, and wow what a devastating ending!

As a big fan of A Bout de Souffle, aka Breathless, I have to agree with those who find Kristen Stewart too hard-edged and almost clumsy in the lead role. The dark eyebrows certainly didn't help, but mostly she just carries her body like a burden. Seberg had an almost a hummingbird like presence. Her light, playful sense of humor and whimsy are also missing from Stewart's character.

I enjoyed this film nonetheless for what it taught me about yet another case of persecution by the FBI of a U. S. citizen. I knew that Seberg had died under "mysterious circumstances" at the age of forty. It is truly ghastly how much moral horror lies embedded in the Bureau, which should have been abolished long ago.

One interesting aspect (and I would say virtue) of this particular production is that it depicts Jean Seberg as a flawed character with limitations and an almost childish desire to make herself somehow more important than she was as a mere movie star. Nonetheless, viewers can affirm on the basis of this film that, despite her flaws, Seberg was horribly wronged by government agents whose salary was ironically paid by her through federal taxation. If only this were an isolated incident...

Directors always set themselves up for failure when in a brazen show of bravado they undertake to remake a masterpiece. Anyone who has seen the 1940 film will be disappointed with this one for the primary reason that it is simply too sunny and chipper. The emotional depth of the original is complete lost here, some of which was in fact created through the use of black and white. Something about technicolor does not lend itself well to film noir... Yes, the scenes are well composed and photographed, but the characters all seem sort of emotionally flat. Maybe they're all on Prozac? Rather than seeming (and seething) evil, Mrs. Danvers just seems like your run-of-the-mill bitter spinster.

I should say that if I had not seen the masterpiece from 1940, I might have given this a slighter higher rating. But I did, so I won't.

Netflix has decided that they can do some sort of social activism in every single one of their productions, so maybe I should not have been surprised by the not-so-subtle dig at white people in Leave the World Behind, which tries to be slick and modern by leaving viewers hanging on the edge of a cliff at the end. (Sorry: you don't get credit for being a genius when in fact you were simply too lazy to finish the film.) In some ways, this looks like the first episode of what was meant to be a series but then lost its funding.

One issue worth noting is that every white person in the film is portrayed as kind of horrible (even the daughter, who is obviously half-white--and so correspondingly half-horrible). The only unequivocally good person is played by Mahershala Ali, a totally black dude. Nearly everything in the film is racialized, and gratuitously so. It's almost as though the people who created this film cannot stand the thought of the United States finally leaving racism behind, for example, by electing to the highest political office of the land... a black man. And to do it twice!

Guess what? This light as a sledgehammer production was brought to you by... the Obamas!

The Killer offers a glimpse into the life of a "successful" (as he tells us dozens of times...) contract killer (hitman). The script is purposely hypnotic, with repetition after repetition after repetition, and there is no character development or plot beyond the main protagonist's quest to quash the evil forces arrayed against him for botching an equally evil mission.

The cinematography is very good, but I feel that there was not really enough here to count as a film. I understand that the structure is intended to reflect the nihilism and meaningless of the life of this professional killer, but I am not convinced that such persons are necessarily so dreary and emotionally flat. I imagine that many of them simply compartmentalize, lead double lives, like the hitmen who work for directly for the mafia, rather than for isolated one-shot clients. They have actual families and friends and seem to derive the usual meaning from those associations, which they wish to maintain. In contrast, it is unclear what is driving this particular person to continue to ply his trade long after the initial quest for money has been more than amply achieved.

I watched all of the lengthy film Tar in one sitting, but that was only possible because I have a strong background in classical music (piano). At some points, I felt as though I was watching excerpts from Robert Greenberg's educational videos on the history of music (The Great Courses). In fact, some of the anecdotes relayed in this film were familiar to me only because of my prior exposure to the erudite Mr. Greenberg's massive oeuvre.

Lots of reviewers are comparing this creation to Whiplash, and there is something to that comparison, but mainly the story revolves around a person who seems more concerned with her own status than anything else. Others see reflections of Black Swan. I agree that there are overlaps, but this is not a copycat film.

The film is beautifully shot and contentful enough not to be boring--but only if you are a part of the world of art music. Otherwise, I imagine that it would be very tedious to get through. I rather liked the ambiguous ending, which seems to be a trend, judging by the other new movies I have watched of late.

Blade Runner 2049 offers an aesthetically beautiful but morally grim depiction of post-apocalyptic life set thirty years after its eponymous predecessor, well into our future.

The story is extremely slow paced, especially relative to the original movie, which moves frenetically fast. I was perhaps more aware of the contrast because I watched the two films back to back, on successive nights. I realized in doing so that a big part of the appeal of Blade Runner was its newness, its brash originality and its boldness. There is nothing like that in Blade Runner 2049 at all. Instead, I got the feeling that the whole world was on quaaludes, a sense perhaps enhanced by the droning, desperate-sounding, yawning musical score.

Is the story coherent or plausible? Maybe not, but it is logically possible. My reasonably high score is due only to the exceptional cinematography: Gorgeously composed shots. Great use of shadow and muted color. Dark and dreary but also beautiful.

Doomsday is so bad that it's almost good. It's a ridiculous riff on Mad Max and Blade Runner and every other dystopic and apocalyptic movie in recent history. If it were in fact intended to be a self-parody, then it might be a work of genius. Among other things, the unintended metaphors to what would transpire during the Coronapocalypse, when people literally behaved as savages, and leaders prohibited the Untermensch (unvaxxed) from accessing stores and restaurants and social venues turned out to be somehow poetic. Human nature at its finest.

My best guess, however, is that the makers of this production indulged in a not-insignificant amount of psychedelic "aids" to creativity, which convinced them that this steaming pile of chemical ephemera can somehow be conceptualized as art. Even the music score was beyond ludicrous, with lyrics probably believed to convey profundities--provided that one is in the appropriate exogenously induced mental state. The injections of nostalgia and romanticism and a lot of cheesy dialogue just made the whole mess rather nauseating.

There is not a single character in Avec amour et acharnement to sustain a full viewing--I only made it to the end by telling myself it was a good way to practice my French. I really disliked all of the protagonists and found the lead, the Juliette Binoche character, especially pathetic: whiny, needy, and clingy. Her problems of self-esteem explain how she ends up with serial losers, but don't make it any easier to endure the completely overwrought dialogue of the script.

The good news is that the ending nearly redeems the rest of the film. So if you can hang on for two hours, at least you'll find something worthy of reflection after all has been said and done.

I am always interested in filmic depictions of hitmen, so when Quarry popped up on Foxtel (I am currently in Australia), I decided to give it a go. I have never subscribed to Cinemax and have rarely had access to it, but this was apparently licensed from them.

Anyway, this Vietnam-era series is remarkably well acted, filmed and paced, and captures the spirit of the era. I was not sure that the wife (Joni) would so easily go along with her newfound knowledge about her husband, but I suppose that there are married hitmen, so I suppose that there must be wives to do agree to look the other way...

The story is complex and nuanced, with insights into not only the plight of PTSD-plagued veterans, but also how the act of being forced to kill turns these young men, often with no prior inclination toward homicide, into killers.

The evil genius character, The Broker, appears to have been plucked from the annals of the CIA in a fairly accurate way. But you'll have to watch the series because I'm not going to spoil it for you!

Other reviewers are complaining that this was show was cancelled, but there is a good wrap up at the end of season 1, and sometimes it is better to leave well enough alone rather than mar what is already quite good. Views well as an extended miniseries.

Having watched Around the World with 30 Kilograms, a documentary covering the same story which is fictionalized in Sugar, I decided to watch this film despite the low ratings. The story is quite entertaining, but I think that the documentary version might be closer to the truth, although even that was something of an apologia for one of the two women (the French Canadian). Both depictions make the two women out to be more innocent than they probably were. The judge must have agreed since they both served several years (6 or 7?) in an Australian prison. But at least they enjoyed their cruise before their captivity! I would be interested to know whether there was a police informant in the real life story, as there was in this fictional version. Probably not, I suppose, although it is hard to believe that so little effort was made to insulate the scent of cocaine from what would in all likelihood be drug-sniffing canines at the border. Would professionals be so stupid? I don't think so.

I found much in No Escape to be well done: acting, cinematography, etc. The story was fast-paced and obviously compelling enough to motivate me to watch the entire series. It was also nice to travel around on a yacht and see gorgeous scenery. The last film I recall with such breathtaking yacht views was Plein Soleil/Purple Noon (starring Alain Delon), which is set in and around the Mediterranean sea. The setting of No Escape is mostly on the seas around the Philippines, Bali, and Australia. There were a few implausibilities, but my only major complaint is that the final episode jams a bunch of gratuitous nonsense in at the very end (the curve ball about the rivalry between the brothers, etc.). All of that was totally unnecessary and in fact diminished the overall value of the work. Sometimes less is more!

Having watched the coronation of King Charles III not long ago, which frankly was shocking in its kitschy religiousness and repeated suggestions that Charles is not only divinely ordained but also bears any resemblance whatsoever to Jesus Christ, I decided to watch The Crown. The coronation ceremony itself seemed incredibly strange and cultlike to me, and now that I have watched the first five seasons of The Crown, I am prepared unequivocally to assert that in fact British monarchy is a cult. The Royals serve absolutely no function and are akin to furniture which no one is allowed to sit in. Or, as Charles the character (played by Dominic West) laments, "an ornament gathering dust".

What becomes undeniable throughout the course of this lengthy depiction of the British monarchy in the twentieth century is the degree to which all parties involved spend nearly all of their time and energy and talents on preserving the monarchy for the sole purpose of protecting their positions. They care about public opinion only insofar as it might threaten the monarchy itself.

In this way, the British monarchy is very similar to the CIA (caustic incompetence agency) in the United States, which spends obscene amounts of resources on justifying its existence and persuading politicians that it should continue to be funded despite having accomplished nothing worthwhile and having directly caused crisis after crisis throughout the second half of the twentieth century.

Both institutions, the British monarchy and the CIA, should be abolished.

Remember when Guy Ritchie made a film with Madonna in it, Swept Away, which was a poor remake of a masterpiece by Lina Wertmuller? Guess not. Certainly the reviewers of Triangle of Sadness do not. I am amazed that in the first several pages of reviews here at IMDB, not a single person seems to remember that the very same structure of rich people on a boat and class struggle between the patrons and the peons who work slavishly for them has already been done, and much better than it is here.

I agree with the complaints that it's all too obvious (on the nose) here, but I am also surprised that people who regard themselves as film aficionados have no memory of Travolti da un insolito destino nell'azzurro mare d'agosto (1974). Watch it and laugh that Triangle of Sadness was actually awarded the Cannes Palme d'Or in 2022. How? Why?

We are witnessing the fall of Western civilization in real time.

I find The Killing of a Chinese Bookie to be somehow transcendent. The fate of man is laid before us in all of its sadness and nobility. He's a flawed person, as everyone is, and he makes the same mistake twice (becoming indebted to the Mob) before taking a drastic turn for the worse by agreeing to their much more severe demands. After that, his fall from moral grace is mirrored by what will be his ultimate ruin.

The lead actor is quite convincing, as are all of the low-class gals who work in his seedy nightclub. Very thought-provoking, and although we may regard ourselves as occupying a higher echelon from all of these characters, in fact, everyone makes the sorts of mistakes and compromises illustrated by Cosmo's sad plight (albeit usually not as extreme...). In choosing to do this rather than that, we are transformed irrevocably, for better or for worse.

If you have already seen Las Hurdes, this is worth watching. If not, it will be largely incomprehensible (in addition to annoyingly animated). I always feel that I have been fooled into watching a cartoon when I press start for a feature-length film only to discover that there is no actual acting whatsoever and some graphic artist in fact created all of the visuals. But because I had seen Las Hurdes, it was interesting to watch, especially the critiques made by the director here of Bunuel's killing of the goats, and also his "theory" of what looks to have been Bunuel's autism.

I had heard about the goat killing before, and I know that directors do these things (apparently Almodovar tortured and killed six or so bulls in making of his film Talk to her). Of course, all meat eaters are perhaps hypocrites for criticizing these patent use of animals for purely artistic (not necessary) reasons, given that we could all just eat bugs, as some "people in high places" are now encouraging us to do.

Anyway, the use of a pistol to kill the animals involved a similar sort of hypocrisy, given that Las Hurdes was billed as a documentary...