Change Your Image
dan-800
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Andor (2022)
Humorless. Pointless. Soulless.
Another leaden, dreary, dull-as-nails entry in the "Star Wars universe". I use quotes there because aside from the sets, costumes, and props, this feels like a completely removed galaxy, indeed far far away from the one Mr. Lucas started creating all the way back in '75. His own problems as a storyteller fully acknowledged, I can't imagine he's loving where all this has gone. For selling out to the Big D, I guess he only has himself to blame.
I challenge anyone to explain to me why a show this turgid, this generic, had to take 12 glacially long hours to say... What, exactly? Seriously. Besides the fact I could barely follow the importance of each whisper-mumbled plot-point, I have no clue what the show is really all about, and why it demands to exist - other than to appease certain corporate bean counters. Do you know? Does anyone?
If passable entertainment was the goal, where were the Yuks? Where was the Fun? I get that *WAR!* is a big bad backdrop and isn't supposed to be a great experience. But I bet soldiers in WWI fox holes got more chuckles from each other than this wooden claptrap. Even "Rogue One", for its structural flaws, managed to be a good time - and still didn't sacrifice the "real world" darkness.
Why this show? Why now? And above all else - Why Andor, specifically? For what reason are we following him? How is he different or special? What does he even want?
In a series populated by characters from fairly fascinating to utterly useless, Andor himself still somehow manages to be the least interesting of the entire lot. And he's the lead because...?
This is all Storytelling 101. And sadly, over-produced / over-expensive / IP-fellating crap like this keeps people from watching real Movies, real Cinema, and real Series that are made with real Heart, real Passion, and real Vision. To each their own, you could reply. But to each their own what? If you don't know what you're missing, this will perpetually feel like one of those few things worth consuming, because hey, that's a universe I should care about, right?
That's even more depressing than the tone of whatever the hell this was. Not just sad. Tragic.
Scream (2022)
Utterly Pathetic
I rarely write reviews for what pass as movies these days - but I just couldn't let this one pass. And not even because I care that much about this particular franchise (I'll admit I actually had the most fun with the third movie.) But *this* tripe... Not one genuine emotion. Not fear. Not humor. Not anticipation. Not surprise. Not even sadness when long-lived regulars finally bit it. Although perhaps I did feel hope that the series itself might fall victim to a serial killer - other than, ironically, the studios that bore them. (Speaking of bore... I *did* yawn more than several times. So I suppose maybe I felt something after all?)
A Quiet Place Part II (2020)
Once again blown away...
By the utterly blind reviewers, both professional and consumer. This flick is very objectively a poorly made retread, not only of bad ideas in the original, but of genre cliches already rampant. The acting is fine enough, but the direction is largely uninspired, and the story - such as there is one - is sheer nonsense. A complete waste of talent and time.
Upgrade (2018)
An Upgrade that hoses your OS
I try not to write negative reviews as much these days, because I've gotten fatigued with hating on movies - both from others and myself. But in this case, a friend and I specifically chose to go to Upgrade because virtually every review of this derivative, predictable, poorly-acted claptrap was extremely positive. Well, if I have to hate, then I'll hate ill-deserved praise, especially when it's over-heaped on poor-to-middling pictures.
Look, a small budget does not mean a movie needs to have a crappy storyline. I'm not expecting Sorkin-esque dialogue or award-worthy acting. John Wick had neither of those, and yet was still brainless fun. This was just brainless, not to mention pointless.
Besides the main sci-fi concept of a electronically assisted quadriplegic whose control is compromised (an idea my same friend and I had years ago, but lazily never wrote) there was otherwise not one original idea, not a single fresh take, and no twist that you couldn't see coming a mile down the road. But in all honesty, there was something that surprised me (even though it probably shouldn't have): I was bored to tears. Bad acting and tediously banal dialogue tends to do that. In my friend's case, he fell asleep several times - and I consider him lucky.
This is one upgrade no one should have to pay for.
Coraline (2009)
A huge bummer!
I can't get over how bummed I was with this movie. The visuals - as most people suggest - are tremendous (and don't believe anyone who says that this was "CGI", or that it was bad. This is NOT a CGI movie! It's stop-motion animation, and it looks incredible.)
But that said, the story is incredibly flat, lifeless, and boring. I was shocked that this was based on something Neil Gaiman wrote (though I've yet to read it, and have read reviews that suggest the original text was terrific by comparison). Even more of a disappointment from the (usually) great Henry Sellick.
I also have no idea what anyone who compares this movie to WALL-E was talking about, unless they were tying to compare it equally. WALL-E was quite possibly Pixar's worst movie, starring a rip-off of Johnny 5 with preachy nonsense about Americans becoming fat. At least Coraline had interesting elements, even if they didn't go anywhere interesting.
Cloud Atlas (2012)
Inspired and Inspiring
I honestly don't know if "Cloud Atlas" is one of the greatest movies ever made, but it's easily one of the greatest movies I've ever seen.
There's not much more for me to write here, because it either speaks to you or it doesn't. Most critics and several viewers have lambasted it (Ebert excluded - it was one of the last movies he gave 4 stars before his passing, and his review is spot on, IMHO). It tanked at the box office, it was nominated for no Oscars (not even Visual Effects or Music!) and it generally made barely a blip on the cinema landscape. It is a challenging movie - intellectually, structurally, and emotionally. You might be up to the challenge, and you might not. Maybe a dull action machine like one of the "Man" movies is more up your alley. Or a turgid melodrama period piece, or a cheesy Rom-Com that holds your hand and tells you what to feel. Maybe a film that almost demands repeat viewings to fully appreciate doesn't appeal to you. And that's fine, I suppose.
But if you like to think, and to feel, and are generally capable of appreciating a work of art, watch "Cloud Atlas". You might not love it, but if you're capable of even moderately complex inquiry, I guarantee you will always be engaged. And maybe, like me, you'll find yourself enthralled.
Isn't that why we watch anything?
George Washington (2000)
Why do people like this?
I have hated almost every film David Gordon Green has made after "George Washington" - but even this movie begs the question, "why?"
The acting is supposedly honest, but actually felt hackneyed and unrealistic by both the kids and the "real" actors alike. The storyline is virtually nonexistent, but what *is* there says so little that it barely exists. All that's left is the okay photography, and the sleepy directing. This is "Sundance" stuff akin to "Beasts of the Southern Wild" - boring, pointless, and so utterly, formulaically "non-form" that it's just as predictably ambiguous as the most hackneyed Hollywood Romcom is happy-ending-ized.
The biggest difference between Sundance-honored independent films and Hollywood mediocrity is that at least Hollywood isn't totally disingenuous about what it's dishing out.
Halloween (2007)
An American Travesty
I don't need to go into much detail, as many of you have written (quite eloquently, actually) about how much this piece of tripe s*cks as*. I will only say this much - Michael Myers is - according to Rob Zombie - not scary, just a total as*hole. Even though we're tortured with hours about his childhood and his psychology, in the end he kills people for no reason, even (especially) people who were nice to him.
The movie wasn't scary in any way - it was simply disgusting, and ultimately very sad. A dysfunctional family is literally torn apart. A loving - and loved - daughter loses both of her parents and is terrorized by their killer. A doctor who tries to help and find hope in a small child is forced to kill him - and is killed for his trouble. A lonely janitor who thinks he's made a friend is killed by that very friend - a week before his retirement.
Yes, Michael Myers is indeed a total pr*ck. But as much of a jerk as he is, it's Rob Zombie who is truly irredeemable - a misanthrope, a misogynist, a homophobe. Well, more than one can play at that game, and what goes around comes around. Suffice to say that I hope Zombie himself is one day disemboweled, his own throat slit, his own anus split open with a barbed dildo. You think I'm kidding? I don't hear anyone laughing.
Bugcrush (2006)
Nihilism, weeeee!!!!
Look, nihilistic films aren't all bad. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is one of the great films of the 70s. The difference is it actually had something to say - or at least felt like it did. This short was engaging, and decently acted, but the utter pointlessness and meanness of it was uncalled for. Basically, because he's attracted to guys and makes a bad decision to hang out with the white-trash school hottie, a young kid is tortured and (presumably) executed - for no apparent reason. Wow, talk about a fun time at the movies!
I agree with those who felt this was an anti-drug PSA. The ironic thing is that I wouldn't berate anyone who, after watching, felt the need to toke up, down some pills, or go on a bender. I felt the same way after watching "Requiem For a Dream", and not because it was depressing, only because people actually liked it.
Heathers (1988)
The Inoffensive Banality of Evil
"Heathers" is easily one of the worst movies of the 90s.
Or it sure as sh*t *felt* like the 90s. Only the sh*ttiest decade could have produced such swill.
Seriously, I love when people say this tripe is nihilistic. It didn't have the b*lls to be anything of the sort! Only the most deserving d*ckheads were killed by an incredibly unbelievable Christian Slater (doing a lame Jack Nicholson impression, meaning that Slater was playing himself). Shrill and intentionally campy without an ounce of actual danger, "Heathers" moves from one dumb inside joke to the next, torpedoing the "messages" it thinks so highly of itself for thinking it's making. Only in its last scene does it even have the ability to offend.
That scene, by the way, is when Ryder is dancing with the girl in the wheelchair who (from what I recall) she'd been a total b*tch to through the entire movie. It's as if we're about to hear Sarah Connor's narration a la T2 - "If a highschooler can learn the value of befriending the disabled... Maybe we can too!" PUKE!
If I was in a wheelchair, I'd have walked out of the theater.
In the Bedroom (2001)
This film made me angry
Not angry at the villain (too easy), not angry at the parents (too hard), not even angry at society (unearned). No, I was angry at Todd Field for making such middling, boring claptrap. This is the kind of movie that morons heap awards on, that peabrains like to think of as "daring" and "adult." I've seen actual Adult films with truer emotional intensity.
The scene where Spacek slaps Tomei had my friend and I laughing out loud in the theater. I could almost hear her saying "That's for stealing an Oscar, b*tch!" The sad irony, of course, is they *both* almost stole Oscars that same year for such drivel. What a joke.
Krull (1983)
Under-appreciated Genre Cornfest
This is a terrific film in the "Star Wars", "Battle Beyond the Stars" oeuvre. The plot makes little sense and is hardly original, but there is so much energy and love poured into every aspect of the production that you can't help but enjoy it in spite (and probably because) of the cheesiness.
A few other users have been critical of the acting, but I entirely disagree. Unlike the "Star Wars" repertory, this is obviously a group of classically trained, Shakespearean thespians. That means they lay on the the ham in thick slices, but never too thick they can't chew them (or the beautiful scenery, for that matter. Where *was* this shot, by the way?)
The effects are dated, but still exciting and laden with craft. The production design excels at creating a marvelous and original world. And it goes without saying that James Horner's score (one of his earliest and best) is rousing and bombastic, making otherwise dull sequences burst with energy.
For some reason I missed this one when I was a kid, and just caught it for the first time the other night on HDNet (and I'm glad I was delayed until the awesome HD transfer). After watching the grossly overrated "Little Miss Sunshine", a supposed comedy where I scarcely chuckled, I watched all of "Krull" grinning from ear to ear.
Seriously, they don't make 'em like this any more.
Fay Grim (2006)
Lives up to its Title
I have been a fervent Hal Hartley supporter since I saw his short "Surviving Desire" in high school, and even then was still completely unmoored by his searingly brilliant "Henry Fool." But this 10-year-later sequel is not only unnecessary, it's unfortunate.
After a choppy and expeditious start, "Fay Grim" devolves into pseudo-intellectualism, flat out boredom, and finally unwarranted - and unwanted - nihilism. And that's just the plot.
The majority of the new faces are as frivolous and poorly-developed as the movie: one particularly flat character ends up hogging half the time we spend with the infamous Henry Fool himself, and it's their only spoken scenes in the film!
Jeff Goldblum's Agent Fulbright, it seems, is the only bright character (a pun surely intended by Hartley as well). How, then, is he left? **SPOILER** Dead via a car bombing, easily making this one of the gentle-natured Hartley's most bleak films to date, and tonally all wrong in a film that's already mostly wrong from the word go.
As for the other new characters, as well as Angus James, Simon Grim, Ned Fool (or is it Grim?), not to mention Fay herself... well, I won't spoil their fates, as the movie does a good enough job of that all on its own (when it isn't busying itself with yet another canted angle, which gives the disconcerting impression that Hartley is moving backwards from Auteur to Film school student).
This piece is almost a complete disaster, certainly a dreadful mess that sadly isn't good-humored enough to revel in its messiness. Instead it self-indulgently crams the typically fun hipster pretenses of its director into the "real world", one uglier and meaner than it need be, but not nearly ugly or mean enough to come close to codifying any observations that would make it all worth it. Indeed, even by carefully walking through this dirt, Hartley still leaves unwelcome tracks on my memories of these people and the marvelous world he originally created for them.
As much as I admire the effort, I have to be honest when I say I have rarely been so depressed at the movies - and I'm counting "Leaving Las Vegas," which at least developed fresh new characters we grew to love before destroying them, instead of immediately disregarding characters already beloved.
Grim, indeed.
The Newsroom (1996)
What the ... ?
First off, I'm in the U.S.
When I first saw this, I thought it was an obvious - and loathsome - rip off of "The Office" (UK). I would have thus awarded it zero stars, but lo and behold, it came out long before the Ricky Gervais series.
Still, it's hard to watch this or any other show with a similar dynamic (including the American "Office") without comparison. It just isn't even close to being the same thing.
I will give it some credit for being original, and ahead of its time. I'll also say that it - and the U.S. "Office" and "Larry Sanders" - are actual satires. The UK "Office" is something grander and more transcendent, as if populated with real people in events that felt like they actually happened. However, unlike this or the shrill Christopher Guest "mockumentaries", it isn't really a satire, while "The Newsroom" definitely is.
Be that as it may, "The Newsroom" still isn't very funny. It's aloof, and self-aware, but with a cast and crew not nearly smart or talented enough to heft the goods. It's weighty comedy being carried on weak shoulders. Commendable, but ultimately not recommended.
--- And what's with the lack of an anamorphic DVD?! I know it was shot in anamorphic widescreen, because I saw the pilot episode on one of our HD channels. CBC, get with the programme. ; )
Sports Night (1998)
Weak cup of Joe...
I'm glad I didn't watch this series until first catching "Studio 60 On the Sunset Strip", which is basically just a re-tread and re-imagining of "SN". The comparisons don't end with script structure and "witty" dialogue - they both have similar actors, characters, and well... everything. Since "SN" was canceled, I suppose "Studio 60" is now as close as you can get. For some, that's a good thing. Not for me.
It is undeniable that this is an entertaining series. The characters are all fun (if way too nice to be believed), each beautifully performed by a very talented cast. The stories are engagingly manipulative. And it's just a cool idea - a series about a Sports show that isn't about Sports.
Unfortunately, Sorkin is absolutely enamored with his own voice, and as such all of his characters adopt this voice. It is not them. It is not what Danny or Dana or Casey would do or say - it's what Sorkin would say if he *were* any of these characters, complete with very self-conscious, clipped, repetitious quips. He writes like a playwright writing as a playwright is supposed to write. Not only does his style not work, it's grating, obnoxious, fairly unoriginal, and - worst of all - totally takes us out of the moments he struggles so hard to create.
Would that were my only complaint.
In addition to some seriously poor production values and editing (probably the result of being forced in front of a studio audience - not Sorkin's choice), not to mention a dopey theme song that continues to rear it's ugly notes, this series (and "Studio 60" to an even greater degree) suffers further from being produced by someone way too close to the subject material. Both shows practically scream "I'm a TV producer! I should make a TV show about making a TV show! That way I can show off all my knowledge of the subject, as well as inject the show with as much obscure information as possible to make me seem even smarter than I already am! Did I mention I'm a hard-working TV writer who won a Writer's Guild award? I'll have my main character be a hard-working TV writer who won a Writer's Guild award! Did I mention that my favorite writers are Paddy Chayefsky and Gilbert & Sullivan? I'll have my Pilot teaser be a rip-off of "Network", and then have my characters espouse their love for Paddy Chayefsky and do a send-up of "Pirates of Penzance"! Did I mention that I have a coke problem? I'll have my main character..." and on and on.
The show's plots also leave a lot to be desired. They are rife with obvious set-ups for lame jokes, and practically shameless "After School Special" or "Christmas at Sports Night" moralizing (the "This is sexual harassment, and I don't have to take it!" episode really stands out, particularly since Natalie is a cloyingly quirky character that no real person would stand working with). While entertaining and inherently watchable, the stories are neither quite as smart as Mr. Sorkin believes they are, nor as intelligent as he himself is. He should - nay, does - know better.
It amazes me how much Sorkin has in common with M. Night Shyamalan - they both have enviable raw talent, are in love with their own works, and yet try so hard you just know that they're incredibly insecure about their own abilities. If they would stop with such egotistical nonsense as forcing their own personal stamp on their projects, and instead just worked to make a great movie or TV show, the entertainment world would be a much better place.
It's true, "SN" is weak. But I suppose bland coffee is better than none at all.