Change Your Image
urthpainter
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
The Trust (2016)
Rough third act - Worse ending
Anyone who watches a lot of movies knows the third act of a film is the most difficult to execute. Beginnings are easy by comparison, and 2nd act continuations just a bit more challenging. Many American films feel like really good two act movies, that are either incomplete, or another writer with rights to the script think they can complete the film better. I say this because so many movies, like the Trust, are so so good for the first hour, then it's like a switch is flipped and writing goes into hack mode.
Enter the Trust about two bored law enforcers, clearly jaded by their daily experiences who choose to go off the deep end of their careers in order for a potential big score. While this premise is cliche, Cage and Wood are a real treat and carry this entire movie with their respective performances. Dialog is not bad! And because the characters are (mostly) established, by the time this movie goes to trash mode, they still carry their roles.
But what the heck is up with Nick Cage's character? Why Is he so multitalented? Is he purely corrupt? Is he a genius? What and who is he? The Trust set up so many interesting questions about Nick's role - then makes Zero attempt answer any of them.
Movie is fun for the first hour, then has a major tone shift. I was still on board until the last ten minutes, at which point the movie completely nosedives. The additional third character is completely pointless, and her use as a plot device to end the movie is beyond frustrating - it's a script writing crime. And it's not just unentertaining and tonally incorrect - it's actually dumb, and the more one thinks about it, the worse it gets.
Ultimately for fans of the two leads? The only reason to watch, because the conclusion is so bad, it colors any gains made up to that point. Generous 5/10.
Joker: Folie à Deux (2024)
Movie that goes out of its way to disappoint viewer
I would contend for people who really give this movie their full attention, everything from beginning to end adds up to a 5/10 average score. Considering how much money and resources were invested? That is a disgrace.
Biggest critique is the low floor, uninspired story line, that is then jazzed up with AAA production and musical numbers. In my opinion, especially with the musical approach, the film story should of been Far more fantastical. This would of brought it in line with comic source material, And fit the films ending better (the Very end). The further the movie goes, the more lackluster the story gets. The third act is the films worst, and really why, I think, the movie gets it's lion's share of hate. I'd argue that even the most determined viewers optimistic approach will be crushed by the end of this film.
Salem's Lot (2024)
Better than general consensus
I'd say above average horror flick, aptly timed for October release. May not live up to expectation or source material, but there's more than enough entertainment to keep one interested from beginning to end.
Salem's Lot begins with a professional writer returning to his original stomping grounds, a small town in Maine. His arrival coincides with the descent of an evil force upon the town.
There are only a handful of main characters, and I'd say casting, characters, acting is like a lot of this movie, above average.
The best part of this movie, by far, is the lighting and transition the town takes from opening scene to final scene. Probably the most well thought out aspect of the entire film. Worth rewatching opening scene after movie ends just to see how stark the difference is.
Pacing is solid - Movie moves along at good pace that is very easy to get into, and remain until final scene.
Salem's Lot also has an uncompromising nature with regard to the violence and victims. The body count is astonishingly high, even if viewer doesn't get to see as much of it as they should.
My biggest critique would be the completely non-existent presence from the antagonist. Movie has more of an 'antagonistic force' that is present, grows. A movie that does this approach 1000x better would be Bone Tomahawk - even though the antagonists are non-speaking, they are way more present, and tangible in their evil nature. In Salem's Lot - it's like the viewer is asked to bring all their knowledge and lore of the main monster with them, and fill in the blanks - which isn't very good film making. Antagonist deserved way more detail, and if not him, then someone, something surrounding him - maybe? The old house on the hill as a character?
This movie would be best for those without expectation, just looking for a good October horror flick. Recommended, despite a lot of viewer negativity surrounding.
The Bear: Tomorrow (2024)
Especially effective, unique episode
I loved this episode - everything about it. It played out like one long montage, but it wasn't - it contained a ton of narrative and story content, just delivered in a unique way.
The reason I thought this episode was especially effective is the general use of montage sequences in The Bear. The music video, stylized sequences are always good: upbeat, well made, entertaining. However - they generally (always?) lack narrative... in a Half hour show... to me, these sequences are painfully frustrating, and just make me scream, "Get on with it!" I fully admit, my viewpoint on the music video sequences is an opinion, and I'm sure there are counterpoints to explain how I'm wrong. I feel sequences like this are Way more useful in full hour TV shows and movies, that simply have more time to deliver story content.
To unify my frustration with an entire episode that really has a lot to say, and begins the season on a good artistic note? Really got me fired up to watch the rest of the season.
Too Old to Die Young (2019)
Mixed bag with astonishingly pointless last episode
AAA production, great lighting, sets and cast can't save this odd meandering urban collage.
I cant' be alone in thinking that Drive is this directors best movie. Based upon Refin's collection of film and TV since? It appears he made a movie with actual characters, story arc, acts and film structure... so that he could just mess around with his film making brush in future projects...
like in Too Old to Die Young. The title is apt - in that it's generalized gibberish that an art lover could ponder and think is profound. And while this TV series does have a ton of film making merit - it comes in short bursts that appear to leading somewhere, only to be severed and abandoned. I don't need TV and movies about pointlessness - there's enough of that in real life. I don't need media about garbage human beings who do terrible things with equally nihilistic outcomes that is supposed to be consequences?
If wondering? The story revolves around a sociopath, dirty cop who gets deeply involved with criminals. That cop is played by Miles Teller. If that sounds interesting, it literally is the only reason to watch this show - but watch out! There is also a ton more content and characters on the back end of this series that came off to me as less than pointless, and a joke played on the viewer by the film maker.
There is a lot of this TV show I truly hate, and yet? I do think it deserves an above average rating for all the quality film making - there really are great scenes and moments.
I'm not a fan of this director, and I bet he wouldn't be a fan of my entertainment first appreciation to visual media. That being said, I think he should direct crystal clear stories with well defined characters - then art that experience up with his stylization. He's not David Lynch - he doesn't have the foundation of film knowledge nor finesse to make that type of film or TV show -Unless he want's to be known as Lynch light.
Terrifier 3 (2024)
Clinic on how to improve as film maker
Damien Leone has proven himself to be many things - probably the most merit would be his makeup and special effects abilities, but after his third Terrifier feature length film? He is officially a sold film maker as well.
I liked Terrifier part 1 - As far as slasher films go, it was very spare and allowed the wildly effective practical effects shine in various ultra violent scenes. But story? Any story at all? Not really! Regardless, a real film making competence is on full display - even if it was only the nuts and bolts + effects wizardry.
Terrifier 2? Wow! Story! Maybe too much story? That's sarcasm, really. But due to uneven pacing between action scenes and drama - I thought Terrifier 2 was also flawed film, but not as flawed as the first. Establishing main characters with a clear story arc added meaning and consequences to the violence - improving the formula. Meanwhile what was good, stayed good - which is no small thing, and crucial to this series success (ie the practical fangora effects).
Part 3? Continued improvement! Biggest improvement would be pacing from beginning to end - this is achieved with a ton more editing finesse. This includes the basics of shot consistency and edit length, but also parallel action, soundtracking and location consistency. Entire film had a slightly grainy, early 90s look that also really fit content. Terrifier 3 has Actual film making minutia that was clearly considered and not a director who is going through the motions. Whatever a viewer thinks of the content, this movie has real passion and effort behind it - which is easy to see by anyone who has watched all three films.
I do think the first 2 are required watching to fully appreciate the third as well - there is enough content carry over to make that recommendation for a new viewer to fully enjoy part 3.
Terrifier 3 takes place after the events of the 2nd movie. We get to learn a lot more about the villain, even if descriptions are vague - Art is fully established as supernatural entity, complete with overpowering strength and a demons mentality - which I would describe as playfully, pure evil. This fantasy realm goes both ways with not only villain, but also protagonist, which is fun to see evolve throughout the film.
Lauren LaVera acting has improved - and I thought she was perfectly acceptable in part 2. But a performance like this will likely get her more roles? Interesting to see if she becomes a scream queen, or finds herself in different genre work.
David Howard Thornton continued physical performance as Art the clown reaches dizzying new heights in part 3. The recognition of his acting merit is fully deserved and a reason to watch this movie alone. He is borderline brilliant in this film, and (I'd imagine) did a ton of research and work with silent film performances/mime. Due to the nature of his character, his performance comes off as new and unique, even while owing characteristics to distant era's of film.
Essentially this movie plays out like a Halloween type Michael Meyrs type film during Christmas season. Id say it has more implied humor than any Halloween movie, but also? Way more intense violence and gore, both situationally and visually. I'd say there is a little demonology like from Insidious films.
My favorite scenes were some of the cryptic dream sequences that speaks to Art's origin and protagonists nature and fate.
Fourth movie confirmed! I think Damien Leone should keep making these movies as long as he is all in, inspired to do the work - and already look forward to the next installment.
A Discovery of Witches (2018)
Top shelf production can't save a Very average TV show
A Discover of Witches is a very easy watch. Its well made, has an interesting, eclectic cast, and telegraphs all content. That sounds like a bad thing, but I appreciate the straight approach.
That, to me, is the end of this shows good qualities. Everything else? Average. And a few qualities are pretty bad. My biggest critique is the absurd number of side characters that are clearly there to just take up time and space, instead of a commitment to meaningful story telling. Really a shame too, because the MCs are good enough to spend the lions share of time with. Generally TV shows don't get watered down with too many characters until the 3rd or 4th season, when writers run out of ideas, like in Arrow or the Flash - but in season one? Yikes!
Essentially, A Discovery of Witches is about a young women who has a history of magic surrounding her life, and has chosen to pursue magic intellectually, and not in practice. But (surprise!) a series of events unfolds that forces her into practicing magic, with the help and protection of a vampire love interest. Around these two is a large cast of mythical, humanoid creatures who come to the conclusion that the MC is the most important person on the planet. In terms of occult storytelling, this is about as cliche a premise one will come across. That doesn't mean the entire show will be bad! Like I've said, the production is superb, and almost enough reason to enjoy this show. Almost.
Characters are also cliche, static, and only the MCs actually develop. Even with the magical transformation of the central character, she really doesn't change with her new found powers. Just my opinion, and I don't know the source material, but this show would of done better defining it's own reality and take on classic monsters, instead of relying on tropes and classic representations - which the viewer is (apparently?) just supposed to know via popular culture. This includes the 'monster council' which comes off as some sort of Hogwarts rip-off with very little additional imagination.
So while this show isn't bad, and is easy to watch? It's also not very good, at its best - and the first season is about as good as it gets.
I fully appreciate the occult setting, and I will always give TV like this a chance. But I far rather an old show like Damien got 3 seasons over this - something brave, fun, scary and entertaining. And in the modern era a show like Interview With the Vampire is literally twice as good in every important way Plus all the elite production. Same could be said for House of the Dragon.
A Discover of Witches is proof that in the 2020's era of TV, being a show in genre with AAA production isn't enough. Writers have to deliver interesting characters who develop episode by episode in a dynamic environment. This show is also a clinic on how not to do side characters - too many, too static - that appear to be nothing more than time wasters spouting story exposition.
Mayor of Kingstown: Comeuppance (2024)
competent, flawed episode
While not a bad episode overall, for a season final, Comeuppance comes off as a disappointment. Certainly an apt named episode, where it feels like every character except Evelyn ends up in a worse place, and maybe her too via proximity to all the suffering. While this content fits the show, it does all come off a bit unentertaining.
In my opinion all the violence in this episode lacked the usual intensity Mayor of Kingstown generally delivers. The bridge gunfight had people dropping like flies, And pretended that cars stop bullets - which really isn't a thing, especially with assault rifles. Just not a very well thought out scene. Then the final scene, Mikes big revenge moment? Really comes off pretty ordinary at best - lacking the expected revenge outburst, and knack for improvised violence. It all felt stiff and staged.
But the worst part of this episode is the absurd death of Iris. This comes completely out of nowhere, with zero foreshadowing, and comes off like some sort last second script change. Besides awkward, an OD? Really? Considering Iris' arc, that cheap death is a straight up insult to the character and Emma Laird. Regardless of what one thinks of this character, she deserved to go out swinging. They got this so right with the Warden... in this same episode! I mean... what happened?
As for the rest of the lame content: Kyle gunning down Robert,Ian in trouble with Evelyn, the Warden essentially committing suicide? I could deal with all of that if Iris death, or her destiny was handled properly. As it stands, this is easily my least favorite episode of this show.
I'd say that generally speaking all the acting is solid, and production is firmly in place. I thought some of the scenes felt unorganized, and the pacing wasn't great, but it is a complicated episode with a lot of moving parts. Certainly respect all the effort put into this show, which has been consistent since the first season.
Gisaengsu: Deo geurei (2024)
Entertaining Horror genre TV with especially strong main characters
Surprisingly good Korean, live action adaption of Japanese manga and anime Parasyte. Also proof that an adaptation can take an original story approach and still remain true to the original source material. But perhaps most surprising, and my favorite part of P:TG is the characters. By and large, all characters are likable, interesting. Importantly, these characters are ones the viewer wants to grow, develop and succeed.
Who would like this? I'd say fans of TV shows like the Strain, Helix - movies like the Resident Evil franchise and all the adaptations of Body Snatchers. It's been a while since a good version of the Body Snatchers. Parasyte: the Grey takes itself Very seriously, and helps if the viewer can suspend disbelief and immerse themselves into the experience.
Essentially this show follows two main characters Su-In and Kang-Woo. Both are basically ordinary people living in South Korea. The story belongs to female lead Su-In who works as a grocery clerk, but is revealed that her life has been one with traumatic misfortune going back to childhood. Kang-Woo is a low level gangster who finds himself a pawn of his own organization. Their lives are both upended by the introduction of a radical environmental element - parasite eggs falling from the sky that seek out a human host to possess. More characters are introduced including law enforcement and possessed humans, the parasite enemies.
Most the character development involves the two main characters who both change radically from the first episode to the last. Su-In is literally changed into a new entity, and Kang-Woo has to face inner demons for abandoning family to become a criminal. To stress my favorite part of P:TG, following the characters journeys is entertaining and satisfying.
I really enjoyed the performances, especially of the lead Su-In. She plays two characters who are quite different, which speaks to good pre-production work and direction on set. Anyone who has watch AAA South Korean TV shows will have an idea of what to expect in terms of production quality.
Like the best genre work, P:TG asks interesting questions about the human condition. A big reason for this is the reflected humanity in possessed humans. Their clumsy and robotic social interactions are a great counterpoint for how we go about our daily lives. The parasite entities are individually very powerful, but can be defeated via human team work via our social structures/institutions.
There's also an ax grinding ecological quality to the show revealed in the first episodes introduction, but luckily that thread is not stressed or focused upon. It feels more like foreshadowing for future content if this TV show has a few seasons and is allowed to mature.
Effects are very good. Action scenes are horrific and an excellent part of the show. There is a lot of content that could descend into stark pessimism/nihilism, but it never does! Heroism and optimism are two stressed qualities throughout the arc. A lot of this stems from honoring those lost, which is a profound message.
Truly, an excellent first season. While the first season arc is complete, the last episode does end on a minor cliff hanger which will likely serve as the takeoff point for the 2nd season. Recommended for fans of horror genre, and maybe for someone who wants to go outside of their general comfort zone.
Knox Goes Away (2023)
Keaton Strikes Again
When watching movies across many era's, certain actors stand out more than others. It requires excellence across many projects, and due to the rich history of film, there are a lot of names on this list. Some obvious classic names are Bogart, Grant, Steward and Hepburn, Kelly, Bergman - and I think the further one goes back (within reason), the easier it is to identify these exceptional, stand out performers. But they exist in every era, and to finally come around to my point Michael Keaton is one of these great performers in the modern era.
Worth mentioning that the great performance in Knox Goes Away is also Keaton's direction debut - though I'm sure Keaton understands more about direction at this point than many of the film makers he's worked with, just due to his work within the media.
Knox Goes Away is about a hardened, professional criminal at the end of his prime. He would be able to still do his job if it weren't for a rare condition revealing itself as a rapidly deteriorating mind. Knox (Keaton's character) has enough self awareness to see his fate coming, and takes steps to resolve his life the best he can. But surprise! A desperate family situation arrives at his doorstep - making his plan to resolve things even more complex, and ultimately? His last great challenge to perform.
The greatness of this film is all Keaton's performance and his character's context. There's a tragic nature to the main character and his situation that as a viewer? Made me want him to succeed. I also wanted to know more about the main character, his past, and how he ended up choosing his line of work when he is portrayed as having so much intelligence and merit.
It's a really good movie. The lead is a complicated character, who is put in an impossible situation, and chooses to face the situation head on. Side characters are acceptable with Al Pacino probably being the most colorful and interesting in his few scenes. I'd say my favorite part of Knox Goes Away, besides Keaton, is a strong third act and satisfying ending, which so few films seem to have.
My biggest critique would be film pacing, which isn't bad, but would be a signifier of early directorial effort. I'd say the same about the camera work, which isn't Keaton, obviously the DP - but the director leads the DP, and the shots, while useful and fine, lack artistic finesse of a seasoned film maker. Lastly, most of the story elements and characters are cliche, and have a by the numbers scripting approach. I fully respected the straight continuity, and lack of script 'tricks'. It's not a movie that tries to hide anything, but also doesn't take too many chances.
I would say a must watch for fans of Keaton. Also a strong recommendation for fans of crime drama cinema with noir elements.
Warrior: Enter the Dragon (2020)
One of Televisions Best Ever Episodes
Sometimes as a viewer, just have a feeling going into an episode that it might be great. It's probably production quality, and little details crafted by the filmmakers that one can pick up on as tells. The first thing I said to myself as this episode began? This might be Warrior's 'May the Giant be with You' from Twin Peaks or 'Bear Man' from Hell on Wheels. Not that there is any connection in content - they are just masterpiece episodes of TV, that have a timeless quality like the best movies.
And that is where Enter the Dragon lands. Without getting into any specifics, many foreshadowed events come to fruition. The entire 2nd season has had a building sense of dread and unease - all that tension is released in a furious, and brilliantly choreographed large scale action sequence. I think it is one of the best scenes of its kind I have ever watched.
Due to the dramatic outcomes of the episode some relationship bonds become stronger, and others more filled with pure hatred. All the main characters are well represented, and changed in some way by this episodes events.
Ultimately? It's just the incredible level of entertainment on display, all delivered with an unrelenting approach. Warrior is one of the best produced TV shows of modern era. I really respect the cast for buying into Warrior's vision. Besides a great TV show that is consistently Very good - it's led to an episode like this which fans will never forget.
Hell on Wheels: Bear Man (2014)
Amazing episode of Hell on Wheels
This should be the highest rated episode of the entire series. It's a brilliant television episode that effectively portrays brain damage, and a Real World dream. I guess some fans of this show were not ready for such an artistic episode focusing on Common's character, Elam Furguson.
After a lot of questions, Hell on Wheels returns to Elam on a surreal journey, as he returns to health after a traumatic head injury. Every single aspect of this episode is well thought out and brilliantly created. Like the best episodes of this show, its very immersive, but in a completely different way. I'd say the unrelenting approach is maintained, but the reality is far from grounded due to the perspective of this episodes main character.
Bear Man is to me, not only the best episode of Hell on Wheels, but one of the best episodes of any TV show. I find it a little frustrating that many fans of this show gave this episode no chance, and just instantly conclude it's without merit. It's a pitiable offense. Especially in the realm of fiction. I'd argue less open mind and more ability to recognize merit. Perhaps a valid argument exists to back up not liking this episode - but to give the lowest possible score says way more about the reviewer than it does about Bear Man, season 4 episode 6 of Hell on Wheels.
Fallout (2024)
Clinic on producing existing intellectual property
Considering all the terrible producers in 2024 - who regularly crush the dreams of Star Trek, Star Wars and fans of other established intellectual properties, very refreshing to see an IP with tons of merit getting produced by individuals who understand their job.
Fallout is a Legendary video game franchise. Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas are, to me, top 10 all time video games. Fallout three was like GTA III - it changed the industry. Gamers were provided interactive bliss for a game that one could sink 100+ hours into, which is remarkable for a single player experience. Fallout and Fallout 2 were more turn based strategy games, but established a ton of lore, items and ideas that were carried forward into Fallout 3 - a third person action game. But a third person action game with Role Playing Game and Strategy Game elements also incorporated into design. Gamers were given a ton of customization for building their character, both aesthetically and how they applied 'perk' abilities while leveling. The beauty of Fallout 3 is how the player could really tailor a character's ability to exactly what they want. This included physical abilities, improved use of tools and weapons, intelligence abilities like hacking, and charisma abilities for better communication and deception. On a single play through, not all abilities could be had - so the player had to pick and choose abilities to round out their character.
That's all a lot - but the bottom line is there are great games in the Fallout franchise, and a ton of merit from which to draw from. For the record, I would say the same thing about the Monster Hunter franchise, and the MH movie was a god awful train wreck. That is where intelligent production comes in. You need producers who understand what it takes to make good television, but also who understand the source IP, and know how to draw merit out of that IP. In the modern era, it seems like many producers think that they can just take an existing IP and do whatever the heck they want with it: change fundamentals, insert outside content that has nothing to do with original IP, and worst yet - use the existing IP to float their own messaging and insipid ideas.
Not in Fallout! In Fallout the producers hired the right people, and let them work. I wonder if they ever had to define parameters, or if the producers were able to simply get out of the way, and let their chosen talent do their jobs. However it unfolded, the end result is a borderline masterpiece.
Fallout the TV show is about a future world that never grew out of the 1950s style and aesthetic. The mix of retro aesthetic, science fiction future and post apocalyptic wasteland makes for a great playground to inject characters and narrative. Which is exactly what happens. While Fallout does have a single main character, there are basically three main characters, each with their own story arc. These arcs intersect, which unfolds across 8 AAA episodes. A second season has already been authorized.
While the show unfolds in an easily digested manner - the story is quite complex, as is the backstory for each character. While I'm sure many have attempted a summery? I just recommend watching the show. One episode will probably be enough to fully commit, but if there is any doubt, definitely watch at least three complete episodes, kinda like an anime, before deciding what the show is. Fallout has a lot of highly stylized violence, often with humor involved. The effects and really all technical qualities are top notch. This is one of the better seasons of TV, all genres, in the last 10 years. Its up there with the best of GoT, early seasons.
If you can't tell, I loved this first season of Fallout. It also gets me going on my ax grind - producers who selfishly attempt to ruin existing intellectual properties for dubious reasons. But I know it's not as simple as understanding and loving a video game to make it into good TV. Producers also have to understand their own medium, and how to pick and choose merit from the other genre to make something good.
But this is great! Such a Rare gem! And - gamers know that Bethesda, the company behind Fallout, has been struggling for the last 5+ years with their video game releases. Their last great game was Fallout 4, but even it fell short of Fallout 3 and NV in my opinion. Fallout 4 came out over 8 years ago! That is a Long time with no great releases. It is my hope that the Fallout TV show reaches a mass media audience, and provides the influx of resources and interest that Bethesda needs to make more great video games in the future. Even if that doesn't happen, if this show is done right for multiple seasons - it could be the greatest thing to come from that publisher. And that, to me, is an astonishing possibility.
Civil War (2024)
Shooting images, not bullets on the battlefield
I fully recommend Civil War as a theater experience for anyone who likes the big screen. I went in knowing very little about movie, and that likely led to my enjoyment due to limited expectations.
I love this movie just for the entertainment, and following these characters through a highly fictionalized war zone. I think liking the characters is a must for full immersion. Also thought there was a lot of really good acting in various intense scenes. I'm a big fan of this cast and how they work together.
Civil war is a movie that keeps viewer in the moment, following war photo journalists during an American conflict between government factions. There isn't a lot of answers for what is going on, exactly. The viewer is given hints that draw speculation, but not many clearly presented facts to paint a clear picture. I'd argue that is a tactical approach by filmmaker that builds into a war photographer's life approach. Civil War also implies questions about the human experience. When do we feel most alive? What is the draw to violence, like moths to a flame? And also the inverse - keeping oneself busy to avoid troubling matters, and simply pretending a problem doesn't exist. That is a lot of existential questions/ideas that work on many levels - and they are questions with no easy answers, perhaps only an ongoing discussion of what it all means.
Much of Civil War's merit comes from all the questions it asks, and that approach is not for every viewer. I read a lot of viewer reviews, and it's pretty clear that many prefer a more literal, guided approach to their cinema.
More of the film's merit is found in production and well conceived action scenes. Guns, bullets and other military ordinance are given their true destructive potential. The gun fights have a grounded realism that I found highly immersive. Nice to see film violence with consequences - not that it's easy content to digest, it's just more refreshing than most action films violence for violence sake approach.
I like most of Alex Garland's work and think this might be his best all around best project. Civil War certainly took a great deal of planning/pre-production to get everything logistically in place. Along with marvelous production, the actors were able to give solid, convincing performances. With all the variables involved in making feature length motion picture, I'm always impressed by the movies with an identity that become more than the sum of their parts.
I think Civil War is best for viewers who like questions in their media, and drawing conclusions from those questions. I fully admit that the film title and poster art are misleading - this isn't a straight up war movie with soldiers, clear conflict with obvious sides. Still, there is a lot heroism on display, and I appreciated following main characters with nerve who shoot images in war zones, not bullets.
Ripley (2024)
Mesmerizing black and white cinematography
Ripley is about a scoundrel New Yorker, down on his luck, who finds himself propelled into an adjacent look at Italian luxury via the father of an old acquaintance. Through various devious means the main character pursues that luxury for himself, only to set various chaotic events into motion. Can Ripley stay one step ahead of his own misdeeds?
The easiest place to start with Ripley is it's look and feel established by black and white presentation. I'd go as far as saying it's a technical masterpiece. Every episode has an array of incredible shots in well lit/thought out locations. In my opinion the look of this show is easily the best part and the main reason I completed the season.
The secondary reason was I thought this show was hilarious. The blundering nature of the main character is black comedy gold, and the scenes are very consistent in delivering that entertainment.
Otherwise? I thought the show was OK at best. I love the main character as an actor, but I think part of the comedy is likely due to improper casting. I can't say bad casting, because Andrew Scott delivers a consistent performance that I really enjoyed. But some of the scenes are preposterous. These occasional scenes destroy any chance of me really taking Ripley seriously.
It's also too long, and at times truly boring in terms of delivery of content. The visuals, really all technical qualities keep every moment afloat with merit, but patience is required to enjoy the slow paced approach.
For me the slow pace is the double edged sword of this show. On one side it meanders between major events, but! When those events occur, Ripley really extends the duration of highly entertaining scenes in a satisfying way.
The Bricklayer (2023)
There will always be hack scripts...
While there will always be poorly written, hack scripts - the job of a producer is to fund a script with actual merit. If a garbage script is green lit, then made into feature length film? Immediately I wonder if the producers are bad at their jobs, Or if a project was just drummed up for an easy payday.
That's what the Bricklayer feels like: no inspiration, no labor of love, no depth... no good! Ironic that a half baked story revolves around a skilled laborer too... a character who is supposed to be the embodiment of hard work. Instead this movie tries to shoehorn in ideas of his profession in awkward ways - seemingly to rationalize the movies title.
In a nutshell the Bricklayer is about a retired government specialist who has disowned his previous, professional life, instead working as a craftsman. But shocker! He's swept back into his previous life, and has to right previous wrongs. To mix things up Bricklayer has not one, but two love interests... sort of - of the many things the Bricklayer does wrong, I'll include character development. Both backstory characterizations and those told as the movie progress lack commitment, and come off uncertain at best.
Pretty strange that Beekeeper and Bricklayer would come out so close to each other. Both go with a side-job premise, but also have horrific, half baked scripts. Both are a complete waist of acting talent, resources and a viewers time - in this case, action scenes included. Bricklayer tries a bit harder with character interactions, and perhaps the story isn't as preposterous... somehow. I'd say Beekeeper has more merit with Jason's action scenes, but both movies have a sloppy, thrown together feel that is disappointing. It all starts with the script, that set a low bar for everyone involved in the first place.
The Beekeeper (2024)
Terrible script uplifted by main character
If not for Statham, this might of been one of the worst AAA movies ever made, and it's baffling that a script this bad would get green lit, let alone made into a AAA film. Bottom line? For fans of Statham only. Unfortunately, because this movie is easy to digest, has a star and clever title? It will be widely watched.
Beekeeper begins as a kinda interesting revenge plot, but quickly escalates into conflict pinning one man against the entire nation. It feels like a script dashed out over a weekend, poolside, while inebriated friends interject increasingly absurd ideas that end up as major plot points. Add a twelve year olds world view of government agencies and politics? Blend and serve...
This includes Statham's character, but somehow, like an instinctive karate chop reflex, he carries this garbage all the way to the insipid end with his professionalism.
Even though Jason Statham's character has no backstory, he still manages to have presence. To the Beekeeper's credit, they did spend money in the right places for exciting action scenes - even if the motivations for those actions scenes is unclear, and unfold as violence for violence sake, often in unsavory ways. In other words, the revenge never feels earned, and the faceless victims might as well be automatons.
Side characters might be the worst part of this entire movie, and that is a remarkable feat! Statham is probably only onscreen for about 30-40 minutes of this train wreck, and that leaves a Lot of time to fill with side characters. Emmy Raver-Lampman, who probably should never be cast again for that name alone, is the poster child for god awful characters. There is no intelligence, charisma, heroism... or merit of any kind. This is likely not the actress fault due to material. However, Statham is also given about as much to work with script wise, and he still brings it as a performer, in every scene. Irons is completely wasted in this movie. His performance is fine, just not dynamic for a performer of his ability, and comes off as a pay day, not any labor of love.
Funny thing is? I think a good movie was hidden in here somewhere. It probably needed to tone down it's ultra-epic desires, humble itself - and tell a smaller story with better developed characters. To see this script brought to the AAA screen is representative of really bad production, and inability to recognize half baked writing.
American Assassin (2017)
Good movie for Keaton
Really good movie for Michael Keaton, who flexes his versatility and spectacular range as actor. In an era of the 'old badass' movie genre, which has developed an astonishing library in the last decade, Keaton's character in American Assassin is a welcome addition. Even though this movie is not realistic, his character is very grounded and believable.
I also really liked seeing Scott Atkins in an actual acting role. Sure he gets to show off some martial arts, but really more as a means to uplift the main character's ability/presence. Anyone unfamiliar with Atkins should watch a few of his higher rated movies in which he is the star. He might be the most underrated action star of the modern era, certainly one of them.
Lead actor? Meh... he Just pulls off the role, but is not very well cast. A better actor in this role could of moved the needle up a point for sure, but? No big complaints! He does come off as the everyman in a great life spot in the films intro. The transformation to a self motivated international terrorist fighter? Somewhat less believable. But American Assassin does the viewer a favor and implies his transformation as a means to see revenge through. No complaints!
There is a loose, unrealistic nature to the story arc that I actually really liked. Its not politically correct, and the action scenes are visceral and entertaining. I'm sure people wanting a grounded military experience are left wanting, but as a fan of action movies, I felt right at home.
American Assassin does ask some interesting questions about the morality of the opposing force, antagonist. When a movie uses Nazi's as enemies (generally speaking), they can be slaughtered, wholesale and no one cares. Rightfully so! But when using enemies from the Middle east, we are in an era where that needs more finesse. A viewer needs to bring this context with them, and understand the insensitive nature of this movies portrayal of evil. I say that, because a viewer should not let this movie sway opinion of reality in any way. That is certainly my subjective opinion, but I stand by it - keep this an entertaining film, with story and characters - not any portrait of the here and now (well, 2017).
I would say that American Assassin Does attempt to address uncertain morality with the female lead - not boss lady, but the contact character who is introduced in the 2nd act. Her character is given real backstory and personal motivations - though admittedly, her arc and fate are convenient for moving story elements forward as a plot device, which is undeniably a point of negative critique.
So, general issues aside, I think it's a fun action movie! I really liked the casting outside of the MC, and was pleasantly surprised. Recommended.
True Detective (2014)
4 seasons review, emphasizing season 4
True Detective is an anthology, so each season follows a new arc, with it's own set of unique characters. The general thread between the seasons would be highly motivated, if flawed law enforcement individuals, who get wrapped up in unsavory, epic criminal scenarios. Scenarios in which they are especially motivated to solve for various personal reasons.
Generally speaking, the first half of season 1 is brilliant, and mature television at it's absolute finest. Season 1 slips a little bit on the 2nd half, but it's all still Very good. Season two is good, and in my opinion underrated for casting and performances. Viewers were not satisfied with it's less profound antagonistic force, and (maybe?) it's less focused approach. I was the rare viewer who really enjoyed the 2nd season throughout. I think season three is very good. The story and characters are understated, and the third season has an excellent consistency throughout, which I appreciated. I do think the third season is the least memorable, but probably? The 2nd best season after the 1st.
Which brings me to the 4th season. Fourth season is very memorable, and has incredible scenes of mystery, suspense, and even a little horror. But, for the record? Night Country feels as though it borrowed from season one of the Horror... which is a truly spectacular run of of episodes. The Horror is also a period piece that takes hold of spirituality/mysticism with both hands. And that is a failure of season 4, Night Country - it's uncertainty. What is all this supernatural content? Is is literal/real? Is it mental illness/stress/hallucinations specific to each character? And what is the point of dream like scenes while characters go about their day to day lives/business in the odd American town, Ennis Alaska? Ennis is (thankfully) a fictional community at the farthest northern reaches of Alaska, and the time period for Night County is the late year cycle of permanent night. I get the feeling like the point of the supernatural content was to emphasize the strange environment in a personal, acute way... but I though this failed miserably, because of the literal approach to presenting all the spiritual imagery. It all appears real, including shared etherial experiences. But this is never confirmed, or properly addressed.
Season 4 is a difficult critique/analysis. Why? Because all the pieces fit. Foreshadowing is present. The spirituality, while I found frustrating and uncertain, is consistent in how it is delivered. The first episode is an absolute clinic in camera angles, blocking, setting, audio, lighting which all fits content in an elegant manner. I don't think all episodes have this detail and finesse, but! It is present throughout the entire season.
I would say that Season 4 suffers from the same issue of all three seasons before, but more acute. How to answer all the big questions it poses early on? The questions just get to big, to difficult to answer in a satisfactory manner. So when the answers do come? Ends up being underwhelming - not to mention, borderline dumb. At the Very end it's like the writers completely forgot about forensics and actual police work in the investigation. Because if those tools were used? The ending actually doesn't make any sense, even if properly foreshadowed, and cleverly written. I do think the ending could of worked, but it required Real bravery from the writer/director to properly contextualize antagonist. Trying to reverse (or shift) the antagonistic force at the end is... garbage, and feels woke messaging. But why? Just serve the story and characters!
But it is a well produced season of episodes that I don't regret watching. There were some very suspenseful scenes I really liked, and Night Country does maintain a consistent pace. I was interested in all the character motivations. When a viewer is confounded with an unsatisfactory final episode, it can color the entire experience. Ultimately, beginnings and ends are crucial to get right - and separate the good from the great in all storytelling medias. Season 4 is good, but it's also the 4th best season of the series, which disappointing. It should of followed the lead of previous seasons in an unrelenting approach. Instead it tried to have some sort of happy ending devoid of meaningful answers.
Probably a reason for the show creator to re-acquire the reigns of the franchise and attempt to either steer it back in the right direction, Or? End it here, and move on to greener pastures.
First season 9/10, 2nd 7/10, 3rd 8/10, Night Country? 6/10.
Red Sparrow (2018)
Jennifer Lawrence's most entertaining movie
Red Sparrow may not be Jennifer Lawrence's best movie, or her best role. Red Sparrow is imo, Jennifer's most Entertaining movie.
I certainly value entertainment above all other qualities when volunteering for the film viewing experience. For that reason action movies have a special place in my heart, and Red Sparrow is one of my favorite action movies.
Red Sparrow chronicles the origin, recruitment, training and final product of a Russian spy and assassin. Being an American film about a Russian spy - of course there is going to be a lot of plot complexity involving espionage, counter-intelligence, mixed morality and redemption. The specifics end up pretty complex, but most importantly the story provides for outlandish, wildly entertaining scenes with Jennifer Lawrence at their center.
The way Jennifer Lawrence commits to the protagonist role is inspiring. Red Sparrow is not an easy role to take on. My understanding that some viewers really nitpicked her performance for various reasons. I would argue they are missing the point, and perhaps taking this movie a little too seriously. This isn't a role written to win awards, but it will win fans - and Lawrence fits perfectly into how this movie is presented.
Director Francis Lawrence has a track record of successful action movies. My personal favorite other than this one would be Constantine (2005). Both movies have a ton of visual flair and are enjoyable, entertaining films.
Many movies seem to restrain ideas, writing, concepts in order to emphasize safety & fairness. Red Sparrow is Not one of those movies, and I appreciate it's unrelenting approach.
Reacher (2022)
Entertaining action TV show with untapped greatness
Having watched the first two seasons of Reacher, I've come to the conclusion it is a fun, exciting TV show that is well worth watching. It does almost everything right, with occasional frustrations, and my biggest critique would be, as of yet, untapped potential.
Reacher is aptly titled after it's main character, who is a wandering ex-soldier, applying his version of justice wherever he goes. He is portrayed as a giant, somewhere in the 6'4" to 6'6" range, built like an elite NFL defensive tackle. Inject crimes against his family, and military background backstories, and that is essentially the show. The story arcs are straight forward. Roles are well defined. And everything is resolved by the end of each season in a respectful way. Probably should mention that Reacher story arcs play out as revenge tails, and these unfold with many action scenes, most playing out as gun fights. Any fan of action movies is going to enjoy Reacher's approach.
The drama scenes are not bad, and I feel Reacher's pacing is well addressed. I was generally fully immersed in the moment to moment on screen action.
While everything is good, I feel Reacher needs some finesse in at least one area. Reacher's semi-sociopathic tendencies could be more explored, or perhaps a less certain good vs evil, and maybe some exploration of violence morality. One area that really should be a lot better is how the gunplay scenes are handled, both in design, and execution. Guns are not given their true destructive ability, and environments are not well thought out in how people are arranged. It makes for very unrealistic scenes involving characters who are supposed to be military, gun handling experts. Scenes like this are a big challenge that few motion pictures get correct, but if anyone has seen the TV show Colony, season 2 - it can be done! And there are action choreographers that could add real magic to Reacher. I'm stressing this point because this show deserves really well thought out action scenes - not just fun stylized gunfights.
I'm not saying that the stylized action scenes are bad. They can be entertaining. But the gunfight scenes generally lack urgency, and unfold in an unappealing, casual way. Characters with pistols run straight toward enemies with rifles (for example), and often the environments are not well defined. I just feel due to the nature of the show's story and characters that these scenes should be more grounded and realistic in their presentation. Not only would it make the show smarter, but it would add texture to the storytelling.
Ultimately a good entertaining show. In my opinion it could be a lot better with a less literal, and more artistic approach - at least in one area.
Saltburn (2023)
SaltSquirm
Challenging, well made drama with a baffling protagonist, and various cringe worthy scenes.
Clearly some astonishing amount of money was thrown at this film by producers who likely want their money back. Despite the incredible cast, intricate set design and overproduced sequences - this movie just ain't right. The pieces do not fit, and this viewer wonders who the heck this movie was made for. After the 3rd or 4th double down on cringe content, I ask, "but why though?"
Saltburn follows an overachieving student at a high profile English university who is befriended by the upper crust, and swept into a higher social circle. The twist? The protagonist isn't the viewers standard entry into this world - he's actually the most messed up of all the characters, but unlike the wildly entertaining Talented Mr Ripley? The story never really goes anywhere interesting, both literally and figuratively - and I couldn't figure out why I was watching this movie. Just for the cast and production values? Not good enough! The story and characters in the end just kinda lame and unfortunate - the further along the movie goes, the worse it gets. Also agree with others that film is not well paced. Jagged pacing emphasizes all bad qualities by forcing viewer to ask questions, instead of being swept into experience. Incredible what a well paced film can get away with, and how a poorly paced film spotlights already poor qualities.
I'm sure some fans of particular performers could get some satisfaction from this film - seeing actors put into interesting circumstances. But for this viewer, this is one of my least favorite viewing experiences that works against entertainment for baffling, unappealing reasons. 50% score for me for obvious preproduction/production qualities that can't be ignored, but squandering them all with cringe overload, boring outcomes, and undiscovered potential.
Night Sky (2022)
Great central story that weakens the further the viewer is taken away from the lead characters
Is Night Sky worth watching? I'd give it a marginal yes. Especially if one is a fan of Simmons and Spacek. By and large, Night Sky is well acted and an easy watch in terms of production. It's very clean, and well made. Night Sky is advertised on the science fiction genre side, but really the focus is on dramatic character interactions.
Content is all over the place, making Night Sky difficult to describe in any concise manner. This can be said about many TV shows, but in this case it really has to do with what this show is, and what it is trying to say. Night Sky appears to want to ponder aging, mortality, family relationships, regret, accepting life challenges, and living with unresolved issues that will never have satisfying answers. And along these lines? I really liked this show a lot.
The problem is the further periphery characters get away from the leads (Simmons and Spacek), the weaker everything becomes. Leads are fantastic. The family members and flashbacks to an earlier era are solid. Friends, and neighbors less so, and the completely removed characters that follow parallel action outside of the lead's influence? Are actually bad characters, doing pointless activities in a painfully frustrating manner. The lack of connection is emphasized by Spanish language sequences that feel like a completely different TV show. The lack of attempt to seam this all together in Any way makes for uninteresting scenes that are baffling in direction and content. True, any seasoned TV viewer will know that these storylines will converge - but that's not good enough, and it's a deal breaker when rating/recommending this show.
Night sky follows an aging couple who carry a profound secret in the way of pretty interesting science fiction concept. The secret has maintained their spark for life through many challenges. They are also a couple truly in love, at the twilight of their lives. If this was all this show was? It really could of been something. Unfortunately there's a side story involving a mysterious refugee and his pursuers. The refugee, being close to the family, is pretty interesting, and spurs multiple plot elements, broadening the lead characters motivations. His pursuers, however, are completely outside the sphere of the main characters, and are given almost main character status - but we the viewer have zero reason to care about their activities. Some of this mystery is revealed episode by episode, but a lot remains unclear even at the end. But mostly? Not only are they uninteresting, but also not likable! I think this parallel story could work, but only if the characters were dynamic, and the mystery was presented in a more satisfying way. And I want to stress that this harsh critique is regarding Story and Character, and is not motivated by anything else.
By and large I did like it, but it's the kind of project with great lead casting that a seasoned viewer Expects to be 8/10 or better, and imo, this show is far short of that type of excellence.
Rebel Moon - Part One: A Child of Fire (2023)
Television Backwash?
I'm sure most fans of TV/Film has tuned into a TV show and been pleasantly surprised to discover one or more AAA actors involved in the project. Equally pleasant is a high quality film maker directing the majority of a TV project, like the criminally underrated Devs (2020). Same can be said of any number of filmmakers transitioning elegantly to the smaller screen.
But what about the other way? Has anyone ever said, "Wow, that movie reminded me of a TV show! And it was so good!" No! No one ever said that!
And that is what we have here. We essentially two or three episodes of a TV show crammed together to try and make the first installment of a movie franchise. Zack Snyder really should of known better, especially with a writing credit. While it's not a complete disgrace? It is all around bad, and I'd argue the biggest problem is the approach. That, by the way, is a failure of production and a failure of leadership.
Rebel Moon gets off to an astonishingly boring first 15 minutes... that sets the pace for the entire experience. People standing on green screens talking. This is not a story that needed Any science fiction in the first place. It's a story that has been told better many times in period pieces like Braveheart. Chronicles of Riddick is also a comparison, but Riddick has the protagonist already in place, played by a Super popular actor at that time. It also dove into the science fiction right from the start, not... farming! Rebel Moon... is so... average... I'm actually irritated - don't do the genre like that!
I think the make up/costuming is good - but it's hard to recognized any merit among the abundance of mediocrity.
Acting is wooden. Characters are two dimensional. Scenes are bland. The content can be cherry picked to make a decent trailer, but thats about it.
Leave the World Behind (2023)
A movie that is well worth watching
Leave the World Behind is a very unique movie experience, and unfolds as a slow, tense burn.
It's an increasingly popular formula, where the viewer gets to experience world altering outcomes from the intimacy of a few select characters. A very well cast set of characters too! Not only that, but this is a 2+ hour movie full of dialog... that is entertaining! No small achievement.
For some reason this movie is especially polarizing, including a lot of sub 3 star reviews. There are 1 star reviews, that basically read like this: I liked the opening couple scenes! Got me into it! Great acting! Great cast! Really well made! Oh... I didn't like the last 10 minutes and some of the random content... 1/10. In my opinion, the lowest rating this movie can achieve with it's objective merit, would be a 4/10. There's a bit of irony there too, regarding the content of this film.
Which is? Family goes on vacation outside of NYC on spur of the moment choice by Mom. While on vacation a series of unexpected events asks very interesting questions about world changing events happening outside of everyones control. Family one is introduced to family two - and the two families get to know each other, and speculate on what is going on.
If I have one major critique of this film, it would be regarding all the supernatural type stuff that happens. It feels unnecessary and forced - ironically often presented with iffy computer graphics. There's an especially moving shot from the Earths moon, that to me? Does not achieve it's intended result. It's almost like writer/director wanted to add myth like, exaggerated quality to the film to uplift the content, but for me? It did the opposite. These moments just make me ask the wrong questions, and gets my own speculation going in more fantasy type possibilities, that I think? Were not intended.
Via the films perspective, the viewer is always in the same place as the characters we follow. And they never know the exact truth. It is a very interesting film making approach that I think adds intrigue, but also leaves many unanswered questions.
I do think this movie has some hidden depth with regard to characters, their choices, interactions, and how they grow in a relatively short period of time. I will likely re-watch this movie at some point to more analytically approach depth of content.
Ultimately, it's a really well made movie with solid performances by a good cast. Regardless of some the frustrating content? Well worth watching.