Change Your Image
wpirotte
Reviews
Land's End (1995)
pretty good show but maybe failed for a reason
The acting and production are good to very good, there is an adequate supply of eye candy, and the basic plots are basic tropes. What's not to like? Plot holes, blind alleys, major plot points that are obvious but still only implied, and, my pettiness is exposed, truly dumb errors. Telling us we can fish for 200 lb marlin when marlin hit around 2000 lb. Pretending a GTO, which is a Pontiac, is the same thing as a Camaro. And that is not some minor silliness, since a cop actually tells them the registration is wrong, so the subject of car identification gets glaring attention. Or inattention, as it were. These errors do not rise to the level of a spoiler alert and they certainly do not hurt the plots, which have their own problems noted above. Okay. On a more basic level, the ocean and beach scenery is breathtaking, the Mexican mafia is very civil, and the FBI is not stalking PTA meeting folks. On the other hand, the FBI had just finished the disaster of Waco, Texas a couple of years earlier, so it was bad to see a crime show with the sitcom sub theme that the FBI is made up of morons... instead of dangerous thugs.
It's Florida, Man (2024)
and THIS is why we have liberal tears
Yeah, I know my title may seem like a leap, but I am the highly trained product of thousands of hours of crime, police, spy, forensic, FBI (cough), CSI, Castle / Monk, etc viewing. This has enabled me to connect dots, link the links, and merge the clues. Also to see the sophomoric effort to denigrate the common man, slyly refusing to tell the truth about whether the true story is even true, lie about absolutely everything in the world, and launch the various seemingly innocuous "joke" insults at presumably innocent points in time, like, say, 2024. But karma has prevailed. Like the Beverly Hillbillies and Green Acres, the elite snobs are outsmarted by the peasants. Only the plot is no longer on TV. It has come home to roost in real life. The strawman Florida peasant is, in fact, smarter that the entirety of Hollywood. In real life.
"If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less" suddenly has more than a few meanings. Weep some more, my lady.
Heroes (2006)
reverse spoiler
I am writing after a mere 4 episodes in season one and I probably have nothing to say that has not been said by others in terms of praise and admiration. Still, writing this review 13 or so years after it ended, I am aware of the various doom and gloom disappointments in the show as it progressed. And I am here to either defend this or to heap additional blame. For years if not decades, the Hollywood habit has been to destroy beauty. I am not talking about sucking franchises dry with woke agendae, although that certainly is one of the symptoms. I am talking about the deliberate or accidental process of adding needless complexity, darkness, conflict, and unhappiness of all kinds. This even happens, remarkably, with sitcoms. It happens in every genre. But Heroes was destined for this destruction from its inception, because Hollywood hates virtue. What is most interesting about this process is that Hollywood will actually break its own craftsmanship rules, ie, continuity, in order to pursue the goal. Whether this is laziness, stupidity, or contempt for the consumer probably doesn't matter. From Young Sheldon to Game of Thrones, from New Girl to House to House of Cards to Cheers to Friends, this mechanism runs from fairly subtle to brutally obvious. I don't know when this started but I don't think, for instance, that Bonanza pulled this crap. In more recent times, Big Bang may have actually reversed the formula, moving from sad selfish characters to radically improved versions of themselves.
Anyway, most say that Heroes started well and couldn't maintain. Some say it pulled out of the nosedive in later seasons.
I shall see.
Música (2024)
trying to recommend
So I see these repeated ads on Prime to watch what appears to be a very creative show, on Prime. When I go to Prime it is literally nowhere to be found in the features and cues. I happened to remember the name of the movie and found it. I am only bringing this up because it is profoundly bad marketing. Perhaps it irritated me to the point that this review will not be fair. But I expected all kinds of special effects which never came, sound track stuff which wound up being merely spastic and sporadic, and some original and innovative rhythm stuff which wound up being, instead, dated and boring.
Okay.
There was a martial arts movie made two decades ago with a better STOMP scene. There are better flash mobs in Modern Family. There is radically better music in Dexter. So we are left with two attractive but not gorgeous girls, a droll puppet, and,strangely, a very engaging but still unoriginal mom. Without Smoove, there is nothing to make me recommend the movie.
Fantastic Four (2015)
A study in scarlet
Red in the financial results, red in the face, and apparently source material un red. Okay, that last red was a reach. I literally have never read (I am using literally correctly and playing on words both) any F4 stuff. I have no basis for judging continuity, fidelity, or any of the usual stuff that a true fan might have. So why did I watch it at all? Well, I am in love with Kate Mara. That's pretty much it. If I still had my Netflix subscr I probably would have looked up the house of cards episodes. So you could call me a nearly blank slate as a movie reviewer on this one. There I was, trundling along, and I slowly discovered that each of Kate's buds were so irritating that I was amazed.
I never liked the ones I knew, and the new faces made me wonder what kind of favors were created or called in for them to get hired. What other reviewers have called lack of chemistry I would call ionic repulsion. So then I did a Wikipedia review review (man, I am so clever tonight!) and found that the studio, the personnel, and even my beloved Kate, were in nearly constant conflict, struggle, and just weirdness. This movie pretty much derailed the wunderkind Trank's career, and it sounds like he was quite mean to Mara. This may well be the stupidest review I have ever written. But the movie was stupider. And the movie started it.
Twisted (2004)
enjoyable for all of the wrong reasons
In the last few years, as Hollywood has finally admitted its long standing hatred for those of us who line its pockets, most of us still have a childlike loyalty to the individual actors. Add to this the fact that Hollywood is the world's expert in creating illusion, of suspending disbelief, of seamlessly blending fantasy with reality, fact with fiction, belief with wish, and truth with evil deception. So a person can have an absolutely clear understanding of what Hollywood actually represents and still watch his old favorites with great pleasure. Call it denial. Call it compartmentalization. Call it intentional blindness. Then, suddenly, you get the likes of Ashley Judd, whose politics are so over the top that the reality crashes through with stunning clarity. And we get Double Jeopardy, Twisted, and perhaps a few other films where we can take genuine joy in her character's misfortune. Okay. I am done. Now to the movie: Actually very well done until the Third Act. It's like going to the most expensive restaurant in Paris and then finding out that the menu is exclusively composed of off brand crackers and out of date canned whipped cheese. All at 500 dollars an ounce. PS - the Paul actor from Dexter plays his usual part, but it predates Dexter. Hmmmmmm.
The Chronicles of Riddick (2004)
nearly perfect
The first time I saw this movie, I was nearly overwhelmed by the combination of grotesque image shock and the accompanying psychological shock. This is fairly rare, as most movies have neither, or only one of the two kinds of shock. I had the same kind of reaction to the 1984 Dune and the over the top Event Horizon, although EH is really designed to be a straight up horror flick. Anyway, the special effects and completely original 3 head icon struck me as stunningly beautiful, and there were little bonuses if you recognized the athletic girl cop from Dexter and, of course, Urban and Newton. My only objections, ultimately, were the action scenes where you could not tell which side was doing what. The Lord Marshall struck me as somewhat cartoonish, but I am being petty. The music was magnificent. The movie accomplished the goal of telling a story without any plot holes. As a redemption story, it did a good job, albeit without an actual ending. But all of this analysis may miss the point. All science fiction is inevitably about the present, and the dark threat of a multi level death culture attempting to wipe out humanity is something much more obvious 20 years after the movie was made.
Open Range (2003)
better in retrospect but still fine
Costner had not yet hit his stride as an actor, but his progress from the days of Dances and Water is still impressive. And, yes, the appearance of Water World supporting actors Coates and Jeter was lovely. But there are two things that stand out about this movie: it is measured and professional, and it is slow. I mean, really slow. Now, lest that come out as negative, compare it to MOST modern movies. They are frenzied, confusing, full of meaningless plot twists, excessive violence, actual continuity errors, and heavily dependent on special effects, screen jumps/cuts/etc. Character development is often lacking and action sequences rarely move the actual plot forward. So this is a finely crafted old style Western...but it is also an old style plot. Bad guys die, good guys live, and love is platonic and triumphant.
Lethal Weapon (2016)
Ach, Riggs, we hardly knew ye
As a less than fanatic fan of the Lethal Weapons movies, I discovered the TV series very recently and certainly by accident. The original movies always struck me as trite, and both Gibson and Glover lent a kind of star power which got in the way of the plot. I always found Glover's raspy delivery to be quite irritating. Off the top of my head, I can think of no other actor with a similar impediment. So...the TV series is radically better, at every level. Wayans and Crawford create a better team. Surprisingly, they are better at both silliness and drama itself. I am basking in this discovery, and, after viewing a mere two episodes, I find out that they chopped off their own arm by firing Crawford. Why, you ask? What little I can garner only serves to convince me that the real story is not even close to the official story. So either Crawford is many tons worse than we have been told, or he was railroaded by other people. In either case, the true lethal weapon is ego. We just don't know which ego.
Professionals (2020)
a very odd kettle of fish
First, I have to admit than tubby Brendan is disturbing to watch. Along with his weight gain I see a tangible decrease in energy and depth of effort in fulfilling a pretty un-challenging role. But all my conventional analysis ends there. The show is weirdly engaging, but not well written. The violence is deliberately muted, and the gorgeous girls (several of them) are modestly dressed. So sex and gore are barely on the table at all. But the biggest surprise is that we are transparently set up to think that the billionaire is Musk...and then, nothing happens related to that effort. I can't tell you whether Hollywood hated Musk as far back as 2020 like they hate him today, but there is no actual attack on him in any case. I digress. In essence, this is a low key low stakes spy show with some interesting new faces and one bloated old one.
The Time Machine (2002)
coulda been great
It is a matter of fact that HG Wells' novels have given rise to a very large number of movies and remakes of movies, some faithful, some not, and with a generally high level of appeal and financial success. This particular movie starts with a very firm framework, adds some cute modern tweaks, smashes through with spectacular special effects, and, ultimately, fails. There are logical, technological, and common sense reasons for this, but each of them comes back to bad writing. How did the 19th century artifacts remain pristine for 800,000 years? How did the overloaded machine destroy all of the monsters and not all of the victims? Why are there sweeping accusations that the time machine itself, or its inventor, led to the bad stuff? Did the protagonist need food and a porta potty during his travels? The first hint that the movie was in trouble was multiple directors resigning. Even the potentially good writing fell short since there were certainly some possibilities of explanation which were not exploited. No, ultimately, it was just like a Bond movie, or a super hero movie, where the last several minutes are just explosions, fire, and mayhem. To its credit, these minutes were not excessive.
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989)
Lo these many years
Like most people, I have never been a fan of this particular installment of the original movies and fully believe the rumors that Shatner blackmailed his way into the writing and directing. Still and all, in comparison with a myriad of bad writing and directing of Star Trek products, including the rebooted movies and the multiple debacles of the multiple recent TV series, it is curiously refreshing. Kirk is thoroughly Kirk, and the mild if irritating blasphemies of the movie are more like listening to an immature teenager than anything else I can think of. Considering how far our culture has since fallen, and, indeed, how completely Star Trek has since fallen, I have elevated my rating to a whopping six points. It is a weird thing to praise this movie, since it may well have been a sign-post on the way down to where we are today. But maybe it was just the opposite - a well meant but weak commentary on questions of its own day.
In Restless Dreams: The Music of Paul Simon (2023)
the bar is just too high
Let me begin by confessing that Simon was a source of tremendous comfort during my adolescence, my primary guitar teacher, me being a self taught guitarist, and the single most direct influence on my own musical creations. I can do a few things on the guitar because of learning by ear (no tabs, no internet) that few guitarists can do. And the backdrop to all of this was what I believed to be a strongly human ethic as evidenced in at least a few of his songs. Alas, the fire disappeared over the years. No one writes anything like the protest songs of old. Remember that Scarborough Fair had an antiwar counter melody? I will refrain from reciting the obvious reasons for this. However, there is still a weird thing that is bugging me. The transformation of Sounds of Silence from a folky niche piece to a gigantic hit is covered in this documentary, and it is covered wrong. Simon did not know they were doing it, he sure as heck did not give anyone permission, and the entire coverage discounts the massive luck or divine destiny which he was blessed with. There are also bizarre issues regarding Simon's recognition of the inspiration for the Seven Psalms, but, hey, we all get old. Why am I being so hard on Paul?
To whom much is given, much is expected.
Scandal (2012)
gets an 8 but for all the wrong reasons
Years ago I watched this entire series at the behest of a relative. Revisiting it lately is a sort of unexpected journey. On the one hand, we see one of the intermediate waves of the Hollywood agenda, such agenda now in the process of completely destroying Hollywood artistically, financially, and professionally. On the other hand, virtually every episode has a little morality play, and reworks tried and true tropes like a carnival barker. But the thing I totally missed back in the day is that this is another Sex In The City series, presenting vacuous characters with such skillful charm that most of us dupes mistake them for brave, glamorous, beautiful, and intelligent. This kind of deceptive technique is, literally, writing at its best and deepest, or a complete accident because the writers are so bereft of self-awareness. But, alas, I do have an actual gripe. Kerry Washington and her writers/directors fall into this bizarre sing song rhythm in the dialog of most of the shows which can only be appreciated if you binge watch, fall asleep, and then half wake up. It is at once hypnotic and sophomoric, and ultimately so annoying it feels like a cheesy laugh-track. Okay, I just had to get that off my chest. Lastly, and finally, the guy who plays the Prez, who ALWAYS plays a slimeball or worse, does an excellent job at being a despicable cowardly horn-dog. My only question is why he would allow this typecasting, since his family is Hollywood Royalty.
Die Hard (1988)
watched it for Rickman
All things considered, the sub plots are what carried the movie. Or should I say the supporting actors' contributions far exceeded their apparent importance to the plot. We have at least a half dozen self important windbags and, get this, not all of them are men! William Atherton delivers his usual brand of arrogant moronity, and the whole movie is peppered with potshots at dumb law enforcement, but it is the leadership which is being targeted, not the organizations per se. Still, the FBI is an object of contempt, with no love lost when a couple of them meet their doom. Of course, the modern FBI practically defies parody, having lost its way so utterly that even good intentions have disappeared. And, like 95 per cent of movies made in the last 50 years, the super masculine guy is required to acknowledge his toxicity. Anyway, the most fascinating aspect of this fairly predictable movie is that Willis was not even in the top 15 choices. But I watched it for Rickman. We all miss Alan.
Ava (2020)
why so negative?
In a field over-run with cliches and overworked tropes, most of us consumers just lower our expectations and have a good time. The Wick movies are almost devoid of plot and everyone adores them. But for reasons I can not even make a good guess at, THIS movie ran afoul of not only the imdb crowd, but the rotten tomatoes crowd, who gave the movie low scores, AND the audience and pre-purchased critics pretty much agreed with each other, a rare occurrence when the hate is flowing. I feel like I have walked into a country club where the busboy got fired and everyone knows why except me. So...let's look at the movie - fine performances, famous names, consistent writing, great production, and no plot holes at all. I will admit that Common let me down a little. The only other thing worth mentioning is that even on imdb, the views and opinions are very very small.
Jessica Chastain was a household word for a while, and starred in two different space movies which did very well (and were practically made at the same time). Has she fallen out of favor? This movie score is not a hill to die on and I am not even a fan of hers. Still, in an industry which is currently (last 8 years?) renowned for bad products, AVA is professional and entertaining.
Paul (2011)
another surprise
If this movie was EVER promoted, I guess I missed it. Its very existence was a surprise, as was the use of many extremely familiar actors. The acting, directing, production were strong to very strong. However, there was a plot twist at the end which was absolutely amateur, with no foreshadowing, hints, or consistency with the entirety of the rest of the movie. Spoiler rules dictate I not name the offending thing. Okay, apart from that, we have the obligatory ridicule of Christianity and Christians. Hey, THAT'S not a spoiler since it is worked into every movie possible, and a few where it has to be glued in (like the second Zoolander). But making Paul adhere to John 15:13 creates an interesting question: do these Hollywooders even KNOW where their source material comes from?
Road House (2024)
A kinder gentler road house
Perhaps it is an indictment of what I have become or maybe just the fading of memory, but I remember the Patrick Swayze movie as being excessive and sophomoric, and the Jake movie seems curiously well balanced. Of course the big shock of the Schwaz movie was that polite and reserved girls liked it at all, let alone the fawning that it got. Obviously HE was the big draw, and if he had been hellraiser himself, the girls would have liked it. So.. is it possible that Jake's movie IS less violent?
I think it is the constant banter of jokes and the fact that ALL of the villains are intentionally funny that makes the whole crazy thing somehow mild. Anyway, I loved it, and the pacing is perfect. The negative reviews add to my enjoyment. They all raise perfectly good criticisms but seem to entirely miss the point of the movie.
Mr. Monk's Last Case: A Monk Movie (2023)
on the other other hand
My initial reaction to this movie was that it had a clever opening, a weak second act, and an emotionally powerful ending which lacked the intellectual punch we expect from Monk. It was a tear jerker crime story, which is odd if not unique. Then...on further thought, and after reading reviews by smarter folks than me, I realized that the incurable disease of sequel milking was thriving right before my eyes, complete with the same disrespect for continuity which has crashed at least half a dozen powerful franchises in the last couple of decades. Still, seeing the original Nurse-lady (who also reminds me of my wonderful late Aunt in many ways), and not having to listen to Randy Newman's obnoxious theme, made this entire experience quite pleasant.
JFK: What the Doctors Saw (2023)
The Betrayal that started it all
I was 8 years old when JFK was killed so it would be ludicrous to pretend that I always suspected the treason. However, within just a few years I knew that that Warren Commission was pure nonsense. A few years after that I became versed in the why and how of assassinations (for instance, always kill the assassin). Over the years I have read or watched at least 4 exhaustive investigations. Strangely, US News & World Report, a respected conservative magazine, published a childishly amateur support of the Warren Report in the mid 90's, after it had already been discredited from both public and private sources. So I have been, for decades, aware of everything in this special: lies, fabrication, suppression, coverup, legal violations, planted evidence, Media cooperation, the entire inside job uniparty treason - except one thing - the accusation that the Russians did it. Wow....it seems like the News never actually changes. But there is a more important issue - whether you have absolute corroboration, like the Gulf of Tonkin fraud, or merely overwhelming evidence, like 9/11 stuff, the American people will never trust their government or media on any major issue again.
The Pelican Brief (1993)
Strangely Prescient with weird errors
Never a big fan of Grisham's accuracy, I was still irritated that he thinks the FBI is in charge of SCOTUS security and that this silly and unnecessary lie is repeated multiple times. But generally the movie is wonderfully written and flawlessly performed. I am not sure Denzel has EVER made a bad movie, and Roberts has her own magic. I was amused that three of the government villains are played by those guys with traitor-liar faces (Goldwynn, Atherton, Heald) who usually play slimeball roles. But where the movie really hits home is the killing of various crusaders, witnesses, and inconvenient folk. Inexplicable arkancides, muggings, etc were far from over in 1993, when the movie was made. But perhaps more importantly, the utter corruption that we see in modern day DOJ agencies was hanging around 30 years ago. Still, I doubt that Grisham would ever write a novel where the FBI identified concerned parents as terrorists.
Anna (2019)
The best Nikita yet
One of the ongoing burdens of a genre, any genre, is that copies, sequels, and assorted imitations are expected to do everything the predecessor(s) did, and then to make improvements. Of course, strict adherence to this concept would produce virtually identical movies - but sloppy adherence has produced nearly identical movies, for which there is an abundance of evidence. Enter Anna - using two primary tropes,
1. The Nikita syndrome and
2. The wobbling time step - where you go 3 years ago, 12 months ago, etc and then bounce back to the present, sometimes with a huge twist in the middle.
Anna performs flawlessly, with extreme attention to wonderfully violent fight scenes and nicely acted interludes of lust, depression, anger etc. Of course, Helen Mirren is beyond perfection in her own little hobbit-like character, dragging on cigarettes behind a wall of absolute stoicism.
All in all, a masterpiece, which reeks of originality by the very fact that no part of it is original.
Appaloosa (2008)
almost captures the old westerns
With a truly stellar cast, a nice soundtrack, great production values, and perfect acting, what else could you want? There is something missing. Is Viggo too noble? Is Renee too predictably wayward? Is Ed too naive? I think maybe it is the pacing. Stuff happens at a steady walk. There aren't any gallops, or even fast trots. But there is a secondary issue. The plot is absolutely bereft of surprises. Part of the charm of the old westerns was that we saw various plots play out for the first time. So Westerns which come after the old ones can either borrow, steal, or improvise new plots. Despite the fact that I adore most of the cast and have my own private hostility towards Renee (which is deliciously justified by her character in this movie) I find myself feeling subtly disappointed. Oh, well, subtly disappointed is not really even a bad thing.
The Professionals (1966)
unexpectedly bad
Yeah, I get it. Famous actors. Famous writer/director. But 47 minutes in, I find myself struggling to explain plot line after plot line. The Mexican bad guys in the first two slaughters are like comedy teams of ineptitude. The second group of three are both gullible and dull. Then a revolver in the scene turns into a 45. Then a very interesting and rather long sequence of stringing long amounts of dynamite wire is demolished by a speech in which we are told that a couple feet of fuse are all that need to be lit. With a match. WTF? But the next scene of unbearable contradiction involved the Colorado's, a group of apparent Mexicans who killed a bunch of townspeople. This story leaves us wondering who the government force was, who the rebels were, whether the rebels were in fact total cowards, whether the government was in fact American. Since Jack Palance's guys kill the Colorado's, and since the Colorado's are bad, this appears to make Palance, aka Jesus, a good guy. And yes, each of these crazy writing gaffes made me rewind and review (something not available in 1966 to the consumer), so I am positive they are just tragically bad editing or writing. I am debating at this point whether to fast forward to where the inevitable wife left husband she was not kidnapped point comes in for a landing. But the best use of this movie is the basis for a mystery science 3000 episode.
Great British Ships (2018)
Maybe the best historical documentary in history
As a long time student of history in general, and British naval vessels from the age of sail specifically, I am usually disappointed with the accuracy and thoroughness of movies, documentaries and even TV series. I remember the History Channel used to make valiant effort, and its demise into mere episodes of modern fisherman and truckers was literally preceded by a descent into amateurs and hacks, which must have been evidence of some gigantic political agenda in which budgets were slashed. There were a few bright spots over the years, like Monte Markham's series, but people like Michael Hirst sold us out with apparent enthusiasm. So...this series not only reviews the best stuff I have ever seen or read, it explores alternative theories, and is simply bursting with professionalism. And yes, I learn a lot of new stuff with every episode. It's enough to reduce my ego. Which is a good thing.