mkcrbl Reviews

My Father is a Hero (1995)

To summarize, quite good and worthwhile

[8/10 · 21 March 2016]

I won't get into details and will just say that it's a worthwhile martial arts film; plenty of strong fighting that only people in truly top fitness, plus skill training, should ever consider being involved in or with. And, there's the warm family touch.

Johnny is quite a young lad in this film, his fighting and courage choreography being I guess top-notch. I don't know filmmaking from experience, so based on this, I think this youth is amazing. At one point, he's attacked by bully kids at his school and he pins the main bully to a wall, with his leg nicely lifted up so that his foot is pressing against the bottom of the chin of the main bully. I don't have such flexibility. If I tried anything of the like, then I'd surely be leaning the back backwards a lot more than Johnny did, for he was almost perfectly upright, except for the leg used to pin the main bully against the wall. I don't have that kind of flexibility and imagine that this Johnny lad does; choreographed, or not.

With that said, I think that anyone who likes martial arts films that have good morals against criminal ones, plus a touch of love, well, it's a worthwhile film.

It's interesting, is thriller for sure, well choreographed, and action, plus the touch of love.

Why this film has only 6.6/10 for average IMDb user rating is a little "beyond me". I'll give it 8/10 and am not sure that it shouldn't be more but 8/10 seems at least reasonable for a start, given that I'm not a film expert. One thing for sure is that I'd recommend this film to anyone I know to like martial arts with moral values and "a touch of love" or, if you prefer, romance.

As I said at the start, I won't get into details, meaning technical kind. This review is just a general kind or a "rough" overview, say. Were any mistakes made in any parts of the film? I don't know and also don't care about it, for this is just entertainment, or as is said in French, "divertissement".

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)

Different and very good

[9/10 · 9 March 2015]

To keep rating simple for my vote, let's just say that I'll give this film 9/10, but don't ask me what I'd say for what's lacking, for I wouldn't know what to say. It's a generously long film, no commercial breaks, if a person wants to call those interruptions breaks anyway, and I definitely am not qualified to criticize this film in any respect. Still, I'll give 9/10 rather than 10/10, to be conservative, say. :)

People should, however, learn the basics of the story before seeing this film in order to get the most satisfaction from it. I read Tolkien's story in book form and later saw the three-part film for LOTR. So, seeing this film directed by Peter Jackson, I had no pre-study to do. One thing viewers need to know is the importance of the ring. I guess that it is the most elementary part of the story. Otherwise, people can naturally wonder what the fuss is about a ring even if it appears to be made of gold. If it's supposed to be gold, then that's not what's important about it. What is, is the magical or mystical power that it provides to whoever is wearing it and that this power is related, say, to evil. This becomes obvious in this film, but only far into it.

Great film though.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)

It's just entertainment meant to amuse rather than being about a serious topic

[7/10 · 7 March 2015]

There're plenty of people seriously criticizing this movie that I watched several years ago and found to be amusing. From what I recall, it has great scenery, as well as amusing action and goofiness. That's OK, for it's what it evidently is supposed to be to begin with. People seeking films seriously produced about serious or real topics aren't going to find this with Indiana Jones and other films mostly based on imagination and seekers of absolute perfection with movies aren't going to find many examples. At best, there're very few.

I think Roger Ebert's review (linked in the IMDb page for external reviews) is very right. Many people who saw the earlier Indiana Jones films won't find this 2008 one great or as good, but it still provides entertainment.

The review says, quote: "... True, "Raiders of the Lost Ark" stands alone as an action masterpiece, but after that the series is compelled to be, in the words of Indiana himself, "same old same old." Yes, but that's what I want it to be. ..."

So, even Harrison Ford was a little/mildly critical of this "Crystal Skull" film and, apparently anyway, the whole series. He evidently didn't strongly deride and just wasn't super enthusiastic about it. That's fitting for this film series, which provides amusement.

The completely non-credible and also illogical content can be perceived negatively or positively. In the positive sense, viewers will be able to go with the film's flow, as illogical as it may seem; just going for the wild ride, say. After all, the movie is only intended for entertainment.

Most people won't see these films for any reason other than just amusement. Some may see the films for studious purposes, but most seeing will do it only for entertainment.

IMDb says that this film is action and adventure for genres, but it's also fantasy; very much based on imagination and not the real world.

7/10 is my conservative vote. To give a higher rating, it'd be necessary to see the film again; but, the it was amusing for me and 7/10 is surely not too high for this piece.

Zero Dark Thirty (2012)

Propaganda, unproven story

[2/10 · 30 August 2013]

I'll give this 2/10, for according to others, the film was fairly well made. But it's balony. There's absolutely ZERO proof that Osama/Usamah bin Laden was even alive in 2011, much less killed by US forces that year. There's also ZERO proof that he had anything to do with the attacks of 9/11 and some Washington people even say that he was involved with the 1993 WTC bombing, which he had nothing to do with, though the FBI most certainly did and even the NYT reported this. This film clearly has been intended to give a boost to propaganda; propaganda of deception/deceit. It's only suitable for the fan boys and girls who like to believe and/or promote lies about the real world. Have your feast, dining on a bed of lies.

Serpico (1973)

In part phony movie

[7/10 · 7 March 2013]

I'll give a 7/10 for this movie, but only because it's entertainment.

Several years ago and at frankserpico.com, a website that was supposed to have been created by relatives of Frank Serpico, former NYPD officer, I read an article that was supposed to have been written by him and it debunked some aspects of the movie "Serpico" of 1973. Try to find that piece today, good luck. He's provided or presented some talks since 2000 and he didn't disparage this movie, but you have to listen to the real Frank Serpico. Unfortunately the server for frankserpico.com isn't presently accessible. There's a blog, but it's apparently in Canada and who know who is hosting the website. The article I had read about the movie was supposed to be by him.

And it was considerably more different about the attempt on his life than what he's said in some talks since 2000. The article described the two NYPD officers that were with him when he was shot in the face as if they were part of a set-up against his life. Either he didn't describe the situation that way when he spoke at some assemblies since 2000, or it didn't sound the same way to me.

In any case, the movie "Serpico (1973)" apparently is a docu-drama that contains some falsehoods and only he could say what's true in this, and not. Someone should find a way to communicate with him about this; BUT, he provided talks since 2000 and there're videos at YouTube for this, including about this movie.

Knowing (2009)

Very fine film

[8/10 · 4 February 2013]

This is a very fine movie. Plenty of people are like brats. They never stop griping. They can have everything in the world given to them and will continue to find some excuses to gripe.

Reasonable people will enjoy this film and Ebert is right in his critique and rating. Many people will complain about one thing or another, or multiple things, but it's a fine movie, certainly recommendable. And people who mostly have complaints about this film should produce their own version and then make it promptly available to expert critics to get their feedback, before releasing the film to the public.

Is it a decent, worthwhile film for entertainment? Sure. Are some people going to find excuses to complain? Sure. Complaining and doing nothing beneficial is a common human characteristic. This movie doesn't deserve derision. It's fine.

The Whistleblower (2010)

Very good film and that's while it's incomplete

[8/10 · 3 February 2013]

I'm not an expert for critiquing films, poetry, and so on, for while I certainly have personal views, I don't have any specific education at school or otherwise for being able to produce anything more than my own opinion regarding film, theatre, et cetera. But, and imo, I believe that this film merits 8 or 9 of 10, no less than 8.

It's a slow-moving story, so people looking for thrills aren't going to find this film fitting; but, it's well done and isn't complete. It only "scratches the surface".

There's much more to forced sex trafficking that happened in the Balkans (and elsewhere). According to some of my readings about this happening in the Balkans, even phony members of the Franciscan Order of the Roman Catholic Church were involved, and it wasn't only with women of adult ages. It was also with children of 10 to 12 years of age. We get a little of those ages in this film with some of the photographs of the enslaved women when they were years younger than they appear to be as walking, talking, and suffering adults, but it's only photos that leave it inferred that these women were very young when first forced into this slavery.

Some of the readings also said that this wasn't only with girls. Instead, it was with young girls and boys, and that's certainly credible. Generals, colonels, and military officers of lower ranks, police, political dignitaries, religious clergymen, ..., apparently people of all of these types were criminally involved.

The film is very good, but it leaves off short. Knowing what followed in Britain after this criminality was exposed using the BBC would've been an interesting addition to the film. But, and as the film says when ending, many of the same culprits continued to get government contracts worth a lot of money and therefore have been treated with impunity.

Any government that does this renders itself complicit in covering up serious crimes against humanity. BBC interviewed some official who basically denied the gravity of the situation, but should we be surprised that humanity has been left short of justice by such people? No. Instead, it would be surprising if the opposite was the truth about reality.

True justice, here, is something most people can only dream about, for presence of it barely exists in a non-micro understanding of this world. At a micro. level, people can imagine that they have real justice and peace, but it only lasts for as long as these people don't step outside of their bubbles. Hence, many injustices are committed and we sometimes have people who sincerely try to make a difference.

I thought that the central female police officer would end up dead, terminated, but it evidently didn't happen. She isn't portrayed as someone who had an extraordinary amount of wit, but we do get a little of that in this film. She had some, but the film had me thinking that she was going to bumble, say, her work and she didn't.

Rape: Reportedly, this act happens to women and men in the US military. There've been several reports about this over the past decade. Both women and men in the US forces are subjected to rape. We mostly read about this happening to women, but it reportedly happens nearly as much to men. Given that it factually happens within the US military, alone, it takes little to realize that this is an example of a much broader problem.

And UN "peacekeeping" is a falsehood.

Detective Dee: The Mystery of the Phantom Flame (2010)

Entertaining film

[7/10 · 19 September 2012]

I got a kick out of or from this film, and it's definitely better than a lot of what plays in movie cinemas. I looked at the movie listing for a local cinema that shows 9 movies every week, if not every day, some months ago. Not a single 1 of the 9 had/has any favorable reviews on the WWW; not among reviews I checked anyway. So, of course I didn't go. When paying around $9 to see a film, then it better be good.

I will add a little commentary about the closing paragraph of the review posted by Harry T. Yung from Hong Kong.

Quote: "While the main focus of this movie is entertainment, it does have a historical perspective as Wu, the first empress of China, is among the most controversial historical figures. One thought-provoking question would be that if a depot is capable and the people general benefit, does it really matter if he or she is fiendishly cruel and ruthless? The movie misses a good opportunity to underscore this theme for the audience to ponder over. In the final scene when Dee pleads with the villain not to assassin Wu, the reason he gives is that the method of assassination employed would mean killing a lot of innocent people in the process. The movie would have gone up a notch if, instead, Dee points out that despite Wu's short-comings (including, sigh, being a woman), she is the best ruler they had at the time, and killing her would be doing the entire empire a disservice." 1) "Wu's short-comings (including, sigh, being a woman)"? Ugh. Ya gotta be kidding. Why is being a woman a short-coming? 2) What's the real history related to this film's story? What's factually based about the empress and the detective, plus the character who wanted to assassinate the empress? (Of course I know that the CGI and wires stuff didn't exist in the true history.) This isn't a discussion forum, so the questions are rhetorical. If someone posted answers, then there's no way to be notified about this, so the questions unfortunately remain of rhetorical genre.

The Possession (I) (2012)

Not intense like the Exoricst but still a fine film

[7/10 · 16 September 2012]

As some others have said, the acting and cinematography are good, and the plot is slow-paced. I think the plot is okay, just that the pace is definitely slow.

Anyone expecting intensity such as in Exorcist and wants nothing or little less for intensity will be disappointed, but I read Roger Ebert's review (he understandably gave this a 3.5/4 rating) so was prepared for a slow-paced film. Adding a little more to it that would give the film an MPAA rating of R or certainly above PG-13 would've been good. Nonetheless, if only renting the film, rather than paying $9 to see it in a movie theatre, the going price in Quebec, Canada, then it's fine enough. I certainly wouldn't want to pay $9 but found it to be recommendable for watching at home for much less cost.

It fits in the category of horror films, but it definitely isn't at all intense for this genre. Yet, if more was to be added in this respect, then I think the film would need to be made longer, rather than trying to fit more horror into the same runtime and therefore reduce character and plot development.

Overall fine film, but if you ever come across a demon, then for goodness sake, don't imprison it in a box that someone might someday open. Instead, order the demon back to hell and to remain there. If you want to play with a "Jack In the Box", then just go to Toys'R Us store and buy a toy kind.

Kosovo: Can You Imagine? (2009)

Very good documentary, and there's a more recent film from the same director-creator

[8/10 · 28 August 2012]

Putoestupido, I will say, has a fitting username. Stupido was the "quality" of his comment or so-called review.

Scoottie wrote, "This documentary continues the great works that have documented the tragic genocide against the Serbs for many years. ...".

Look for the more recent documentary by the same creator and director, the film, "The Weight of Chains (2010)", which is a little over two hours long. IMDb has a page for this more recent film, and SerbianYouthLeague uploaded the full video at YouTube. The director and creator of the film also posted an embedded copy at TV.GlobalResearch.ca.

Boris Malagurski has been also working on trying to produce a sequel to the latter 2010 film and there's a trailer for it. The trailer, a little over two minutes long, indicates that it will be a very good documentary, if it can be ever completed. There's a funding issue and donations are needed to be able to complete the creation of the sequel, "The Weight of Chains 2". The trailer can be found at TV.GlobalResearch.ca, or directly at YouTube.

For "The Weight of Chains (2010)", SerbianYouthLeague also uploaded some deleted portions at YouTube. People just need to search for "The Weight Of Chains | Deleted Scene". There're 3 deleted scenes, and they're each about two minutes long.

There're many other videos. There's, f.e., the "TalkingStickTV - Michael Parenti - The U.S. War on Yugoslavia" video at YouTube. It's runtime is 1:17:27 and it was uploaded by the TalkingStickTV channel in 2008. It should be interesting. Michael Parenti is one of the dozen or so contributors for "The Weight of Chains (2010)", for which the official website is www.weightofchains.com. There's a Credits page, there, and I guess the brief biographies are for everyone who contributed as speakers in the film.

And there're plenty of other videos regarding what the West has caused to Serbia and the Balkans.