JWJanneck Reviews

Justified (2010–2015)

Game of Thrones in Hicksville

[8/10 · 5 July 2023]

This show is only incidentally a "modern Western", or about some Marshall dispensing swift "justice". It's in essence about the tribal power games of a bunch of Kentucky hicks driven by greed, ambition, and stupidity and only rarely tempered by moral considerations, where conflicts are frequently created by bad, impulsive judgments and decisions, and often solved by the pervasive use of seemingly ubiquitous firearms. In many ways, it's like Game of Thrones, but with less sex (although Olyphant does get to bed his share of attractive females) and nudity. The story lines of the individual episodes are mostly simple, but they get woven into the season's plot which provides a richer substrate, and which makes it great for binge watching. The overall setup is rich and compelling and it will draw you in, the acting is very good, all in all 'd say I enjoy the show. Not sure it can be viewed multiple times, but a first viewing is definitely recommended...

John Wick: Chapter 4 (2023)

Tedious and way too long....

[3/10 · 24 May 2023]

I suppose if you've seen the previous installments, you had to expect this: an overlong sequence of the most absurd action with a massive body count, strung together by the thinnest of plots. If that's your thing, and it would seem it is for many people, then you will likely enjoy this film.

Myself, I got bored after a short while, because there is only so many times I can enjoy watching someone getting offed by a close-range headshot. The nearly three hours exceed that count by quite a margin, the various (interesting) locations, and (vile) opponents that make up said thin plot notwithstanding. After nearly three hours, I was glad this thing was over. I guess it works on a technical level (it *is* well made), but it didn't work for me. I hope it does for you.

Designated Survivor (2016–2019)

First two seasons brilliant, third season lame woke lecturing TV

[5/10 · 13 April 2023]

This show is marked (and marred) by the split between the network seasons 1 and 2 and the Netflix season 3. The first two seasons were high-octane, action-packed and tense political drama, a kind of amalgam of West Wing and 24, during which the Maggie Q character quickly became the center of the action and also the moral focus. The third season was taken over by Netflix, which meant more filthy language (sometimes annoyingly so, because it seemed forced, and I'm quite a potty-mouth myself), and bizarre subplots as if the writers wanted to knock down items from a woke dictionary (we get everything: a gay black couple incl. HIV scare, a trans person, adultery, a woman and a call boy, latinx telenovela stuff, evil big pharma, the whole shebang including plenty allusions to contemporary politics which are likely to be appreciated more by those already on board with the politics of the writers) all this woke education completely buries everything that made the first two seasons great, i.e. The action and (literally) Maggie Q, (SMALL SPOILER AHEAD) whose character is dispatched unceremoniously and pointlessly in the process which also doesn't help this show. In short, Netflix took over a great, enjoyable show and then managed to completely run it into the ground in just a few short episodes. Kudos to the woke writers!

Murder Mystery (2019)

Unfunny, flat comedy --- they made a sequel to this?!?

[3/10 · 13 April 2023]

Cast was okay, Sandler and Aniston can be funny at times. Locations were luxurious, as befits the premise. Only the jokes bombed throughout, which isn't good for a film that is supposed to be a comedy. They were forced, juvenile, and generally unfunny, which made the entire effort forgettable as soon as you got up from your chair during the end credits. Apparently the producers were enamored enough with their effort that they dumped more cash on a sequel, which I read is an improvement over this movie (not that this is a very high bar), but after this I shall probably skip it, as the first installment doesn't offer a lot of opportunity for optimism. You may even consider starting the skipping right here with this one. I would advise you to.

White Elephant (2022)

Even Rooker and Malkovich couldn't save this one.

[1/10 · 28 March 2023]

Watch this only if you are curious about what's the deal with Willis' dementia. Willis cannot act anymore, nasty people might say he never could, but I always liked him, and enjoyed many hours of his acting on screen. This movie, alas, is marred by his inability to fake even the most basic emotions and to speak simple lines convincingly, which is a pity, because he does have a rather important role here. Also a pity is that Rooker and Malkovich also appear on their down-slope, but not quite as far as Willis, and that neither they, nor the always delectable Olga K., could save this turd from being anything but Willis' cinematic obituary. Sure there is a bunch of reasonably well-choreographed violence, much of which Willis uncharacteristically abstains from. But that, too, doesn't save the bacon. If you still need an explicit recommendation: do. Not. Watch. This.

Designated Survivor: #identity/crisis (2019) Season 3, Episode 7

First two seasons brilliant, third season lame woke lecturing TV

[9/10 · 22 March 2023]

This show is marked (and marred) by the split between the network seasons 1 and 2 and the Netflix season 3. The first two seasons were high-octane, action-packed and tense political drama, a kind of amalgam of West Wing and 24, during which the Maggie Q character quickly became the center of the action and also the moral focus. The third season was taken over by Netflix, which meant more filthy language (sometimes annoyingly so, because it seemed forced, and I'm quite a potty-mouth myself), and bizarre subplots as if the writers wanted to knock down items from a woke dictionary (we get everything: a gay black couple incl. HIV scare, a trans person, adultery, a woman and a call boy, latinx telenovela stuff, evil big pharma, the whole shebang including plenty allusions to contemporary politics which are likely to be appreciated more by those already on board with the politics of the writers) all this woke education completely buries everything that made the first two seasons great, i.e. The action and Maggie Q, (SMALL SPOILER AHEAD) whose character is dispatched unceremoniously and pointlessly in the process which also doesn't help this show. In short, Netflix took over a great, enjoyable how and then managed to completely run it into the ground in just a few short episodes. Kudos to the woke writers!

The Transporter (2002)

Didn't age well. Avoid.

[3 January 2023]

I wanted to like this one, being as I am a sucker for Statham movies. But no. Inane dialog, wooden acting, and absurd (and bizarrely choreographed) action just spoil the fun. This feels like an action movie from the 80ies, there is no rhyme or reason to the nonsense in this flick, even by the very modest standards of its genre. I can't believe this absurd flick started a little franchise, although its sequels are a little better, which isn't saying much (it helps that the female leads in them are much hotter in this reviewer's opinion). Even the romantic interest doesn't spice it up, (tiny spoiler) he should simply not have looked in the bag. Not worth it.

Marketing the Messiah (2020)

Entertaining, instructive --- and, how could it be otherwise, polarizing

[9/10 · 1 December 2020]

As you might guess from the title, anybody who is personally bought into the (better: a version of the) religious story of Jesus will not like this movie very much. Which is a pity, in a way, because it does provide a great deal of historical background of that figure and the genesis of its story which could be instructive even to believers. However, its irreverent presentation, its use of humor in places the devout might find inappropriate, and also some of the questions it asks and answers it gives will make it difficult for many Christians to enjoy. They do, however, make it a great little documentary for the rest of us with some interest in those early days of nascent Christianity that many people (including most believers) know precious little about, even though they are really a key to understanding some of the more bizarre facets of that faith --- chiefly among them the central question of this film: how does a fringe cult of a marginalized Middle-Eastern people become the state religion of the empire that executed its founder? Assembling a range of perspectives from a variety of interviews with scholars in the field, and providing some background on the times during which this remarkable development took place, this film attempts to give an answer to this question. Well worth watching.

Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)

Wokeness isn't even its biggest problem.

[3/10 · 18 January 2020]

So, yeah, it's woke. Female warriors, a Latino terminator, a Latina resistance hero, the works. No black guy this time (did Black people somehow got dropped from the identity politics grid?), no gay folks either (although apparently the androgynous vibe of the heroine from the future did register in some circles, so maybe that counts), but yeah, it is politically correct, as seems to be de rigueur in early 21st century educational cinema: all woke and, apparently, pretty broke.

But here's the thing: that's not even the problem. At least not the biggest one. Women had played various major roles in the Terminator universe before, Sarah Connor herself, obviously, there was a Terminatrix or two, so what's the big deal with a female leader of the "resistance"?

The real problem with this installment isn't wokeness, but simply that it's a lousy movie. It really is. The writing is dull and uninspired, the dialog for the most part plodding and unfunny (Arnold has a couple of lines that might make you chuckle, but that's it), the characters (especially the new ones) are vapid, uninteresting, and impossible to relate to, and the acting, especially by Reyes but also Davis, just really, really bad. And that's the long and short of it. The special effects were competent, the fighting well choreographed though ultimately predictable and largely pointless, but as a movie, it was just not a very good one, and also had been done much better almost thirty years ago.

Had the writing been funnier, smarter, more light-footed and ironic, perhaps self-deprecating now and then, had the acting been convincing, the plot been less predictable, and had the characters been more interesting and three-dimensional --- well, it would have been easier to look past the ham-fisted attempts at educating the public in goodthink a la Hollywood. Alas, it was a stinkfest, and a woke one to boot, and it deserves to become a major loss for the studio(s) that produced it, so all is well.

The Enemy Within (2019)

Plonk. The sound of this show hitting my virtual trash can.

[3/10 · 22 April 2019]

I happened in episode 4 of the first season. Up to that point, it wasn't a very good show, but oh well. Bubblegum crime/terror stuff, mediocre acting, plot holes galore, but good enough for putting your mind into screen saver mode. Mostly inoffensive, I would say.

That changed in episode 4. Suddenly, the cast went full Truman Show on the audience, praising some product of the shows sponsor to each other in the most ham-fisted manner, just as Truman's "wife" would interrupt their normal conversation to plug a piece of kitchen equipment or a brand of cocoa. It wasn't just product placement, this was an in-show commercial, with full product name and demo, and my ability to suspend disbelief, which had weathered a good number of sudden character developments, twists, and apparent plot holes, suddenly blew a fuse that I won't be replacing for this show.

I pity the people involved in this mess, I'm sure they feel much worse about it than I do --- all I need to do is just not watch this stuff anymore, while they need to keep producing it. At least they are certainly most handsomely compensated for their troubles.

The Daily Show (1996– )

It used to be extraordinary

[6/10 · 17 December 2015]

Jon Stewart took over a nondescript comedy show and turned it into a venue that aired some of the best political satire on television on nearly a daily basis for about a decade and a half. In a world where politicians and the media that are supposed to cover them seem to compete with each other over who is most morally bankrupt, most corrupt, most cynical, and most stupid, Stewart's show provided moments of relief and sanity and common sense, packaged as comedy around a body of top-notch research.

The Daily Show used to be extraordinary. It spawned a few other shows where former cast members explored interesting variations on the theme of satirizing public life, and might have created or defined a genre in the process. Those days are over.

I tried to like its new host, Trevor Noah. There is a phase of comparison anybody in his position has to overcome, where he is seen as replacing somebody rather than simply a voice of his own. There are all these small differences, some deliberate, others maybe not, that might annoy old fans just because they are different from what they are used to, and wouldn't have been even noticed otherwise (the out-of-breath voice of the announcer in the opening credits, introducing the Moment of Zen standing up, ...). It takes a while to find one's voice in this kind of job, and Noah still looks like he can't quite believe his luck, or how funny the jokes are (even when he messes them up), but it took Stewart a little bit of time to find the Zone of Anger at "the system" necessary for his brand of satire, so maybe Noah just needs more time to get there. All of these things are fixable.

A more serious problem, I think, is that Noah is moved by something less interesting than Stewart. When news people, cornered by public opinion that trusted a comedy show more than what they tried to create, "accused" Stewart of being their (biased) competition, he would insist that his primary motivation was comedy based on the absurdity of the system, rather than a specific political agenda. Many (especially conservative) folks dismissed this as a tactical response, but I think it was essentially true. Of course most viewers of Stewart's show would be "liberal", but I think it could have been watched and enjoyed by a conservative, too, for its irreverent criticism of across-the-aisle stupidity and callousness and Stewart's non-partisan sense of fairness that allowed him to have many productive and interesting conversations with people he deeply disagreed with.

Noah's show is different. His primary motivator isn't comedic wonder at the theater of the absurd that is American public discourse, but a specific political view. He wants viewers to think about things in a certain way, and he has little to offer to those that don't. Where Stewart's classical foe was Fox News, Noah just piles on the Trump, an easy target, but without its refraction in incompetent and biased media only of passing comedic value. Of course, Trump would have found a prominent place in Stewart's show, too, but while we enjoyed laughing at his antics, we would also have learned something about how his story was told to us by our media. Noah tries to emulate the taste of Stewart's show, but without the fiber. He has lost the essence of TDS because his interests are essentially different from Stewart's, and we are just a little poorer for it.

Scandimania (2014– )

You can get a more realistic picture of Scandinavia from an Ikea catalog

[1/10 · 23 February 2014]

If you were to believe this series, Scandinavia is a paradise filled with lush woods and pretty blond people going to fancy restaurants, sitting in open-air hot tubs and occasionally (and humanely!) hunting cow-sized deer-like animals.

HFW, the presenter, and whoever is responsible for the content if that's not the same person, obviously know absolutely nothing about their subject, and really don't bother to learn anything, or even give the impression on knowledge. Fancy restaurants are important to them, as is confirming their stereotypes of Scandinavian life by meeting stereotypical people living it.

There are short moments of breaking through the Ikea image, like when in the Sweden episode HFW talks to a woman from Husby, who lived in Sweden all her life and still feels foreign there. It's only a quick break from serially shooting/enacting Swedish auto-stereotypes (the wonderful equality, the parental leave, shooting moose, outdoor hot tubs, crayfish party, Systembolaget), all of which are of course entirely free of non-white, non-blond(ish) people. Rising inequality is noted, but primarily dealt with by sweeping the camera over the mansions of the rich (and attending the taping of a rich-people-themed soap opera), the short walk through Husby is mostly spent, not on inequality, but on the everyday xenophobia met by that Swedish woman of Middle Eastern descent.

There are many interesting things to say about Scandinavia, and to learn from it, good and bad. But you will hear none of that in these "documentaries." If you are not familiar with the place, they are a waste of time, and if you are, they are highly annoying.

Highlander (1986)

Didn't age well.

[3/10 · 9 August 2013]

After many years I watched again Highlander. I didn't remember much of it, except that the last time I saw it I came away with a so-so kind of impression. Well, this time it was worse. The movie, or I, didn't age well. Probably both.

Obviously, it's an action flick, so the plot is paper thin, something to do with immortals trying to chop each other's heads off for reasons the writers had the good grace to mostly leave in the dark, and at some point the central conflict gets a little more personal anyway. The plot isn't the problem, by the standards of the genre it's as good as any.

And, of course, being made in the 80ies there is only so much one can expect in terms of technical perfection. The fight scenes are a bit tedious, and the special effects funny, but that, too, isn't really the problem.

One problem is that the acting is uniformly bad. In fact, it's been a while since I saw a cast that failed at their jobs in almost perfect harmony. To be fair, the script doesn't provide a awful lot of opportunity for great acting, but all major actors even fail at the most basic emotions, much less the few instances where some complexity might have been nice. In part that is also the fault of script, direction, and photography; a good example is a very emotional moment between our hero and his wife, which is filled with stilted monologue, quick glances at Lambert's expressionless face, and then sweeping landscape shots to illustrate the enormity of the emotion that the actor didn't.

The story itself is confused, and the characters are difficult to care for, and cartoonish. A few immortals pop into (and often quickly out of, in ways that make a mockery of the concept of "immortal") the storyline, but we never really learn much about them (with the exception of a little bit of background on Connery's character). The modern love story is contrived and ludicrous, and as much just a pretext for a little bit of mild nudity and humping as the rest is for the fight scenes. It's a carelessly strung together collection of stuff that is best not taken too seriously.

Another small annoyance is the music --- good pieces by Queen, but as a soundtrack to a movie too intrusive.

I guess it might still work for fans, but I doubt a modern viewer will get much pleasure from this movie. The premise is good enough for an action flick, but the execution just isn't very good.

Message in a Bottle (1999)

A story that could only be written by a woman, even though it wasn't.

[3/10 · 14 October 2012]

SPOILER AHEAD.

Imagine this scenario: You are a guy who just had great sex with a hot woman you met a little while back and that you really like, the beginning of a steamy relationship. While she gets cleaned up, you rifle through her stuff to find that you apparently did not meet her by chance as you had thought before, but that she had found some old love letters you wrote to a previous love of yours, and apparently was so taken by them that she tracked you down, romanced you, and, just a few minutes ago, screwed the living daylights out of you. Okay, imagine that? So here's the question: What would a guy in this situation do? If your answer is something like "get all emotional, pack his bags and run away in a huff", then you (a) are most likely a woman and (b) might like this movie.

For everybody else who has just the faintest inkling of how men actually work (which somewhat surprisingly does not seem to include the apparently heterosexual male who authored this story, although there is always the possibility that he's just playing to his audience), this is just one cliché too far in a chic flick riddled with bad, bad romanticky stereotypes, super-corny acting, and dull by-the-numbers predictable storytelling.

The one faint ray of light in this stinker is Paul Newman --- his role isn't a very big one, it isn't very well written, but he does with it what he can. It's not enough to make this worthwhile, though. Avoid.

The Hunger Games (2012)

Battle Royale minus humor plus cheese

[3/10 · 5 August 2012]

I do not know the book this movie is based on, but I sincerely hope that it is much better (and have been told that it is) than its adaptation. As it stands, the movie is a PG13 version of Battle Royale, with a hint of Running Man, a touch of Truman Show, minus any irony or humor, with a lot less gore (to keep it PG13 no doubt), and a lot more cheese.

The one thing that might have set it apart from its many predecessors would have been the political and social background story which is hinted at in the brilliant but short performances of Tucci and Banks, but gets drowned out by the tedious, incoherent, and unconvincing attempts at action and cheesy teenage romance of the Twilight variety.

Even though the "action" is clearly intended to carry the movie, given the amount of time devoted to it, it is largely vapid PG13-type stuff, where the heroine MacGyvers her way out of a tight corner by dropping a hive of waspy insects onto her assailants --- who, in spite of being in a fight for their lives, guard her, and themselves, by collectively taking a nap at the foot of the tree their opponent is trapped in. Common sense isn't the strength of any of the contestants, which gallivant unguardedly and noisily through woods they know to be full of people out to kill them, and spend quite a bit of time publicly (and noisily) emoting when disagreeable stuff happens. Gimmicks abound, many of which easily predictable as they are introduced hamfistedly one by one during the preparation and training phase.

Movie making is a business, and much of the revenue comes from young people, and there is every reason to believe that this movie is successfully catering to their tastes and preferences. Unfortunately for the rest of us, this means that all the interesting commentary on our own lives and societies that the source material might have contained is only a small subtext to a teenage drama that has been done before, better, sharper, and more convincing. The scenes with Tucci (equipped with dental enhancements that accentuate everything he does) and Banks (also in magnificent costume) are the highlights of this film, degrading the main action to mere filler for the teens. Unfortunately, for more than two hours, that's just not enough.

Brake (I) (2012)

How is it possible to be implausible and predictable at the same time?

[5/10 · 4 May 2012]

On the face of it, predicting the outcome of a movie relies on being able to foresee future events according to the rules of probability and plausibility --- the off-the-wall implausibility of this plot should thus make it difficult to guess ahead of time, but such is not the case. This film includes a couple of plot twists, both of which you can see coming from miles away, not based on the logic of the known universe, but based on the logic of films such as this one. It's not that you "figure out" anything, it's just that you simply 'know' that things are the build-up to a twist, and you know the twist the way you know what a good friend will do or say.

That said, it's still a reasonably entertaining movie. Dorff turns in a great performance, and really sells the plot, and so does the rest of the cast, with the exception of Berenger. Like the rest of the cast except Dorff, he has a tiny amount of screen time, but uses it effectively to dispel the idea that he might be an actor, in the unlikely event anyone had suspected that. The plot, while convoluted and implausible, is still interesting, the setting minimalistic, and the plot and action compelling. It may not be as smart a movie as its makers might think it is, but it's still fun to watch.

Fat, Sick & Nearly Dead (2010)

Not a science lecture, but motivation and inspiration

[8/10 · 4 December 2011]

Movies about food and health are in season, many of them droning on about the Western diet, the benefits of proper food, the evils of the food industry and the modern life style, or any combination thereof. To be sure, all of that is quite right, and learning more about it can be educational and helpful in improving one's own dietary habits and consequently one's health.

This film skips much of the science, which is dealt with only in short sketches and cartoons (and a look at the Web site suggests that it might be better that way, since the author's view of the science is cartoonish with a distinct New-Agey touch). Nutrition science isn't the topic here.

Instead, we are being taken on the personal journeys of the author, Joe, and a couple of other characters who are 'recruited' on the way. And it is the power and realism of those stories that are the source of the impact of this movie. Joe's own story is impressive already --- as he literally slims before our eyes from pudgy to trim by drinking vegetable and fruit juice, it is difficult to imagine anyone struggling with their weight and health seeing this without getting at least interested in his approach. It might have ended there, and be a pretty good piece on the significant impact of your diet on your health, and how a shift of the food habits can have a decisive effect on someone's life in a relatively short period of time.

But then there is the story of Phil, a very fat truck driver from Iowa, one of the folks Joe talks to on the road trip he undertakes during his juice fast. Halfway through the movie, we listen to Phil calling Joe to take him up on the offer to help him with his weight problem. Phil sounds desperate and depressed, he sounds like he is not expecting to make many more calls. Much of the second half of the movie is devoted to Phil's journey, from a very fat, socially isolated, depressed Iowa truck driver who could hardly walk, to a much thinner, much healthier-looking Phil who jogs, gives inspirational talks about nutrition to others, and helps his brother change his diet before the next heart attack becomes his last one, just as Joe helped him turn his fate around. That's just an incredible story, amazing to watch, and truly inspirational.

Even if you don't have a weight problem, it's still a joy to see real people change their lives to the better on screen. However, if you do have a weight problem, and related health issues, and perhaps have come to believe that that's just the way you were built and nothing can change it, then this movie shows you otherwise. If Phil can do it, so can you. Do you have to do it the way Phil and Joe did? Probably not. Should you research the matter further? Definitely. Should you consult a physician? Probably. You may need to take a slightly different route, but this film shows that there is a path.

Inhale (2010)

Surprisingly good.

[7/10 · 20 February 2011]

The basic premise of this film does not give reason for very high expectations --- dedicated parents with child in distress, how far are they willing to go, and what do they need to do in order to save their child. In this case, the child needs an organ transplant, and as the usual channels do not seem to be able to save her, the parents need to get creative about procuring a suitable organ in some other way.

This is fertile breeding ground for loads of cheese, contrived story lines, and emotional vignettes. And even though you can see the end coming from quite a bit away, and even the movie isn't entirely free of cheese, it's a dark and gritty movie that explores its subject without too much sentimentality and isn't afraid to look where standard Hollywood fare might not.

The solid story is helped along by a strong cast led by a great Mulroney (who seems to be expanding his range with every work I see him in), and it pains me to say that even Diane Kruger (whom I otherwise enjoy to slam) turns in an excellent performance, as does the interesting supporting cast (Arquette appears somewhat underused, it wouldn't be surprising if a good deal of her material ended up on the cutting room floor).

At some point in the film you realize that no matter which way things go, the ending won't be a very happy one. To me, that is where I see the true strength of this movie, and I find it much more important than the particular road the story ends up taking (and which seems to have made many viewers rather unhappy judging from the discussion boards). To be sure, I like the ending, and much prefer it over its conceivable alternatives, but the real point remains that our protagonist had arrived at a situation that no longer admitted a 'happy' resolution.

Definitely worth seeing.

Bill Maher... But I'm Not Wrong (2010 TV Special)

The difference between Maher and Carlin: Carlin got even better with time.

[3/10 · 27 October 2010]

I used to like Maher's stand-up, but this show is clear proof that he lost his edge. It's difficult to diagnose exactly what has changed --- on the face of it, it's still pretty much the same basic kind of material, poking much-deserved fun at the bigotry and absurdity of American public life.

The wife says that he has gotten lazy, and there seems to be evidence of that: his jokes frequently lack punch and timing, and the flow of his monologue often seems contrived and unrehearsed.

It is not only that, however. For me, the most tedious bits were those that clearly formed part of a dialog between Maher and whoever he perceives as addressing him --- the political right, a hostile part of his audience, Palin, the tea-baggers. Maher clearly sees himself as being engaged in a debate, he is involved in a discourse, he feels that he needs to make a point on behalf of whatever cause he has adopted as his own, and he visibly wants to convince his audience, instead of entertaining them. For a comedian to get away with that, he would need to be better informed, wiser, more detached, and a better orator than Maher is. Jon Stewart can pull it off on his better days, and of course Carlin could.

Yet Maher is no Carlin. While that acerbic curmudgeon got better and tougher with age, Maher gets more preachy and involved. Perhaps he is a victim of is own success --- the publicity he achieved with the rants he published in various ways (stand-up, TV show, book, movie) caused him to take himself and his rants too seriously, and to see himself as a bona fide party in a debate when he should really be the clown that points out and accentuates the funny and crazy bits from the sideline. To be funny, he needs to rise above the fray, instead of involving himself in it. He is a pretty decent comedian (as evidenced in the better segments of this show), but he is a failure when it comes to lecturing on serious matters.

As it turns out, the title of the show is an omen to what is fundamentally the problem with it: it is about Maher being right (or at least "not wrong") about whatever it is he cares to be right about, rather than simply being funny, which obviously is no longer enough for Maher. Watch "I'm Swiss" instead.

Poirot: Murder on the Orient Express (2010) Season 12, Episode 3

A very different Poirot

[7/10 · 23 July 2010]

I have only been an occasional follower of the TV movies with Suchet, but have seen enough to know that he delivers an excellent Poirot. Nonetheless, this episode had to follow in the rather large footsteps of an all-star classic predecessor, and I was curious on how it would accomplish it.

The main twist here is that unlike most Poirot-themed works, this really isn't a whodunnit by any stretch of the imagination. While the 1974 version keeps the viewer in the dark about at least Poirot's own reasoning until the big triumphant showdown, the 2010 adaptation gradually let's the viewer in on the solution, and really does not make much of a mystery about it. Originally I thought it was a bit of a let-down, which it is if you expect the usual Orient Express arc of confusion about the various clues and statements and suspects followed by Poirot's Grand Revelation.

However, the point of this Orient Express adventure is not to solve a murder, but to explore much deeper notions of justice and the law, revenge, multiculturalism, and doing what is right. The theme is introduced right at the opening scene, when Poirot's genius at solving a crime proves to have disastrous consequences. We then see him react to a stoning of a woman in Istanbul, and these two events frame his own path as he solves the mystery of what happens in the Orient Express.

In the course of this, Suchet shows some of the finest acting I have seen from him (and that says a lot), thinking about it still sends chills down my spine. He is a remarkable actor, and he shows us some sides of Poirot that are fresh and new and interesting (Christie purists might say that they are also not authentic, but it would seem reasonable to frame the wrestling with morality of a Belgian gentleman of the time in the context of Catholicism, which helpfully provides visuals and props for it, too, so I find it excusable).

In summary, the whodunnit crime bit is being handled mostly perfunctorily, the focus of this piece is on the morality surrounding this crime, and here it relies heavily on the enormous breadth and depth of Suchet to make the point. Eminently watchable, not just for fans.

An American Crime (2007)

A haunting attempt at explaining the unexplainable...

[10/10 · 8 January 2010]

If this movie were purely based on fiction, it would still be excellent, with great acting from a superb cast, and competent direction and screen writing. In that case, its job would be a lot easier, however---fictitious characters, and the things that drive them and move them to the actions that propel the plot, need to be explained and portrayed only to the point that we are willing to suspend whatever disbelief remains, and to embark and go along for the ride.

But the events depicted in this movie are true, if anything, they are understated. As the unbelievable and at times unbearable cruelty and hypocrisy unfolds before our eyes, we want to know how this senseless, purposeless, meaningless crime could have happened, we want to know "why." Of course, we will never really know the answer, but this movie gives it a shot, and with some success. Keener has the difficult job of portraying a monstrous character in a way that let's us get an insight into "her side" of the story, no matter how sick, wrong, confused, and depraved it may be. There are times when we might even feel a degree of empathy for that creature---an enormous feat for Keener, considering that her character is a woman who tortured and murdered a defenseless child given into her care, for no particular reason whatsoever. The choice of Keener for this role has been criticized on the grounds that she is too attractive compared to woman she plays, but to me it seems that this is a good thing, and an example of downplaying some less important aspects of the real case, to help us get access to its essence. Making her look less repulsive than the real Gertrude makes it easier for us to get in touch with her, and to care at least a little about her.

Sylvia, the victim, is played by Page, who runs the gamut from carefree teenager to resignated torture victim, and adds another top-notch performance to her already impressive resume. Her character does not have to explain quite as much as Keener's, but there are still some open questions we want to have answers to---why did she submit for as long as she did, why did she not run away, or resist in some other manner? The supporting cast, though mostly young, turns in some excellent work, as well. The performances of McFarland, Graynor, and Peters are the ones that stick in my mind after watching this film, depicting traits and character arcs that would not be out of place in Lord of the Flies.

I wanted to give this film 9/10, basically to save some headroom in case something even more impressive came along. But what am I holding out for? This film is taking me on a roller coaster ride into human depravity, its cast does a great job at offering haunting attempts to explain that which cannot reasonably be explained, and as the credits rolled I was left bewildered, incredulous, outraged, sad --- what more can cinema do?

Made of Honor (2008)

A romantic tragedy.

[4/10 · 24 December 2009]

The synopsis of this movie should read: Romantic character gets badly mistreated by two emotionally unstable, immature, egotistical twits and ends up alone as a result. The problem with this movie is that the two twits are the leads, and the only actually romantic character is "the other guy". This really kills its aspirations of being a romantic comedy, since the fundamental premise of this genre is that the viewers root for the leading pair to get together, while all I was thinking as this flick drew to its inevitable conclusion was that "the other guy" was by far the better catch in every imaginable way, far more deserving of love and affection, and infinitely more graceful in handling himself and the situation than the "leading man", and that not seeing that in itself really disqualified the leading woman.

As a consequence, this flick may be credited as spawning a new genre --- the romantic tragedy.

The whole point of Darcy/Wickham (or Darcy/Cleaver) type of romcom setups is that one of the leads (and ideally the reader/viewer) is initially misguided in their views of the prospective mates, and the story is then about the bumpy road to enlightenment, at the end of which the more worthy mate wins. In Austen terms (apologies to those unfamiliar with them), this story is that after Lydia has been after Wickham for some time and without success, she gets to know and falls for Darcy, and decides to marry him, whereupon Wickham, true to form, concludes that he wants Lydia after all, does his very best to torpedo their impending happiness, and as a result of Lydia's profound airheadedness, succeeds. Darcy is left alone, and the final shot shows Lydia and Wickham bonking.

The audience supposedly should feel happy about those two getting together, and in a way it's probably a comfort to think that a guy like Colin should have no difficulty finding a much more worthy woman to make happy.

There isn't much to make up for the silly plot and its absurd conclusion, either. The comedy is mostly unsubtle (some slapstick, a few rather crude jokes about a fat girl), the acting is okay but not great (to be fair, there is not much opportunity for greatness in the script) --- even as "guilty pleasure" (a category I would put most romcoms into), there just isn't enough pleasure for the considerable amount of guilt involved in watching this. There are probably many better ways of spending one's time.

Twilight (I) (2008)

Vampire mambo-jumbo for lame-brained teens.

[3/10 · 2 February 2009]

An ill-considered promise led to my ending up seeing this movie. Having discussed the novel series with the teenage daughters of some friends, I expected it to be gimmicky, vampire-themed teen trash, which it was, but even given that, it isn't very good.

For one thing, it does not really work as horror, since the vampires aren't really particularly frightening, they are simply Marvel heroes with an awkward appetite. Sure, given their strength, you wouldn't want them to get angry with you, but neither would you like to antagonize the Hulk. As a matter of fact, most of the vampires are actually rather nice, some have teeny attitudes, others are brats or plain nasty, others are quite chipper and BFF material (well, not really "forever", unless you manage to get bitten by one of them, which---unlike most of their cousins in film and literature---many seem to be rather reluctant to do). They are even pretty good-looking, in a Rococo makeup kinda way, and snappy dressers, too. The interior design of their abode has also come a long way since the count Vlad Teped in Transsylvania, and even though their sleeplessness has led them to do away with beds, their lack of appetite for, shall we say, regular fare luckily did not keep them from installing a kitchen---apparently on the off-chance that they'd befriend a doughy-eyed mortal chick. As a result, we get to see a gaggle of vampires cook dinner for our protagonist in their designer kitchen, and then go out for a round of baseball. The Prince of Darkness has arrived in 90210 and become the Brats of Twilight, and Mr. Stoker is rotating in his grave.

Well, okay, so it's not a horror movie, but maybe it is a romance? Not really. Dull teen chick falls for equally dull teen vampire, and vice versa. He does not want to bite her, cause he and his vampire colleagues are, and I am not making this up, "vegetarians", and he explains his plight by talking about how vegetarian food, while filling you up, somehow cannot, obviously, really satisfy. I wonder what they do with this part of the dialog in India... Obviously, living a really, really long time does not mean you learn anything. Besides the laughable premise, the fundamental problem with the romance angle is that, well, there really is no character arc. Both see each other, Cupid strikes, a little bit of high-school back and forth, and then it takes her five minutes of ham-fisted Web searching and a book order to figure out the "big secret" (and, remember, she is definitely not a rocket scientist). From then on it's "Hey, I know you're a vampire, let's get together shall we? Sure, come on over for dinner, meet the rest of the crowd." Two teens having a crush on each other, only one of them happens to be a vegetarian vampire. No big deal.

If you think that Hammer trivialized the vampire theme, you ain't seen nothing yet, specifically not this movie. Here, the whole vampire thing has nothing dark, nothing about good or evil, hell, God, Satan, sinful immortality, a painful existence in permanent darkness and seclusion, powerful at night and brittle and helpless by day, loss of identity in death---none of that. In fact, it seems positively attractive to be a vampire. Gone the Gothic feel of especially the early Hammer works and some later variations on that topic. The vampire theme is a gimmick, and because the old staples (cross, stake, water, sunlight etc.) weren't good enough for the iPod generation, these iVampires come with a whole new set of gimmicky attributes that no doubt dazzle the kids and have certainly been the focus of many middle-school discussions.

Okay, so no horror, lame romance, maybe it works as a drama? Alas, for that it would have needed better actors in the leading roles. Stewart and Pattinson simply cannot act, their performances are flat, which is not helped by the fact that their parts lack any depth whatsoever. Ironically, this is best documented by Stewart's voice over which is probably intended to add depth to the acting by making explicit thoughts that are not evident from what is happening on screen. In this case, however, the narration reveals that Stewart's character has just about as much depth as the acting led us to suspect, i.e. not much. It also does not help that Pattinson really does not look that part of a heart throb---I guess it must be that vampire-magnetism thing, but it sure isn't his looks (even with a tan), or his elegant charm.

Is there anything good about this movie? Not much. Burke and Clarke deliver decent work in their small roles. The technical work is mostly okay, but some of the special effects in the action sequences are "Crouching Tiger"-laughable---they may have edited out the wires, but you don't need to see them to know that they are there. No, unless you happen to be a middle-school girl, you must have something better to do with your time. Come to think of it, even middle-school girls should find something better than watching this dull trash.

Gran Torino (2008)

Forgettable and sanctimonious

[4/10 · 14 January 2009]

Eastwood's movies have to have a "message", that is nothing new. Over the years, however, it seems that the message has become increasingly predictable, more boring, and its delivery hasn't improved either.

The story itself is very ordinary: old man with several regrets and a few serious chips on his shoulder makes up with life, which in this case comes to him in the form of Asian neighbors. Confrontation gives way to friendship, which sets the stage for tragedy and a poetic resolution. Tons of clichés and no surprises are the hallmark of this film. At the very end it apparently intends to surprise the audience, but anybody who has paid the slightest bit of attention to the character arc of the protagonist can see that there is only one resolution left.

To be sure, there are good moments. Eastwoods character is hilariously politically incorrect, casually filling his speech with racial epithets, and getting a number of funny lines out of it (obviously, folks who are easily offended will find it difficult to summon the required humor). Then there is a hilarious scene that Eastwood has with his barber, expertly played by the otherwise underused Lynch. It turns out to be the highlight of this movie.

Much of the movie is sanctimonious and preachy; it obviously wants to tell us something about ethnic prejudice, and even inserts some expose about the Hmong people, for no apparent reason, as whatever would follow from it does not matter to the narrative. The transformation of Eastwoods character from bitter old man who despises everything foreign (including the foreign cars sold by his son) to cheerful participant at Hmong barbecues and confidant of and matchmaker for Hmong teenagers is ludicrous, and neither the script nor Eastwoods acting can make this believable. That is too bad, as it is the anchor for the rest of the story.

Sanctimony is personified in the character of the preacher, whose offers of "spiritual" support are originally rejected by Eastwoods character, but then gradually accepted, for no apparent reason other than that this guy just won't take no for an answer and even stalks the old man to his social gatherings. The protagonist, who otherwise has no problem defending his privacy (and his lawn) by pointing a loaded rifle at an offender, reacts to this outrageous behavior by inviting the "padre" to a drink and shooting the breeze about life and death, revealing that neither of them had much to say about either of those two things, and resulting in one of the lamest simulations of "philosophical depth" on screen in recent memory.

But slushy messaging, sanctimony, and superficial dialog aren't even the worst offenders in this stinker. That distinction goes to the two key supporting acts, Vang and Her. Neither of them has the slightest clue about acting, remaining uninvolved throughout as in a middle school play rehearsal. That is bad for Eastwood, since their characters are supposedly what is melting the stony heart of his character, but it is really difficult to see how these two dull teenagers could possibly accomplish this. One of the reasons for Eastwood's lack of believability is the emptiness of their performances, particularly that of Her.

And so the story moves to its predictable finish. We even get to see a "resolution scene" showing how the old man deals with his greedy granddaughter in his testament, which feels like the closing scene in a 70s/80s TV series, when everybody gets together to share a good laugh about the final resolution.

At the time of this writing, the movie's 8.5 rating has propelled it into Top 100 territory, so obviously people like it. To me, it wasn't the worst movie I have ever seen by a long shot, although it certainly is among the worst Eastwood films.

The Unborn (2009)

The Stillborn

[2/10 · 10 January 2009]

How do movies like this even get made? The only reason I don't give this a 1 is to save some "crawlspace" in the unlikely event that an even worse stinker comes along one day, but honestly right now I find that somewhat difficult to imagine.

So this PG-13 horror flick, after a "bad dream" opening sequence, starts its "plot" with a babysitter on the phone with a girlfriend, hearing some rumbling in the house and a strange voice on the baby monitor. At that point, I jokingly said to my company that at least now we know that the makers of this movie are not afraid of clichés, as indeed they are not. The entire friggin' movie is a badly jumbled-together concoction of clichés, every single one of which has been done better in a movie that made a thousand times more sense. Not that that says much, as this movie does not really make any sense at all, and it does not even seem that it tries to. At best it is involuntarily funny, but in an annoying way.

The acting is amateurish, I don't know what Oldman thought when he signed on to this project. This is easily his worst movie, and remember that includes Air Force One. If Yustman were an actress, her good looks might be counted as a redeeming feature of movie, but unfortunately she has no idea what she is doing, and makes you cringe every time she appears on the screen. Which is quite a lot of times, clearly the film makers were well aware of their strongest asset in making this piece of cinematic garbage.

I was trying come up with a demographic that I could recommend this movie to, but failed. Reading some of the other reviews, however, it would appear that I am merely lacking imagination, since at least some seem to have enjoyed this opus. Beats me.