dancurtis-info Reviews

The Adjustment Bureau (2011)

Philip K. Dick strikes again

[9/10 · 26 January 2024]

Watching this one for the first time in 2024. I guess I was too busy in 2012 making plans for the Mayan apocalypse or something and somehow this one got by me. I guess it was fate that I found it this year.

I got hooked into the story right away, and the subtle mix of modern New York and 40's noir made such a compelling atmosphere. Matt Damon was perfect, Emily Blunt did a wonderful job, and the "agents" were perfect too. This film pretty much hits every nail on the head, I'm thinking now was there anything that could have been better and... nope.

The story moved along at perfect clip, it seemed like it was both fast paced and a scenic stroll at the same time. Exciting, yet comfortable. How? I don't know how, why you askin me for?

So at the end I didn't really watch the credits like I usually do because I wanted to pop over here and review this gem. What do I find? Oh look, it's a Philip K. Dick. NO WONDER it was so good. Kind of embarrased about not knowing this one. Keeping it in my back pocket for the next time I hear someone complain about 'theres nothing good to watch.'

Limbo (I) (1999)

Is this a hallmark movie?

[5/10 · 23 January 2024]

34 minutes in, I had to stop and check in here at IMDB to get an idea of what I just got started into. Very slow moving, and the main plot element is nowhere near to being introduced. The synopsis says Joe sees his brother being killed but... I would have expected to at least see the brother by now, but nope. Hasn't even been mentioned that he has a brother yet.

Coming to finish my review now that I finished the film and I really feel like this is total hallmark movie storyline, other than some of the elements of the brother situation anyway. Other than that, yeah its a woman who falls in love with an unlikely guy just when she isn't looking for it. LOL. He turns out to be awesome, what a surprise. Not.

At least that gives me all I need to resolve the ambiguous ending: Hallmark 100%. They are rescued, and the bad guys are never seen again. Donna goes on to do those few gigs up north but can't stand to be away from Joe. They settle down happily permanantly. Donna sings at the local bar and the two of them eventually buy the place and rename it after Vanessa, who found success in the city, and will be seen in a few years in her own hallmark movie lead. A Young woman with no time for it, unexpectedly finds love with a man named Fox. Tear to the eye. Or not. Mostly not.

OTOH, if this was anyone elses movie, or if the rescue plane situation was an hour earlier in the film like it should have been, they yes the bad guys would be on the plane. Joe, Donna, and Vanessa would have to run and barely escape many times, and Smiling Jack would have a last minute change of heart and save them all by taking out the bad guys at the cost of his own life.

Run Rabbit Run (2023)

Everyone wins! (except the director) Minor spoilers in second half of review

[7/10 · 13 July 2023]

The Good Acting is decent throughout, cinematography is good, screenplay is good. The story plods along too much at times though.

Greta Scacchi and Sara Snook are believable as mother and daughter, which I appreciate. I always feel like casting went to extra effort when there is a family resemblance. Lily however just did not seem to me at all like she could be Sarah's daughter, and as far as that goes, the name Mia doesn't seem to fit quite either. Although her acting was for the most part pretty good, considering her age. She has a future ahead of her, I think. (post review I see that Snook replaced Elisabeth Moss at the last minute; so that explains a bit. Mia in name and appearance would fit as Moss's daughter well enough for me.)

Now, if I am supposed to not really like the character Sarah as a person, then Sarah Snook gets 5 stars on the performance, because I really did not like her at all. If thats what you were going for, good job! Couldn't ask for better. I still don't like her 10 minutes after the film, just writing the view. Pretty awesome imo.

Spoilers ahead: The Bad The rabbit. Sigh. I really feel like the rabbit is a total (unnecessary) red herring. I don't know *what* it was supposed to add to the story, other than an excuse for the movie title. The rabbit added nothing to the story whatsoever. I feel like it was a ham-handed attempt to add a creepy device but no. It was just a fail.

Minor annoyances: 1 Mia and Alice names could have been chosen better.

Pet Peeves: 2 Tripping for no reason, and tripping at exactly the right place and time, so as to facilitate the bad writing. I mean story telling.

Going to bed for the night with bright sunlight still coming in through the window. I hate that. It is still afternoon. And they do it more than once.

The Ugly: The scene with the scissors was inexcusabley stupid. I was all set to give the director decent marks, but that one scene is worse than a b-movie failure. Bad director. Really, really bad call on that one. Stupid. I feel insulted. This scene should have been left on the cutting room floor. And the next sequence with the trap is equally bad.

I award the director no points for those two sequences, and we are all dumber for having watched them.

Stars: Acting, Cinematography, Screenplay, everything else = 4 Director = 0 Total 4/5

I am adding a half point for sticking to the story and not degrading the film for the sake of making a socio-political statement. Maybe I should +2 stars for that actually.

The Open House (2018)

Who writes this horrible?

[1/10 · 29 November 2022]

The production values are good and the scenery is nice, but other than that, the writing is so horribly bad that I mainly just kept score of how many bad choices the writer made along the way, and at one point had to choose between making the same error multiple times counted as one bad writing choice or counts as one error every time he makes it.

Either way, I lost count of how many missteps. I agree with the other review describing it as a "frustrating watch" because thats exactly what it is.

I would have given it a star for the supporting actress, and another star for production, but the writing is so bad, it effectively erases any positive effects. Terrible use of devices that don't make any sense. I deliberatly wrote kind of badly just for this. Maybe this will give you a sense, but no. The movie itself is worse.

Blade of the 47 Ronin (2022)

25 minutes and I'm bored already

[4/10 · 29 November 2022]

This should not be a "sequel" at all, it is not worthy in the slightest. 47 Ronin was a great film, this 'sequel' is a disservice. Starship Troopers 2 was a better sequel to the original than this -- and thats not saying much.

Blade is totally uninspiring, boring, not sure why I am still watching. For now its on the "watch a bit more of it later" roster; movies that take me 3 or 4 days to finish. Something to have running while I fall asleep.

Look at it this way, I'm 25 minutes in before I decide "you know what? I'm going to look up the rating in imdb before I continue at this point." Just wanting to make sure I'm on the same page as everyone else. With a 4.7 right now, it appears we are in agreement.

Holes in the Sky: The Sean Miller Story (2021)

Average

[5/10 · 16 November 2022]

This is one of those disposable films I put on just so I have something to watch, and not expect too much. Of course I'm always open to an unexpected gem, but this was not one of those.

It is just your basic generic disposable 'at least its not unwatchable'. Not really engaging, and some fairly problematic premises. I was hoping for more, I give it 5 stars because anything lower is reserved for films that make me mad for being so bad, waste of time, or films that prioritize commentary over artistry.

Better than a student film project, but nothing inspiring at all. There wasn't any point in the film, turn of events, or surprise or sequence that had any impact at all. Not necessarily a train wreck, but more of a quarterback fumble on the 50 yard line.

The worst most annoying part is some of the footage is supposedly shot by the film maker on his cell phone, and guess what? The filmaker is shooting cell video in portrait mode. I mean...

I Am the Pretty Thing That Lives in the House (2016)

Definitely might be ok.

[6/10 · 2 November 2022]

I get the idea of what the director was going for here. I can't say why it misses the mark, so maybe it's just me. The production values were ok, the directing and acting was fine, the set was perfect. Nothing I can say that was really terrible. The story was ok, not written by Stienbeck but honestly, horror films aren't known for the writing. Not really fair to criticize the plot too much, but as far as horror films go, the plot is right in there with everyone one else. I mean, probably it really is good and I'm just old and jaded. If that's the case, apologies on my part.

But like I said, all the elements are there in good form. The intention is to create an atmosphere that pulls you in subtly yet strongly and if you like really slow buildup without campy tricks or buckets of red colored corn syrup, you should give this one a go. I do appreciate the reliance on story telling, ambiance and camera work to provide the entertainment and the lack of over-the-top and overused jump scares. I really should have liked this one more than I did. It was just too slow, especially the first ten minutes.

I say give this one a go, the writer/producer/director are trying to do right by the audience; not relying on cheap tricks or unnecessary effects or in your face scares. They deserve some support just for that. Bumped from 5 to 6 now that I thought of that.

Thor: Love and Thunder (2022)

Bad, and not in a good way.

[3/10 · 13 September 2022]

This film is a step backwards from all previous Thor films in every aspect. The story clutches at meaning like a thumbless raccoon gathering apples with his tail on fire. The subtext is typical, mindless and utterly predictable. Moo. The costumes were designed by a sideshow barker. The meaning was as clear as a heavy lead curtain and the wit as sharp as a bowling ball: it hurts actually -before- it hits your toe. Cinematog-- oh you mean CGI, yeah we have that. Camera angles? Well, they're kind of boxy with mostly square angles and a round thing at the end.

The makeup artist probably needed Harry Potters cloak to get his work past the Peter principle that dominates the rest of the film.

There is a difference between character and caricature, unfortunately the director missed it. Like the point, which he missed also. There is a fine line between vision and delusion, but director self-indulgence makes it all a thing of the past. Rejoice numbskulls, a new dawn arises.

I gave this film 3 stars. One star entirely for the final after scene with Portman. One star for makeup (Portman and Bale) and one star for the trio (Hemsworth, Portman, and Bale) for the integrity of turning in their usual awesome performance despite riding this donkey cart of destruction strait into a ditch.

I offer one additional star if this smoldering stack of stank shows the decency to skulk off to dropped and forgotten story lines where it belongs.

The Postman (1997)

stop bashing this film plz

[9/10 · 26 August 2022]

I don't see why it gets reviewed so badly by some people. It is part of the genre. The acting was good, cinematography, production values, all the important criteria were very good. The story? There were only a few places in the story that weren't the greatest, and kids in these kinds of movies is always bad. Just like made up sports games in sci-fi movies. They are always stupid and bad. But that is part of the genre.

I think the reason for bad reviews is that some people are expecting a Maserati or a Maybach because its a big budget, and then hey get all disillusioned when instead of a Maserati, it's actually a Kia Stinger.

Look, its fine. Just enjoy the ride, not every post-apocalyptic movie is going to be like Avatar or 300. In fact, I'm not sure if any movie in this genre is on par with the truly greats. So just because its not a 10 doesn't make it a 3.5.

Crossworlds (1996)

Did not age well

[5/10 · 29 July 2021]

Very much a low budget 80's film, but perhaps the film itself time-traveled 10 years into the future, because it was released 1996.

You would be hard pressed to create more 80's legitimacy than this one. I still find it hard to believe. I even checked with wikipedia to make sure it wasn't released opposite War Games or something like that.

Anyway, it didn't age well regardless of when it was released. I'm giving it 5 because Rutger. Otherwise I would give it a 4 max.

Serious talk: Excellent choice for a remake. Given the right cast & director and *budget*, it could be an excellent movie. It's a Heinlein story, so everything you need for an epic is already there.

Sam, Michael, you guys doing anything right now? How about you John? When are you gonna be available?

Break (2019)

Could have been much better

[4/10 · 24 July 2021]

The cast was fine, acting mostly ok, cinematography was the best part, directing was sub-par tho. Writing was mediocre, I assume the writer doesn't know a lot about cable cars and winter resorts. Winter effects were ok, makeup was terrible tho. Everyone looking all pretty in that situation? I think not. But overall, I would say Break is on par with similar films. Again, the director .... not very good.

There were a few things that were *so* stupid, and I mean really really stupid, but what makes it worse, is they would have really easy to fix, and the directors fault 100% For example, no matter how freezing cold it is, no matter how hard the wind and snow is blowing, they never pull up the hood on their parka. :(

Anyway, without the stupids like that, I would have given this one a good solid 6. Then the last 3 minutes... dun dun dun. Hello 4.0, and if the rest of the film was as dumb as the last 3 minutes, we would have a 2.5 on our hands here.

I don't know anything about directing, but I'm pretty sure I could do better on my first time around.

3022 (2019)

ANOTHER AGENDA FILM

[1/10 · 19 July 2021]

In addition to the new hollywood agenda, this dumpster fire adds:

Not only are they SMOKING CIGARRETES On a space station 100 years in the future FFS They are concerned about life support and smoking cigarretes.

WTF.

Where is the negative star rating button.

Oh, and the New Hollywood Agenda rules again.