Change Your Image
a-kris-e
Reviews
Parkland (2013)
A brilliant reminder of the forgotten humanity of a terrible time in our nation's history
Over the last 60 years, "The Kennedy Assassination" has become an entity unto itself. The subject has a life of its own, almost entirely separate from the tragic event of November 1963. This is NOT another film about conspiracy theories, rumors, official findings, or "official lies". Go somewhere else for that.
This is about the human side of one of the most emotionally and politically impactful events of 20th century America. Over the years since John Kennedy was assassinated, so much attention has been placed, even forced, on every documented detail and every unsubstantiated rumor surrounding his murder that the true human impact has been all but lost. So much time and energy is devoted to questions and theories that we no longer consider the impact on the American psyche, much less on the individuals who were touched by John Kennedy, the loss they felt, or the chaos of that day.
This film not only reminds us that John Kennedy's death had real impact on real people, but that Lee Oswald had family, too. They were impacted as well. No matter what you believe about Oswald's involvement, or lack there of, he had a mother, two brothers, a wife, and two daughters who very suddenly and very publicly lost their son/brother/husband/father and were, frankly, expected not to grieve.
This is a touching film about the immediate impact of one of the worst days in American history on the people who were directly involved. Every actor in this film does a masterful job of brining out the depth of emotions that had to accompany the shock and grief of the sudden and violent events of November 22, 1963. The raw emotion they display is quite poignant. Best I can tell from my research, the film presents the stated beliefs of the real people portrayed within. One may or may not agree with those beliefs, but don't criticize the filmmaker for attempting to accurately convey the feelings and beliefs of the real people portrayed in his film. This is not a propaganda film, designed to convince us the Warren Commission was right. It is simply about putting us, emotionally, in that moment in history. If anything, I suspect the great difficulty of making this film was refraining from inserting disputable "facts" and various points that have, through the decades, spun themselves into theories with lives of their own.
1923: The War Has Come Home (2022)
My jaw was actually hanging open...
****Spoilers*****
O M G! This was a heart stopping episode.
***Really. Spoilers.***
So EVERYTHING we thought we knew was wrong. Every article speculating that this series would be about John was wrong, since he's DEAD. I'm not even sure who modern John's grandfather is anymore.
AND THANK YOU TAYOLR SHERIDAN FOR GIVING JACOB DUTYON A BETTER DEATH THAN GEORGE LUCAS GAVE HAN SOLO! I know, he's not dead yet, but by now we know what dark blood coming from the right side of the abdomen means.
That said, really? I mean, Harrison Ford has been BRILLIANT so far, and it resulted doesn't look like he's going to make it to episode 5, much less 8.
1923: The War Has Come Home (2022)
My jaw was actually hanging open...
****Spoilers*****
O M G! This was a heart stopping episode.
***Really. Spoilers.***
So EVERYTHING we thought we knew was wrong. Every article speculating that this series would be about John was wrong, since he's DEAD. I'm not even sure who modern John's grandfather is anymore.
AND THANK YOU TAYOLR SHERIDAN FOR GIVING JACOB DUTYON A BETTER DEATH THAN GEORGE LUCAS GAVE HAN SOLO! I know, he's not dead yet, but by now we know what dark blood coming from the right side of the abdomen means.
That said, really? I mean, Harrison Ford has been BRILLIANT so far, and it resulted doesn't look like he's going to make it to episode 5, much less 8.
1923: Nature's Empty Throne (2022)
Far better than the first episode
I didn't hate the first episode, but this one was far more interesting.
There was a lot more character development. The writing was brilliant. The relationships between various characters, past (1883), present (1923), and future (Yellowstone), began to emerge.
Three distinct storylines are present, and just how they will merge should be prove intriguing.
Taylor Sheridan clearly has a penchant for bold, headstrong women, as he continues write so many so beautifully. (As much as I love James, and Rip, and Spencer, and John, the women have far more depth of character, from Elsa & Margaret & even Claire, to Cara & Emma & Alexandra, to our darling Beth.)
1923: 1923 (2022)
A little confusing after 1883. A lot confusing without 1883.
Episode 1 had its moments, but was a bit confusing, too.
Elsa filled in the just enough backstory to bridge the 40 year gap from 1883. Excellent - no need to wonder why Tim McGraw and Faith Hill have been replaced by Harrison Ford and Helen Miram.
On the other hand, one might need the IMDB cast list to figure out things like which gray beard is the grown-up version of 1883's cute little John Dutton, whether Zane is a Dutton or just a top hand, or if any of these guys' wives have actual names. (I wasn't actually sure we had met adult John yet until the second viewing of the episode.)
Then there's Spencer, Margaret & James' son who was briefly introduced in a short scene in a Season 4 episode of Yellowstone. Since he's not called by name until THE END of the episode, I spent half the episode thinking the nameless hot guy (who clearly had to be a Dutton) was one of Margaret & James' GRANDKIDS.
Once Upon a Time in... Hollywood (2019)
Once upon a... fairy tale!
This one seemed odd for Tarantino. There was a lot less blood that usual. The story was sort of bifurcated, with tangential contacts between the story lines. There is also a fun mix of fictional characters and 1969 Hollywood reality, punctuated by some pretty big Hollywood names. (Bruce Dern was perfect for the part he played.)
Then, there was the end, when I finally understood the title. This Tarantino's idea of a fairy tale! And it was fabulous!
That's all I can say without spoilers.
Oh, and Brad Pitt's character is a badass. (Of course, I happen to think he is one of the most talented actors of his generation.)
True Grit (2010)
It's not that it was bad... it's just that there was no reason to do it.
This movie is full of great performances. Really. And I'm sure everyone involved enjoyed the challenge of remaking such a classic western. AND I give them kudos for rising to the challenge.
But there's really no point. Unless (1) you happen to be a huge fan of one of the stars of this remake (2) or you don't like John Wayne, you will only watch this once, because it can't measure up to the original. It just can't. There is nothing about the original to improve upon, so why try? That's the problem.
As for remakes in general, this is one of the better remakes I've seen, but there was no reason to make it. In fact, not so long ago, I went to see the original in a theater. It can still draw a crowd. Why not just re-release it?
The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018)
I'm not even sure how to rate this one...
It's an oddity.
It's like a spoof on the western genre, but with all the violence.
The strangeness sucked me.
*****SPOILER*****
Alternate title: Everybody Dies.
3000 Miles to Graceland (2001)
There was almost the start of a plot...
...somewhere ... for like a minute ... but it got lost.
Seriously, the idea of robbing a casino during and Elvis impersonator contest (this was before they be became "Elvis Tribute Artists") and "escaping" by blending in with all the impersonators is...intriguing... It COULD HAVE BEEN the start of an amusing adventure... but it wasn't. The notion of a creative plot was almost immediately abandoned in favor of violence, sex, violence, and more violence.
I really like Costner, Slater, and especially Russell, but not in this movie. Courtney Cox must have taken this role to prove she could do vulgar sexual scenes.
I seriously don't know how I was able to watch this to the end.
Psycho (1998)
Wish I could erase this from my brain
This was a debacle.
As far as I could tell, this remake was dine for two reasons: (1) color film and (2) to substitute raunchiness for subtlety. Much of the movie is shot in exactly the same manner as Hitchcock's masterpiece (so why bother remaking?). The changes are disgusting additions, such as the unmistakable sound of a zipper as Norman peeps through a knothole, spying on Marion.
Norman Bates as played by Anthony Perkins was brilliant, primarily because Norman (not as "mother") was a sweet, awkward guy. He was the kind if guy who a woman just might agree to a date with, IF he actually worked-up the nerve to ask, simply because he worked-up the nerve to ask. Conversely, Vince Vaughan's Norman is just plain creepy. Oh, he's really a psycho? No surprise there!
Maverick (1994)
Fun... but not really "Maverick"
This is a fun movie. It starts with the spirit of the Maverick TV series, but goes way over the top with the trickery and adventure. (Frankly, to just goes to the point of stupid at times.) It's cute, though. And it does have the twists and turns one might expect from Brett Maverick. For me, THE BEST PART was the cast (Jame Coburn), particularly the cameos by classic western actors (Robert Fuller, James Drury, Doug McClure, Henry Darrow, Dennis Fimple, Dub Taylor, Denver Pyle, Paul Brinegar, Leo Gordon) and country musicians (Waylon Jennings, Clint Black, Rebe McEntire, Carlene Carter, Kathy Mattea, Vine Gill). I haven't named everyone with a cameo, but the "star spotting" in this one is easily as much fun as the movie itself.
Ghosts (2021)
Very funny... and surprisingly sweet... (and ignore the BBC fans)
I have laughed more at this show than I have at any show for a long time. Just when I got hooked on the humor, I also found it to be incredibly sweet. (Bonus: For the most part, the "risqué" bits are "over the heads" of younger kids, who can still find the show sweet and funny.) In the two weeks since I discovered this show, I have binged the entire first season and gotten two other people hooked on it.
If you've read any other reviews, you know that fans of the original BBC version do NOT like this (the CBS version). I enjoy some British comedies and BBC series, but the reviews here are filled with haters of the CBS series, who do nothing but compare this one to the BBC series. I just watched the first two episodes of the original BBC series. They are essentially the same, except that the BBC series is a bit darker and PAINFULLY BORING. I suppose that to a fan of that series, this version is merely a silly remake. I also suppose that the two series diverge at some point, since at least some of the ghosts have different back stories. There some little things I like about the BBC series, but I find this (the CBS version) absolutely DELIGHTFUL.
The Virginian: A Man Called Kane (1964)
Perfect casting. Great story, even in it's predictable moments.
As I watch The Virginian, in order, most episodes for the first time (ever), this is one of my favorite stories so far. From it's fun beginning -discovering treasure in a cave- to it's (predictably) tragic ending, it held my interest, even when I was fairly certain where the story was going.
The role of Johnny "Kane" was so well-cast that Steve wasn't the only one who could see "something familiar around the eyes". Johnny and Randy really looked like brothers. Fortunately the deception of being "a friend of Randy's brother" was quickly revealed to the viewer; otherwise, it would have become tedious to pretend we couldn't see that Johnny WAS Randy's long-lost brother.
There are actually several deceptions going on in the episode. (Randy & Johnny hiding Kane's identity, Kane hiding from the law, Kane and his girl pretending not to know each other, the Government Agent pretending to be a surveyor, The Virginian pretending the Agent WAS a surveyor & keeping his identity's even from Betsy) I really enjoyed watching the characters - particularly Steve, Randy, and The Virginian - WATCHING everyone else. The suspicions floating around in everyone's eyes in this episode REALLY added to the story, leaving the viewer wondering just who would catch-on first, and to which deception.
Despite the viewer's knowledge that this could not possibly end happily, the real point of the episode was Randy's struggle with his loyalty to his brother vs. to his "family" at the Ranch. Randy had to find out not only what he could and couldn't DO, but what knowledge he could not live with having.
Coraline (2009)
Definitely NOT a movie for kids
This is the most deeply disturbing movie I have ever seen. And I have often put on The Shining or The X-Files to go to sleep at night.
I wanted to turn it off, but my 14 year old nephew objected, fearing that it would "definitely give us nightmares" if we didn't see how it was resolved!
The only thing good about this was the Simpsons spoof! (Corslisa - Treehouse of Horror 28)
Bull Durham (1988)
Best Baseball Movie EVER!!!
When a movie is so iconic that baseball announcers still reference it during play-by-play more than 30 years later... well, what more can you say?
The X Files: Rm9sbG93ZXJz (2018)
Very "1984"
That really sums it up. This episode (especially the first half) really exemplifies the potential for dependence on technology to go wrong - not just in the sense of our inability to function without our tech, but the ways technology has the potential to intrude upon, or even run, our lives. This episode, while (hopefully) exaggerated and "over the top" in many ways, fits in the realm of classic science-fiction. While entertaining and fun, it is truly a cautionary tale, warning humanity of the dangers inherent in certain scientific advancements. (If you don't know what I'm talking about, try reading, for example, some Isaac Asimov.)