Change Your Image
p_liles
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
The Expanse: Babylon's Ashes (2022)
Fantastic Series - Feeble End (Spoilers)
I'm old. I remember "Lost". I watched every episode. There were some similarities with that series and "The Expanse", in that they were both well acted, well written, complex, and entertaining. Also, they both had a less than desirable ending. To be fair, Lost's ending was much less satisfying (maybe the least satisfying end to any series ever). However, as intricate and detailed the first 4-5 seasons were, the 6th and final season was the opposite. It was straight forward (almost boring), and committed the most heinous sin... not answering the questions posed throughout the series.
Movies have a time limit. They miss some of the subtleties. They can't ask as many questions. Series, on the other hand, sometimes let the questions get out of hand. They start asking so many questions because it's the easy thing to do. It's what draws the audience in many times. However, it is not good film-making to ask all those questions, to pull the audience in, and then leave them holding the empty, answer-less, bag.
To be honest it was years after Lost before I allowed myself to begin watching new series shows again. I was ruined as an audience member.
----------------------------------
What about Venus?
What about the protomolecule? I think they said the word "protomolecule" ONCE during the final episode. Seemed like an after thought.
What about the ship seemingly building itself on the other side of the ring?
The series shifted away from the mystery of the protomolecule and more towards the conflict between the Belters, Inners, and Dusters over the last few seasons. I had hoped the attention would once again turn towards the mystery of the protomolecule once the Inaros Rebellion was resolved.
The awkward / weird references to Alex Kamal during the final episode seemed forced.
The entire Laconia subplot was by far the biggest most epic waste of time.
The final season stopped being what made the show great. It became one-dimensional and boring. The final episode was the bland cherry on top. That being said, I still give it 5 out of 10 stars as a stand alone rating. If I rated it against the rest of the series, it would be worse.
The only thing that would have made it worse is if you tried to tell us it was all a dream....
Django Unchained (2012)
Exactly what I expected in some ways and completely unexpected in other ways
SPOILERS
I've had a love-hate relationship with many of Tarantino's bigger films. They are all very entertaining.
I have a indirect connection with an actor or two in the film, which made me want to see it even more.
The film had been sitting in my Netflix list for a long time. I knew I wanted to see it, but the subject matter and the publicized use of racial slurs made me hesitant. Honestly, that's been my biggest gripe about Tarantino. One of my favorite movies of all time is "True Romance". While he was only a writer in the film (not the director), the scene with Christopher Walken and Dennis Hopper where racial epithets are used to infuriate the Sicilian (Walker) into doing something (quickly) that he normally wouldn't do has Tarantino's imprint all over it. For me, the scene is great and at the same time so ultra-cringe worthy that I can't bring myself to watch it with other people. I find this sad, because I would like to share the movie with others. The other main use of racial slurs that is a problem for me was "Pulp Fiction". It probably has something to do with the character, the actor, and the delivery that make it especially offensive (not in the general sense, but in the personal distaste of something sense). When Tarantino himself says, "Did you notice a sign in the front of my house that said 'Dead N***** Storage'?" That line. That delivery was just excessive, out of place, and unrealistic. He used the "N-word" multiple times during that conversation, but that line for whatever reason makes the scene unwatchable for me. It may have something to do with my dislike of his acting ability almost as much as the phrase. (I did like him in "From Dusk till Dawn", though)
I know I'm not the first person to complain about the language in Tarantino films. I know Samuel L. Jackson defends him. I'm really just speaking from a personal viewpoint.
As an aside, I wasn't a big fan of the "Kill Bill" movies. I'm not even sure why. Maybe they were too film noir-y for me.
Why does any of that matter? Well, people may have an opinion of Tarantino and by extension the film based on his previous films. So, let's discuss "Django Unchained"...
The title of my review is "Exactly what I expected in some ways and completely unexpected in other ways". This IS a Tarantino film. It is violent. It is vulgar. It is entertaining. It's well-made, well-scored, well-filmed, well-paced, well-written (mostly). All of these things have Tarantino's influence to a healthy degree. He does hit some sour notes, mostly near the end of the movie.
The best part of the movie are the performances by the three main characters (Foxx, Waltz & DiCaprio), as well as a very good performance by Jackson. Tarantino's influence here is probably most seen in Foxx's performance, and least in Waltz and DiCaprio. Much like "Inglourious Basterds", Waltz steals the show. Though, DiCaprio once again proves his generational acting chops.
Jamie Foxx's performance is very good. There are a couple of hiccups, but nothing that stops him from being believable. Probably the worst scene for him was where he was reading. The cadence and pronunciation did not match with someone who struggled to read. I've been watching him since "In Living Color". Watched most of the Jamie Foxx Show episodes. And, seen most of his movies. I would put this performance in his Top 5-7 performances. I think "Ray" is probably his consensus #1 performance. I still remember watching "Dearly Beloved" - Jamie Foxx (Season 3, Episode 20). In that episode he sang and played the piano. We already knew he was funny. He could act. But, with his musical ability I thought he was going to be something big(ger).
The worst part of the movie was the ten minutes (or so) that Tarantino is on the screen. He is terrible. I wish there was someone who could tell him to his face how bad he was for this role. If he wants to be Stan Lee, then sit at a diner with a newspaper for god's sake. Don't have close up and tons of painful-to-watch-and-listen-to dialog. Not in a period piece. (Remember I liked him as a neurotic psychotic brother of George Clooney) Because his scenes were near the end of the film it really put a damper on the overall enjoyment of the movie. If he had been one of the two guys in the first scene of the movie, I would have forgotten about how bad he was by the end.
The second biggest flaw in the movie is the "Handshake". Candy won't let Django and Schultz leave until Schultz shakes his hand. It seems to be meant as a play or a way for Candy (DiCaprio) to exert his dominance, however as it drags on, it doesn't work as intended and ends up looking like a simple excuse (for Tarantino) to start the bloodbath that ensues. I don't have a problem with the bloodbath. I just think what lead to it was unrealistic and unbelievable. It didn't make sense.
I think Tarantino is great. I also think he's starting to become a caricature of himself. I wish he had a contemporary who could look at him and tell him something sucks, or at least that it simply doesn't work (the way he thinks it does/should).
One nitpicky issue with the film was the fake and voluminous blood splatter from gun shot wounds. They were immediately noticeable and excessive. Towards the end during the final bloodbath they became almost comical. That could work, if that was the effect that Tarantino was going for (in a sort of Spinal Tap sort of way) and it worked within the film. I don't think comical blood splatters accentuated the gun fight. I think it detracted from it.
Eliminating his cameo and re-writing the "Handshake" scene to make more sense would have made this movie epic.
Currently, the IMDB.com rating is 8.4. I think that's a little high, due to the glaring flaws. I would give it 7.6 stars, but there isn't a partial star option.
Oddly enough my hesitation over the use of racial slurs didn't really come into play in the movie. Were they used? Obviously, yes... extensively. But, for the most part, they didn't stand out as being unbelievable or excessively offensive / cringe-worthy, outside of the obvious offensive nature of the word. I'm speaking more to its use and delivery as being believable as compared to extraneous and excessive / pointless.
Good Boys (2019)
Poor acting always ruins a movie
SLIGHT SPOILERS
"Believability" is one of my top criteria for any show, movie, or series. Actors must make the audience believe they are the character. Sets must be believable. The writing / dialog must be believable. I can suspend logic for a good story, like aliens, or magic, or ghosts, etc.
Recent examples of good child acting include: "Stranger Things" and "It".
This movie (Good Boys) does not have believable actors. The lines are delivered stiffly. The writing is exaggerated to the point of not being believable. While the cursing wasn't necessarily offensive to me, it wasn't (generally) believable / natural either.
One example of poor writing was when the boys were looking up how to kiss. They get online and the first thing they search for (inexplicably) is 'boobs'. When that didn't help, they go straight to 'porn'. When that didn't work, they gave up. So..... why didn't they search 'kissing'?
While fairly extreme sexual content runs throughout the film, I felt they crossed the line a few times. The most egregious was probably when the boys practiced kissing a sex doll and one of them got a pube in their mouth. Another was when the frat guy was telling the boys to suck his $#&%. Just an extremely weird and uncomfortable exchange.
Overall the production felt like a low budget TV movie. The story actually had potential. I just think it was not executed well. The subject matter (and age group) may make it more difficult to accurately execute, but that was the movie they chose.
If you don't mind extremely crude humor, executed well at below a 50% mark, you may want to give it a try. If not, don't waste your time.
The 15:17 to Paris (2018)
No aspect of this film is good
My wife brought this movie home the other day. I didn't know much about it other than the few commercials I had seen. From the commercials, I didn't have an urge to see it.
I was shocked to learn that Eastwood directed this train wreck (pun intended). I like most if not all of his other movies that I have seen.
1. The acting by the main characters was terrible. This is understandable since the main characters were the actual people involved in the event. The child actors were average (Skarlatos) to below-average (Sadler & Stone). The one tiny highlight was seeing Thomas Lennon and Tony Hale. The moms (Judy Greer & Jenna Fischer) were okay, but not at their best.
2. The writing was below-average. I wondered throughout whether they were simply adlibbing or whether there was a real script.
3. The score, sound track, ambient music were below-average. The lack of music (except club scenes) is very noticeable.
3. The editing and flow of the story was abysmal. I mean really bad. It was hard to tell where they were, why they were there, and what they were doing.
4. I'm not sure if Eastwood was having one long "Senior Moment" or what, but his input to the film was not a bright spot. The actors mumbled half their lines, there were several shots that didn't make sense with obstructions, etc.
The story could have been compelling, but it was told and portrayed so poorly that it tarnishes the very act of heroism it was attempting to celebrate.
Boiler Room (2000)
Good movie, surprisingly accurate regarding stock market too
I think the movie is more of a 7.5, but I guess I have to round up...
This movie is about a slick young kid who is trying to make it big while trying to live up to his father's expectations.
I know more than a few salesperson's who proudly try to emulate many of the tactics showcased in the film, which isn't a good thing.
I have the same license that the character Seth had to get to sell stocks, and the way it is portrayed in the movie is very accurate. Of course, the SEC would probably like to show this movie, as what not to do, for its ethics requirements.
Two interesting things about the movie are watching Ben Affleck and Vin Diesel before they got huge, and both put in very good performances. The casting is eclectic (Nia Long, Ben Affleck, Jamie Kennedy, Vin Diesel, Giovanni Ribisi, Scott Caan, etc) but they have the chemistry to make it work.
Overall a good movie, with good acting, a good story and cinematography & editing that don't get in the way.
U Turn (1997)
Great performances... You mean even J Lo??? Well...
I really liked this movie.
Whoever cast this movie did a great job: Sean Penn, Billy Bob Thornton, Joaquin Phoenix, Claire Danes. Not only that, but you'll actually get to see Nick Nolte AND Jennifer Lopez give good performances as well. Almost seems like that should've created a tear in the space-time continuum, but for whatever reason it didn't. Many movies that have a collection of well-known stars don't work. This one does, probably because most of the actors aren't just "Hollywood Stars", but also very good actors as well, such as: Penn, Billy Bob, and Phoenix.
Oliver Stone directed it, but thankfully didn't get in the way of the movie, like he sometimes does. The cinematography and locations all worked well and added to, instead of detracted from, the film.
There is also an intense sex-scene with J Lo & Penn.
If you're a fan of J Lo, you'll probably love this movie. Even if you're not a fan of her, like myself, you will still have an enjoyable movie-watching experience.
Robot Jox (1989)
#3 on my All-time worst movie I've ever seen in the theater list
I actually paid to see this movie in the theater.
It would get a 1-rating, but the fight scenes between the robots are okay, and there's a surprise.
I realize that some movies have larger budgets than others. I don't have a problem with that. Unfortunately, science fiction movies probably suffer the most on a small budget for obvious reasons. But, one way this movie fails is that just about every piece of each set looked cheesy and cheap. I mean, couldn't they even make it "look" good?
The other major reason this movie is horrible is the acting If I watched the movie now and knew what to expect, I might just enjoy it for the cheese-factor, but at the time, I was expecting a good movie and had no clue as to how horrible it would actually end up being.
Thankfully, the experience was over in only 85 minutes.
Any Given Sunday (1999)
I love football, but hate this movie
I have my likes and dislikes just like everyone else. I like football. I like Al Pacino. I like long movies. I even like to look at Cameron Diaz as long as she doesn't talk...
I haven't seen every movie ever made, but I've seen my fair share. Of the movies I have seen this movie ranks as the second worst cast movies ever (when it comes to the two main characters) only better than "Bram Stoker's Dracula" casting of Keanu Reeves and Wynona Rider. Al Pacino, as good of an actor as he is, is no more convincing as a football coach as he would be portraying a 9-yr old girl scout selling cookies. Cameron Diaz's performance may be close to her real personality, but she doesn't convince me she is that person in the movie.
There are a couple of bright spots, like Jamie Foxx, LL Cool J & Dennis Quaid, but they cannot overcome the lack of believability that surrounds Pacino & Diaz.
One other major problem with the film, other than the acting, is how long it is. Remember, I like football.... I like long movies.... But, about 45 minutes into the movie I was looking at my watch wondering if it would ever end. Well another 2 hours and 15 minutes later it finally did. There are few other movies (and none with the budget of this film) that I have been more bored in. If they would've edited this movie down to 60 minutes (and by doing so edited out all of Pacino & Diaz's scenes), I probably would've given it a 7 or 8, but as it stands this stinker is lucky to get the 2-rating I give it.
Leaving Las Vegas (1995)
The best movie I never want to see again
This is a very well made and acted film. The story just gets in the way...
Cage's character decides that committing suicide by drinking himself to death in Vegas is the way to go. No one really believes he'll do it, but he's determined no matter what.
This movie is not for everyone and is very disturbing. If you are in the mood for a powerful, yet depressing movie with large helpings of sex, violence & alcohol abuse, then this is the movie for you. If not, wait until you are then watch it.
Whenver this movie comes up in conversation, all I can really say about it is, "It's a great movie. I just never want to see it again".
Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)
Very little even watchable material in this film
There are two good things about "Bram Stoker's Dracula". They are: Gary Oldman (as Dracula) and Anthony Hopkins (as Professor Abraham Van Helsing).
Other than that the negatives regarding this movie are seemingly endless. I'll touch of the main problems.
1. This movie had beautiful costumes and sets, but I was unable to enjoy them with the herky jerky camera editing that the director Francis Ford Coppala decided to go with. I got a headache trying to focus on the action.
2. Many movies have been made based on books. There are varying degrees of staying true to the original story. However, if you title your film "BRAM STOKER'S Dracula", then you better stay true to Bram Stoker's version of the story. I had just read the book, and was eagerly anticipating the film. It didn't take long to see that most of the original story is either simply ignored or actually changed. I'm not talking about minor details. I am talking about major themes in the book that are totally destroyed. The movie should have been named "Coppala's Vampire", then I wouldn't have wasted my money on going to the theater to see it.
3. This movie, in my opinion, has to be one of the worst cast films in the history of movie-making. At least, when you consider that the two main characters are played by Keanu Reeves and Wynona Rider. They are two of the most limited actors in Hollywood, and should never have even been allowed to read the script in the first place. As bad as they are, they do not even give a good performance even by their standards, most likely due to the poor matching of script to abilities.
Watching this movie is literally one of my least favorite movie-going experiences ever. It's basically a case of "three strikes and you're out", because of the poor acting/casting, lack of staying even close to the original story & irritating editing that leaves you straining to focus on what's happening.
The Adventure of Sherlock Holmes' Smarter Brother (1975)
The more times you see this movie, the more you'll like it
There are a select few movies that I enjoy more each time I watch them. "The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes' Smarter Brother" is one of them. I've seen the movie over 20 times, and I laugh out loud every single time.
Every main character in the movie gives a great performance. And, the comedic trio of Gene Wilder, Madeline Kahn & Marty Feldman is at its best in this film. Dom DeLouise's performance as the opera singer is a gem as well.
This film marks Gene Wilder's first attempt at movie making without the help of Mel Brooks. Although this film stays close to Brooks' style, Wilder overall uses more subtle humor.
The bottom line is, if you are a fan of Gene Wilder's earlier movies like: Blazing Saddles, Silver Streak, The Producers, Willy Wonka..., Young Frankenstein, etc., then this movie should end up being one of your favorites.