Change Your Image
A_Different_Drummer
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Suits: Not Just a Pretty Face (2015)
great closer for a wobbly season
About a century ago, as people become accustomed to such new-fangled gadgets as the coin-operated vending machine, cons and rubes alike discovered a flaw in the original design -- you could insert a coin attached to a string with bubble gum, trigger the mechanism, and still get your coin back.
Look, SUITS is a hi-class hit and I am a big fan. But in Season 4 for the first time I felt the writers were using that old coin trick with the bubblegum and string.
The core idea of building a major primetime law show based on a lawyer who never wrote the bar or went to law school is ... brilliant.
But to have to bring back this same story so many times in a single season as a "plot trigger" is a Guiness Record that the writers should not need or want.
Great close to the season -- a sweet and fun and well-written episode.
Varsity Blues (1999)
Mainly because of Voight
I will start by confessing that I have a weakness for football flicks. As a seasoned reviewer, I have over the years come to really admire the fact that American "football" films are not part of a single brand franchise tied to a particular studio but, rather, that any independent film-maker with a good script and financing can throw his hat in the ring. And produce something that may or may not pass the test of time.
Varsity Blues will hold up. And mainly because of Voight. (Of the rest of the cast only Amy Smart manages to steal scenes.) Voight is one of the American film industry's most neglected resources, I think. I remember a long time ago, after his breakout role in Midnight Cowboy, I was able to catch Voight doing a stage play in upstate New York. What I remember about that was the impression of how serious this guy was about mastering his craft. If there was no movie deal on the table, he would go find a stage on which to perfect his craft.
And what a craft. This reviewer believes that Voight could be the finest living character actor in Hollywood. And also the most forgettable since -- most people forget this -- the job of the character actor is never steal thunder from the stars.
This film was done in 1999. This review was written in 2016 where, week after week, an older Voight continues to steal scenes from the leads in the hi-quality Ray Donovan TV show.
I am a fan of Ray Donovan, mainly because of Voight.
And I think this film is better than the reviews indicate.
Mainly because of Voight.
Jason Bourne (2016)
More "Where's Waldo" than Jason Bourne
Actually reviews are not supposed to be based on wishful thinking.
Nonetheless for those members who gave this a high rating more out of frustration than anything else, I do feel your pain.
The original Bourne trilogy was not merely good, it was superb. As a top reviewer here with some 1200 reviews under my belt I said more than once that the original was the best spy trilogy I had ever seen and I am unashamed of the fact that I have seen each film in that series four or five times since original release. They are an adrenaline rush, the perfect mix of story, form, and effect.
Even 2012's Bourne Legacy -- a feature where it was ever so clear that Damon had been offered a fortune just to walk-on and smile at the camera, but refused anyway -- was a solid movie, great script, held the attention, and Renner did a great job.
However, now that I have seen Jason Bourne 2016, I cannot help but wish that Damon had agreed to participate in Legacy, rather than be lured back 4 years later for a part he clearly no longer likes, in a production he would rather not be in.
I tend toward "purist" reviews, that is to say, I don't really care WHY a film was made as much as I do about how entertaining is it to watch ...?
(That said, I have to "assume" that Damon broke his vow and came back simply for the cash. And Greengrass agreed to take hold of the camera one more time only if he could get a writing credit too. Ugh!)
So, speaking of entertainment, there is almost none in this movie. The script is a mess. Written by the director for the clear purpose of showcasing his action and camera-work skills, there is no attempt to build connection from the top.
The script is so bad that even viewers in love with the original trilogy -- like this one -- have to keep reminding themselves who Bourne is supposed to be, and what is supposed to motivate him.
(Not to mention major plot holes here and there. Am I the only one who noticed that the most WANTED MAN IN America attempted to enter customs under his own name with no advance certainty that the computer would be "fixed" in time? Remember, from the second film in the series, this is a man who "never guesses and never makes mistakes." Other than accepting to do this film, that is.)
A good film makes the viewer feel good. The scientists call it endorphin production. This 120 minute endless chase, from the top of the movie to the ending, merely produces a caffeine buzz and sets your nerves on edge. Yes, Greengrass can use this production in his own personal highlight reel to showcase his moving camera skills. But his writing skills? Not so much.
Tommy Lee Jones delivers possibly the most superficial performance of his excellent career and the money he was offered cannot begin to make up for the indignity of the closeups.
Newcomer Alicia Vikander acquits herself well. Then again, she is a newbie with a whole string of good movies ahead of her, career-wise, whereas the actors in this film seemed more interested in taking the money ... and running.
Finally, dear reader, before you start to monkey-hammer the NOT USEFUL key -- which has somehow morphed into an I Don't AGREE key -- I will add that the variance between the score here and the score on Rotten Tomatos is the widest I have ever seen for a major release. Over at RT, this mess barely made 60%. Here at IMDb, the "fans" just can't seem to get enough...?
Good Kids (2016)
Who ordered a 2016 film with 1960s values...?
Writer/Director Chris McCoy was born in 1981 but, to all intents and purposes, he may as well have come from the 1960s, because, for all its pretense about edginess, the standards and values for this soggy teen coming-of-age story may as well have been plucked from a Doris Day/Rock Hudson romcom.
Now, ordinarily this is the part of the review where I reassure the reader that, in spite of one of the worst scripts in recent memory, there are loads of other good things here to keep viewers enthralled and entertained.
Sorry, that kind of happy ending only happens in movies, not in reviews of movies. Unlike fine wine, this one does not get better the more time you spend with it.
The cast tries hard with the material they are given but sadly that is not enough. (The single exception being Zoey Deutch, who was perhaps the only thing worth watching in Vampire Academy and once again offers the only character worth following in this outing. Deutch has that rare mix of innocence, wisdom and sassiness, bringing to mind an early Diane Keaton. With more edge.) It is also astonishing how a film that tries (unsuccessfully) to base itself on sex has virtually none. This can't be a censorship thing because the other day I was re-reviewing 1978's Animal House (great film!) and that 40 year old flick had more raunch and nudity. So, once again this has to be a director/writer thing -- see comments above on this topic.
The only one in the entire film who seems to be having more fun than Deutch is Ashley Judd playing a cougar who sets her sights on one of the young boys in the ensemble cast. You almost get the feeling that she waived her usual fee just to take the part.
Judd and Deutch generally have a great time here. The audience, not so much. If it is entertainment you want, pick up a copy of Ferris Bueller or Emma Stone's Easy A.
Injustice (2011)
A very different approach to suspense ... works a treat
First we start with the talent. Horowitz may well be one of those rare writers who could not pen a bad script even if he tried. Purefoy possibly one of the most under-rated A-listers around, he has the ability to ground an entire film (or mini-series), at the same time projecting intelligence, sophistication and most importantly likability. And Creed-Miles, an unexpected bonus, practically hypnotic in his ability to jump from one emotional extreme to another in about the time it takes for the Enterprise to reach Warp Speed.
That said, I flagged this mini-series as a "different kind of suspense" and I am sticking to that review.
I cannot easily recall a story that so challenges the viewer to engage with the characters. It is one thing to use flashbacks to reveal the history of a character at the appropriate time. It is another entirely to parcel out bits and pieces of the backstory here and there, as if offering tiny bowls of porridge to the central character in OLIVER.
The twist (to this reviewer) is not the story itself (that is more of an obstacle course, with the first one to reach the end winning) but that the writer (Horowitz) understood off the top that it is hard to connect with the story if you do not understand the characters.
And to be frank all the characters here are a little loopy and not entirely sympathetic. (Both Purefoy and Creed-Miles for example are arguably two sides of the very same coin, neither good nor bad, neither sane nor certifiable.)
So, by the finale, that is the brilliance of Injustice. It draws the viewer along even without a sympathetic character, even with blurred plot arcs and even though you are never entirely sure who you should be cheering on.
Impressive.
Numb (2015)
In many ways the QuintEssential Canadian indie
And that may not be a compliment.
As I have indicated in other reviews, it is hard to review Canadian films entirely on their own merits. Frankly,if you did, they would not fare especially well. Because the Canadian film industry is one of those odd businesses which does not have to survive entirely on its own merits. Because of tax breaks, dollar exchanges, and geographical placement, the Canunk film machine is a lot like the president of a company that got the job not on talent but because he was the nephew or son in law of the Chairman of the Board. He can do the job. But there are also many others who can do it better.
Typical of the genre, we have a minimalist cast, largely unknown (although Bamber could pass for an international leading man) and a story which (heavy sigh) is a re-imagining of something older and wiser, (in this case Treasure of Sierra Madre, more or less.) Where the film gets props it is for the attempt (and I am choosing my words carefully) to turn the Canadian climate into a natural horror backdrop. This is somewhat clever and works somewhat well. To the point where you almost expect to see in the closing credits a SFX nod to "Mother Nature."
That said, the script is not especially sharp, nor is the acting. The brilliant and unappreciated TV series Fortitude did a much better job of making a natural climate seem menacing and scary. (Recommended if you missed it.)
Plus, (again heavy sigh) the film suffers from the standards "tells" one sees in most Canadian indies. The cinematography, the lighting, is perfect. Literally perfect. You get the feeling that the Director refused to shoot on any day that was overcast or had bad weather. Because in 40 years of trying, Canadian film-makers have never quite grasped that sometimes imperfection makes a story more credible. Even the outfits worn by the actors (until the final 15 minutes) look like they were replaced each morning, brand new, from the local Walmart.
Other IMDb members have commented on the fake reviews (a true failing in the IMDb system, especially with obscure films that get few reviews) so we will not go there.
And yes the film did win awards but (you guessed it) from a Canadian Award group. Essentially a group that had to find SOMEONE to give the awards to each year -- a paradox within a conundrum. Within an industry created by accountants.
Alien: Resurrection (1997)
A 20 year re-review
I am one of those older (mature) reviewers who can claim to have seen this series in real time, in theatres.
First I will share my recollection of what that was like at the time.
Alien 1 was magnificent. If you were to make a list of the greatest films of all time (and all reviewers do this, if only subconsciously) Alien 1 would be make the list. Alien 2 was doubly astonishing because it was almost as good as Alien 1 and, as any film buff knows, the sequel is rarely if ever that good.
Expectations were high going into Alien 3, the prison planet movie, but the entry was disappointing and for the first time fans started to wonder if the franchise was going to self-destruct.
For this reason, Alien 4, Resurrection, was disappointing in every possible way. It was a weak concept, poorly timed and poorly executed. The template for the story was more "haunted house" than sci-fi. Not only was the story flawed but at the end of the day it ran out of steam after the first 30 minutes and became tedious for the audience, a sin no film should ever commit. All the characters were so unlikable -- including to a large extent Weaver's saucy clone -- that even if the audience WANTED to root for a character, there was no one worthy of the effort.
I got hold of the director's cut and re-reviewed this film because another member posted a review saying this film was unappreciated.
OK, so let's appreciate it for what it is -- a flawed entry that almost destroyed the franchise. The IMDb rating is solid -- in other words, this is really a very weak film.
(To date Alien 1 and 2 remain the best of the series. AVP is a remarkably perky little entry that somehow manages to polarize reviewers who either love it or hate. I have re-watched AVP more than any other entry. It is not elegant but it is very very entertaining.)
Better Call Saul: Rebecca (2016)
Non-Linear, Non-Squential Story Development
The job of a reviewer is to notice stuff.
BCS may not be my favorite show in recent history (the dearly departed BANSHEE is) but it is easily the most hypnotic. And the most addictive.
I try to review new films and new episodes of existing series against my the backdrop of my experience of what came before. All reviewers do. That technique works 99% of the time. This is the 1% where I am gob-smacked.
1. Gilligan and Gould are putting on yet another clinic in non-linear and non-sequential story/character development, doing things I have never seen done. Doing things that frankly I did not think were possible outside of the defined structure of a 2-hour theatrical film.
2. The actors continue to rise to the occasion. Seehorn practically mesmerizes in her role as the trapped girlfriend trying to extricate herself from the lobster trap she herself walked into.
3. The use of color and cinematography in a weekly show is the best I seen since the British show UTOPIA which went out of its way to pick sharply hued backgrounds to underscore how non-real the storyline was. That show was great. This show uses color even more effectively and yet seems to do it effortlessly.
4. Also the use of sound. TV dramas have become much better at using sound to affect mood -- Banshee comes to mind -- but once again G&G have taken this to a new level. Every episode here is a clinic in how to do it right. And these guys really love "hawaiian twang." (Used in the title sequence, also individual episodes.)
The achievement here is spectacular and must not be under-estimated. Gilligan and Gould are rewriting the rules for TV narrative, story development and even cinematography. And they are doing while entertaining the %#()$ out of their fans.
The Interior (2015)
#yolo
Reviewers notes, humbly submitted:
1. Had the pleasure of a chance meeting with this film just after doing back to back re-reviews of Mission Impossible #4 and #5, showcasing the ultimate in Hollywood excess, and starring the youngest 50+ year old on the planet, Tom Cruise. THE INTERIOR on the other hand is, clearly, a Canadian indie, so this necessitated a downshift in expectations. From Hollywood we expect a roller coaster ride. From an indie, we expect something else, perhaps a look at the world around us, perhaps a look deep within ourselves. THE INTERIOR is about the latter.
2. The first 25 minutes are deceptive, bringing to mind the Michael Douglas 1993 film FALLING DOWN. However, as the writer/director makes clear (by literally cutting in the title precisely at this point) that is merely the setup for what is to come.
3. Reviewers and fans of the film have deigned to classify it as "light horror" and I do not disagree. Just as the iconic film REPULSION showed us that an apartment could also be considered a dungeon, a cage, and a mirror for the soul, THE INTERIOR shows us that the woods, the outdoors, can provide the same metaphor. (I remember a quote, forgot the author, about the wilderness, effectively saying that there are really only two kinds of people when it comes to the wild -- those that were raised in it, and everyone else.)
4. The film works well as a psychological study, moreso after the 25 minute demarcation point than before. Patrick McFadden does a yeoman job with the material he has to work with, reminding me very much of Henry Rollins in the cult indie HE NEVER DIED. Always focused, always moving forward.
Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (2011)
I could be sent back to boot camp for this review
A MI movie starring Cruise co-produced by Abrams and directed by (OMG!) Brad Bird should be a no-brainer.
Literally.
It should be one of the best films of all time and we the viewing public should be grateful it was made in the first place.
But this reviewer begs to differ. Respecfully.
Great opening sequence. And although the remainder of the film is technically perfect and has some of the best special effects ever put on film, the rest of the movie fails to live up to the opener.
You ask why? Because of the mechanical plot, the lack of humanistic connection, and shallowness of the villain (who best resembles the shape-changing robot from Terminator, has only one purpose, keeps popping up, never changes tempo or facial expression and has almost no dialog).
Lets drill down a bit deeper to see where they went wrong? The original TV series (yes I saw them all, I am old) had a plot device which worked at the time. No matter how carefully the IMF plan was, something always went wrong at the last minute.
This astonishingly over-written film has taken that single trope and used it in virtually every scene!! The entire film is essentially about carefully laid plans that do not work.
This is not the way to build a successful film.
This entry, in spite of the talent behind the camera, is not one of the best in the series.