Change Your Image
frezeframe
Reviews
Dune: Part Two (2024)
Snooze fest
If this movie wasn't 3 hours long... if it were say, 2 hours, I'd probably give it a solid 8. A lot went into this film. And I could write a review full of things I liked. But given all the 10 of 10 ratings (making it possibly the most overrated Hollywood film this century) I just have to state the minuses.
Dune: part 2 was full of long dialogue heavy scenes and too many characters and too much "worship" of Timothée Chalamet's character Paul. We get it.. he's the "chosen one." It just came off as cliché. And Zendaya is cool, but she's not the caliber of actor that can hold a movie for 3 hours. She had RBF the entire movie.
Also the build up to the bad guys dying over the last two films was a big let down. The "uncle" character (Baron) was awful for 2 films and he gets killed in 2 seconds. Same with his "nephew" (Glossu). All this time spent with them and they just fall over and die. And Christopher Walken was terribly miscast in this as the emperor. Weak character.
And the sandworms. They were cool the first 5 times. But for the amount of screen time they get and they never change... it gets old after awhile.
It's a good film to revisit to fall asleep too. But it other than a cool soundtrack and some great cinematography and costume design, this film doesn't really do much. Dune has proven a very difficult story to capture on film and no one has done it right yet.
The Brezinski Project (2021)
A wonderful look at art in its purest form
I was fortunate to see Make Me Famous twice in the theaters with different audiences and its interesting watch something that makes people talk about art afterward.
I think anyone reading this should watch the film, so I won't give any direct spoilers. But I will say, one of my favorite things about it was the notion that art can't be about being famous, even though all artists are striving to be famous, whether they will admit it or not. Looking at the 1980s New York underground art world, which director Brian Vincent was able to capture through archive footage, photographs and interviews... I realized something. Whether it's Basquiat, Warhol, Haring, (Brezinski) or anyone who is prolific and focused on their art.. it's not even about the art. The details don't matter. What matters is for the artist to convey their own truth. Which also means showing their mood. And that could be the 100% random paint splatters in a Pollack, or the one color (seemingly lazy) giant canvas in a Rothko... it doesn't matter if there was one more spec of paint or less paint... it's all about the truth of feelings.
So art is only personal to the artist, but the viewer resonates with if they think it was true or pretentious, before they pick up on anything else. And some would argue that a replica of a bag of donuts in a fancy museum, is not truth and not real art. And some artists choose to speak out against falseness, laziness and pretentiousness in the art industry. And sometimes they risk their own reputation and career by doing so. But in the end, when these artists are gone, they will be remembered for their truth in their work more than anything else. And that honesty is often misunderstood. And that's the beauty of it.
Great film! Very inspiring!
Napoleon (2023)
People who crap on this movie shouldn't write reviews
This is a great movie. Anyone who knows anything about film will tell you the cinematography is stellar, the costumes are remarkably accurate, the editing, production design, music... it's all there. And Phoenix is one of the greatest actors not just in our time, but of all time. All that alone is worth serious consideration and when people just crap all over a good movie like this without acknowledging what I just said, it angers me.
Napoleon is not my favorite Ridley Scott film by any means, it's maybe 5th on my list- but it is still a masterpiece. And Ridley is for sure one of the greatest filmmakers of all time. Watch Napoleon with the intent of the experience and you'll get a lot out of this film.
At the end of the day, it's just a take on a historical figure and time that changed the world. Artists should have free reign to interpret it the way they want. Enjoy this!
The Happytime Murders (2018)
Anyone rating this under a 5 should be ashamed of themselves
It's an R rated puppet noir slapstick with Jim Henson Company creators. What's not to love? You can't take this movie seriously. Just laugh a little. People who are comparing this to the Muppets need to get a life. Muppets aren't the only characters Jim Henson Company created over the last 50 years and there's millions of other felt puppets in the world. Yes; the puppets in this film act as intermediaries between our world and their fictional world... that's nothing new. And yes they are used as gag jokes sometimes. But they are controlled by world class puppeteers- isn't that what's fun about it?
If you enjoyed this; you should watch Peter Jackson's Meet the Feebles. If you didn't enjoy this, understand that life is better when you laugh, even if the jokes aren't up to your standard.
Sharper (2023)
The people who trash this movie are just jealous 👀
I give Sharper a solid 8.5 and wouldn't argue with a 9. But it's rated so low by jealous amateurs on IMDb who have never made a film, I had to at least rate it a 10 to help balance the scales. The people who are tearing this apart with 1, 2 and 3 ratings have no idea what they are talking about. Sharper may not be the most original con artist storyline, but the script is quality (Black List award winning), it's masterfully directed, masterfully acted, the cinematography is world class (if you don't think so, I hope you just read reviews and don't write them). The production design is fantastic. Music is on point. And they managed to tell an interesting love story and stick the landing throughout a complicated mystery that jumps around in timelines.
This movie will keep you guessing and wondering what's going to happen. The people who say it was "predicable" are full of crap. It's easy to look back and judge after you watch something and point out what was "improbable" or what was not realistic. And sometimes that's necessary. But this is not a big budget film. It's closer to an indie genre film made by serious filmmakers and at the end of the day, it is just a really well done con artist mystery movie. The point is the ride. And the acting is world class. Julianne Moore and John Lithgow are world class actors, I'm sorry if you disagree with that, but if you do, stop reading reviews and go educate yourself. If you have no expectations and if you're not judging while you're watching, Sharper will be a fun ride, I promise you.
Hello Tomorrow! (2023)
How is this show not rated higher?
I normally don't give shows a 10, because let's be real. Even Game of Thrones (first 5 seasons) was like a 9.5 at best. This show is legitimately at least a 9. But IMDb ratings (as of February 18, 2023) are a 6.7? Wow.
I don't know what's more mind blowing- this show, or that people don't seem to get it. It's almost the perfect show. It's the 1950s vision of the future with Billy Crudup and Hank Azeria (and an absolutely incredible supporting cast); but moreover- it's not the 1950s, but it's a vision of what our world would look like today, had we kept the 1950s vision of things. They still have incredible technology... it's a little creepy like Pleasantville... but it's so right on the money. They nail the 1950s culture, they nail the sales culture, and they absolutely nail the father longing for a son's love dynamic. The acting is superb and the production design is the highest level. The music is off the charts and the cinematography is also off the charts.
If you're not entertained by this show, you have a sad life.
Deadwood (2019)
Not the show at all!
First the good:
-Great acting
-Great lighting and camera by David Klein
-It's great that they tried to bring Deadwood back
-Amazing costumes and set design
The bad:
-They brought Deadwood back after 12 long awaited years to hopefully bring some closure... but there was zero closure.
-The dialogue was terrible. David Milch as lost the magic he once had with the series. But the series had a dozen writers.. so maybe that's the reason.
-The characters were all doing the exact same things, just "10 years later" and it came off really phony. The actors were all aged with gray hair and it seemed more like a cast reunion.
-Milch missed the hard gritty tone he set for the series in 2004-2006. This reboot is really watered down and the characters are no longer hard or interesting. And Bullock is not believable. Tim is a great actor, but the aging, yet graceful, yet still young and studly- slightly thicker mustache.. and invincible... it just doesn't work.
-Bringing Hearst back as the main bad guy was a mistake. Historically it's not accurate. Senator George Hearst was nothing of the serial murdering savage that Milch makes him out to be. It's bizarre he went that route in season 3. To continue it in the movie was really disappointing. This movie could have been amazing. They even made Jane soft.
If you haven't seen the show or the movie, take a pass on the movie and enjoy the show!
Avatar: The Way of Water (2022)
The most worthwhile dull story you'll ever see.
I give the technical achievement: an A+
Ambition: A- (it did not disappoint)
the sound design and music: B
Acting: B-
Production Design: A
Character development D-
Costumes: B+
I liked the first Avatar much better, but I give "The Way of the Water" a solid B-
I think part 3 will be better, as Cameron is probably holding out the best stuff.
Some final thoughts:
Jake Sully is just a terrible protagonist. And the bad guy (Colonel Quartich) is not interesting at all. He is WAY too cliché and there's no inner conflict. The best bad guys are people who you can relate to. And people who are good in a lot of ways. When this film started, the bad guys just jumped into the avatars and we're on the hunt. Very disappointing.
The Sully family montage in the beginning was rushed, but interesting... but it was ultimately flat. The entire family is just flat. Charming, yes and cute... but flat. None of the characters really stick with you when you leave the theater. And that's a problem.
To be honest, I was disappointed with the movie until the whale destroyed the ship. That was so bad ass 😳🔥 and then it was just solid action for the next hour and it was really tricky how they pulled that off. A lot of intense pacing with holding breath underwater fight scenes. Well done 👏
I didn't like the constant bullet dodging...it was pathetically too Hollywood in that way... and the underwater stuff in general wasn't quite as groundbreaking as I thought it was going to be... although the crab destroyer machines were awesome.
I thought they didn't go far enough with the differences between the water people and the tree people. Because you know, the N'avi picked up on their swimming and their ways pretty fast - and I just don't think that Sully's kid would've been able to talk to that whale so quickly. I would've bought that relationship more if it was one of the water people, but what are you gonna do... the Sully kid death scene was a little weak and the Spider character (who has a mask that never comes off or never gets moved around on his head even a little bit and never runs out of oxygen) him saving his dad at the end was touching, but it would have been better if he went with him. That was a big opportunity lost. It was a little confusing that he saved him and then just bailed (setting up the same flat bad guy for part 3). 🙄
Anyhow, there's not a better movie out right now. Just disappointed. I expected more from the most anticipated sequel of all time. I think Cameron has been living in James Cameron world a little too long and everyone is afraid to suggest better stories to him.
Blonde (2022)
Another (would be classic) movie ruined by pretentious directing
Man, Andrew Dominik. What an amazing opportunity this man had to make a much needed bio pic on the most famous female human being who ever lived. Ana De Armas absolutely crushed it. But the story was absolutely awful. It's truly amazing that the director managed to keep it all negative and sexual and not show one positive aspect of Marilyn Monroe's life. I don't care if it's based on some fictional novel... if you have arguably the most fitting person in history to play Marilyn Monroe (Ana de Armas) and if you're going to portray people like JFK, Joe DiMaggio, Arthur Miller, etc..you have a moral obligation and a responsibility to tell the real story. It's a delicate thing to portray someone's persona and their life. You can't just make it up as you see fit. Andrew should've watched Ray before he made this.
Andrew portrayed Marylin to be so dumb. She was actually very smart.
To shoot in a square 4x3 aspect ratio was a huge mistake and to shoot half in black & white...Bro, you have Ana De Armas. Let's see Marylin in full wide screen and full color the entire time. We don't need an auteur director's stamp on it. Marylin is interesting enough. 4 generations have now grown up with her story. No one knows who Andrew Dominik is.
The opening scenes of Norma Jean's childhood was understandable... but the bathtub drowning scene was totally fabricated and uncalled for. But then to jump the movie from childhood abuse to the famous "short blond haircut Marilyn Monroe" for the rest of the film is a huge mistake. Norma Jean struggled for many years as a young adult before she was famous- she did not look like the blonde Marilyn Monroe until later. The first scene Andrew chose to show of the famous adult Marylin was Marilyn auditioning, then bam- getting bent over and raped by Darryl Zanuck.. we get it, she was used.. but come on, that never happened. It's just terrible taste. Marilyn Monroe would be mortified to watch this film.
Every single scene Marylin is in...perfect short hair and makeup. And not one intelligent thing to say. Doesn't change through the entire movie. Come on. Learn how to make a biopic!
The scene where Marylin is topless and has a three some with two gay guys... So now I get it. This film is the creep director's fantasy. Such a disgrace to Marylin Monroe and to Edward G. Robinson Jr. And Charlie Chaplin Jr, who were not even gay. Even if they were gay...sorry, but gay men don't just fall for a hot girl on the spot... they're gay. Even if Marylin did have extensive threesomes with Edward G. Robinson Jr. And Charlie Chaplin Jr., her film career is much more interesting. Why can't we focus on that? This made up sub plot is just a really disingenuous way to portray Marilyn Monroe. While all three of them did know each other, there is no evidence that Marilyn had a threesome with the two men. So why fabricate the truth in a biopic???
The sperm in the stars scene... meaning Marylin is pregnant by one of the gay guys. Eh so cringe. And the abortion scene was sooo bad. Perfect hair; perfect makeup and star spotlight in the hospital... please.
The bizarre house burning motifs? Nothing to say there.
They don't show any of the behind the scenes of her filming the iconic films she made? Just her in a theater watching herself and random slow motion red carpet flash bulb scenes. Eh.
Her Joe Dimaggo relationship was terribly portrayed. Marylin calling him "daddy" the entire time? (vomit). To only show the great Joe DiMaggio beating her and not show him playing baseball was a huge mistake. Good actor, but miscast. Joe was an American icon.
The flying skirt scene.. the way Andrew filmed it showing a loop of the (up her skirt) shot over and over again (vomit). Who let this guy direct this film!?
Adrian Brody crushed it as Arthur Miller. But it didn't pull you into the story at all. And she called him "daddy" the entire time. It's so gross. And Adrian should have known better to agree to do this film. Doesn't he read the scripts anymore?
The JFK scene was just an absolute disgrace. Commenting on it would be giving it too much credit. This scene earned them an NC-17 rating. Not that ratings matter now, but back in the day, this scene would have cost them 60% of their box office. Clever way to execute an oral sex scene, showing only the hand and mouth...(having the actor suck a cucumber or whatever) but it's just another testament to the creepy direction of Andrew Dominick who clearly wanted Ana De Armas to do that on camera. No point to that scene other than fantasy. Just no class whatsoever. JFK and Marylin had a relationship, but it wasn't like that oral rape scene at all.
I can't do this anymore. Sorry for the negative review. The acting was amazing. But at no point did I feel like "Blonde" was showing any part of Marylin Monroe's actual life. The families of those portrayed should be outraged. I hope a real director makes a real biopic about Marylin Monroe. To see this praised at the Venice Film festival (and probably the Oscars) is proof of how far Hollywood has fallen.
I had to watch a Marylin Monroe documentary after this to cleanse my pallet.
Fall (2022)
Complete waste of time
This should have been a short film
I probably would have gave it a 6 or 7 as a short. But as a feature, it just doesn't work. There's just no story. It seems they wanted the audience to be on the edge.. and it worked for the first half of the film (if you over look the impossible feats of strength the girls had).
Of course, there's a cliche betrayal tension between the girls and then there's their desire to survive. But they don't take it far enough. The blond chick dies and the brunette gets rescued? That's it? Lame.
Watch the trailer if you need context. But her are some major flaw specifics..
There's no way you could charge a drone from a light bulb socket on a tower. And the tower light would be locked
There's no way a tower with a working lightbulb in it would be that rusted out to where the ladder is rusting apart.
I don't like how they played the whole drone story at the end with the two chicks.. but surprise surprise- the blond chick was really dead. Shocker. That trick is so over done and it's not fair to an audience
And there's absolutely zero chance any of those girls could have the upper body strength to shimmy up a rope, let alone the tower pole.
The birds were lame. No chance the chick is killing and eating one with her bare hands if she was 100% let alone while passed out and nearly dead
They played on the girl's cleavage pretty heavy, but didn't deliver there either.
The Old Man (2022)
Should be called "The Flashback"
Good show. But they rely way too much on the flashback subplot of young Jeff Bridges (or young Indiana Jones) storyline. The Old Man story line is fantastic. The book is the book, but the show runner missed this- the acting of Jeff Bridges, John Lithgow and Amy Brenneman is so superb, that you don't want to spend 40% of the show on their younger less interesting characters.
Worth watching, but opportunity missed.
Inventing Anna (2022)
Worth watching- but (trigger warnings) be warned!
*I understand that people are pissed at the Trump jabs and leftist nonsense. There's some of that in this show and I don't like it either. But I don't blame the filmmakers. Its freedom of speech and it accurately reflects the media world these characters live in. I'm just thankful the jabs are light.
I'm not a fan of "socialite dramas" and the ultra rich fantasy genre... but this was trending #1 on Netflix, so I checked it out- only planning to watch 10 min of it... wound up binge watching 6 episodes all night long! As a filmmaker myself, I was blown away by the filmmakers ability to tell a story like this. It's really unique, it doesn't seem like we've seen this before and the wardrobe, locations, cinematography, sound design and editing are all on point.
And the acting is next level in an era where the bar is already set at new heights. For example, you're a fan of Ozark, you may recognize the brilliant Julia Garner as Anna. The people who are ragging on her accent don't understand that this character she is playing is a con artist! Anna is fake! That's the point! The accent makes total sense. If Julia doesn't win an Emmy for this, then it's as shallow as this IMDB rating! The entire entire cast is absolutely amazing. Shonda Rhimes storytelling ability is truly next level. I don't agree with her politics but I respect her. This is coming from someone who is anti-woke. They do some shouting from the rooftops about how "it's a man's world" and how women are overlooked in business (pointing out actual truths not the deceptive woke wage gap agenda).
Identity politics aside, The social and political points of view do NOT get in the way of the story and they don't play the gender or race cards. As is the norm in Hollywood now- There's an ensemble of LGBTQ characters, minorities and whites (and mostly women leads) and it's all done with class, style and taste and it completely makes sense in the world. As it should be! There's no agenda here, which sadly, is rare in our politicized world. They take a few shots at Trump, but that's always fair game. That's what Trump does! People need to chill out.
Don't miss this!
Outlander (2014)
Simply outstanding
This is one of the great period shows ever made. And I wouldn't argue with anyone who puts it in the top 10 of all shows ever made.
Big Timber (2020)
Good concept- Terrible editing
This show is made for the Tik Tok audience. Just watch the opening sequence. They don't even give you a half second to look at anything... just cut cut cut cut and the show is based around poorly written narration and boring forced reality drama.
It's reheated, reheated, reheated reality show leftovers. I only lasted 20 minutes. Too much quality content in the world to waste more time on it. If you like logging, you're better off with YouTube logging documentaries.
There's a drone shot every 60 seconds... which in 2021 is quite boring if it's used for filler- which it is.
Let's see, what else...
they had to blur the Ford logo on the guys truck because the producers think they are going to get sued by Ford. Lol! That's SUCH lazy filmmaking! A simple conversation with Ford gets you permission. Especially with the unprecedented platform of Netflix and the flailing Ford industry.
And the music is insultingly cliche. Netflix just whiffed the ball on this one at every bar.
Tenet (2020)
Worth it- but intensely cerebral for 2.5 hours with no break in tension
I respect the cinematic art that is Tenet. It's just something you experience- and if you try to follow the plot it will be confusing. But in this case, that confusion is intentional and one thing is obvious, this film is an intentional well planned out vision of Christopher Nolan. That confidence and certainty of a director is what you respect. Many great filmmakers make strange mind bending films. I think the action in Tenet was entertaining and the concept was interesting. But I feel it came up short given the storytelling ability of Christopher Nolan.
I think a top tier director like Nolan has a responsibility to level the tension. A film that's super intense for 2 1/2 hours straight is stressful. The audience has to do a lot of work to try to figure out what's going on and it's exhausting. You need to pull back and let some of it simmer. I think Nolan has entered the echo chamber stage of his career. No one's going to tell him no, or that somethings not right.
**this paragraph doesn't have spoilers per say, as no one knows what this film is really about- but it you haven't seen the film, spoiler alert. I feel the Indian lady (aka oracle master weapons dealer) was flat and her entire subplot could have been cut out. And I wished the opening opera scene tied into the plot more- and I think there was too much plot being revealed through dialogue. The actors were having to explain the plot- and it still didn't make sense even to them! Haha
I did enjoy it. Judging on a Nolan curve, I would give it a B+. I think it's probably his fourth best film. They will probably shower it with Oscars, but 10 years from now I don't think anybody's going to be quoting Tenant or talking about it, because it's unclear what it was about- without having it explained to you in a director's commentary. And Inception and Interstellar both played with time better than Tenet.
Even though it was clearly visionary, a unique piece of art that plays with the rules of the medium and the backwards action stuff was innovative... in the end, the bad guy wasn't charismatic enough and the good guys were too busy explaining the world to each other, and the ending wasn't amazing. But it was highly entertaining and that's all you can ask for.
Interstellar (2014)
Keeps getting better, and better, and better, and better, and BETTER!
"Insomnia" is one of the top 200 films ever made.
"Inception" is one of the top 100 films ever made.
"Interstellar" is one of the top 25 films ever made.
All of Nolan's films are great. But this is better. This is something else. Granted, Nolan's "The Dark Knight" is one of the top 10 comic book films ever made, but Interstellar takes Nolan's career to a level few have achieved. This film forever cements Christopher Nolan's place in cinema history as it will no doubt be one of the highest Academy Award nominated films in history (we shall see this upcoming March). I feel sorry for the film "Gravity." That film was so ground breaking in the Sci Fi/Space genre... but it only held the torch for less than a year. Interstellar blows Gravity away, like the '91 Bulls would have overpowered and embarrassed any class B college basketball team. Gravity is amateur hour compared to Interstellar- it's not even the same sport. Bold statements, I know but anyone reading this will eventually see the film, and you'll understand what I mean. Interstellar is truly a masterpiece for any generation and will be considered a pillar of achievement a century from now, much like Star Wars, Jaws, 2001 and Lord of the Rings are permanent pillars of cinema achievement. This is one of those films that changes the conversation. There has never been any movie like it, and there will never be another one like it- only imitators.
Having said all that, do I really feel like Interstellar is a 10 out of 10? No, of course not. I'd say it's a 9.5. So for IMDb, that means 10. It's not the best film ever made, but it's in the same conversation as The Matrix, Star Wars, Blade Runner, E.T., T2, Avatar, 2001, etc. From this point forward, you can't have a conversation about ground breaking visual effects films, or ground breaking space dramas without mentioning Interstellar. It's that innovative. It's so innovative, in fact, that the slow start, cliché elements and improbable story set up have absolutely no effect on the film once it's over. That is rare my friends. That is a film worth seeing!
Interstellar starts out slow and is overly sentimental as you'll read in a lot of reviews. You'll read that because it's true. Some of the dialog is off and the initial premise is not believable. Matthew McConaughey is one of our finest actors, but it's just not probable that an old NASA test pilot turned farmer would be seeked out by the now "secret" NASA who was looking for him but didn't know where to find him, and once he happens upon them by a supernatural premonition, they put him on a rocket ship a few days later with no exercise, conditioning, or up to date training. Oh and he only lives an hour drive away from NASA's secret facility. Usually a film with those kind of strikes in the first 20 minutes... you're heading for trouble.
But Interstellar starts slow and keeps getting better, and better, and better, and better... until the entire audience's jaw is on the floor (To see what I mean, give a glance at the audience during the act 3 climax and you'll see something you don't see very often. Total immersion. And if you don't watch this in front of an audience on IMAX, you've missed the point.) By the time Act 2 begins, it's so powerful that none of Act 1 matters. Again, that is so rare. Only a master filmmaker can design a film in such a way.
Act 3 is where cinema history is made. It wouldn't be proper to give any spoilers here, as this is a must see film. I will only say that Act 1 is good, but partially flawed... and Act 3 is so strong that it makes the plot holes of Act 1 totally irrelevant. That never happens.
Don't miss Interstellar if you have a chance to see it on IMAX! But regardless of how you see it, or when; it's worth your time and money and you'll be hard pressed to find a better new movie, over the next few years- especially with the all time low quality of Hollywood blockbusters and special effects showcases. Few directors have a command of the craft of filmmaking like Christoper Nolan does. In fact, I don't think you could say there is anyone better than Christopher Nolan working right now. He may not have the body of work Spielberg, Ridley Scott, James Cameron, Fincher or Soderberg have... but in the sci fi genre, Nolan is currently the best filmmaker in the world. Or you could say he's second to only James Cameron. Interstellar is a gift to us all on the same level as Avatar. Enjoy!
Now You See Me (2013)
The trick is on you if you pay 12.00 to see this movie!
The movie is called "Now You See Me." And by that, I assume they were referring to the plot. Nice one guys- I was fooled! This is what happens when a screenwriter writes from the "outside in" instead of the "inside out." It's all about outside elements (plot plot plot, twist twist twist) and no inside elements (human motivation/emotion). Honestly, I couldn't give a spoiler to this movie if I tried, because I have no idea what it is about. No-one does. It was just the filmmakers making up whatever cliché was convenient for them at the time and trying to twist the plot so much that YOU WON'T BELIEVE WHAT HAPPENS NEXT. Oh spare me that horse crap! It's always sad when movies TRY to be 3 steps ahead of an audience.
NEWS FLASH TO DIRECTOR Louis Leterrier. We're smart now. You know.. audiences. Maybe this flashy, celebrity packed mis-direction movie would have worked in the 90s, but unexplained magic tricks are boring to us now. We don't fall for stupid, predictable camera manipulation anymore.
We know you've been rubbing one out to The Illusionist and The Prestige every night for the lat 3 years, but let's be honest... you can't one up The Illusionist, or the Prestige. Those are masterful movies that should be left alone. You might have been able to pull this off had it been a TV series. But you had about 20 plot points that went nowhere, because you have no time to develop anything substantial with a feature film with 20 plot points (Cloud Atlas being the only exception). When you finally revealed the big secret, the audience I was in was disinterested and distracted by all the gaping holes left over from Act 1. Forget Act 3. Car chase sequence? Really? (no that's not a spoiler, because it was not a central part to the story). Speaking of story... It was interesting that the filmmakers choose not to include back-story- or motives- or subtext, or indications of character inspiration, or clues onto what certain symbols meant. It was just all one big, fat convenient mystery that ends in the most overdone Hollywood cliché one can imagine. We didn't know who to root for. Just because Morgan Freeman looks like he does and talks like he does doesn't give you a free pass to bukkake your action sequence fantasy all over the screen. Morgan Freeman is not Marlin Brando. His presence doesn't transcend the story. Even Brando himself couldn't have made this a good movie, because you wouldn't have time to invest in him because it's BAM BAM BAM, next plot point, next plot point, twist, twist, twist. The audience was thinking, "Hold on! Slow down! Wait, what? Huh?"
Honestly, I don't want to waste any more of my time thinking about this turd. Just do yourself a favor and wait for it to come out on Redbox. At least then you'll only bitch about throwing away 1.50. (and you can get your grocery shopping done at the same time).
Oh and BTW... we get it Louis Leterrier; you're French. Thanks for ramming the French thing down our throats the entire movie in characters and location.
Boys Don't Cry (1999)
Beautiful dysfunction
Boys don't cry is an amazing piece of film history. Aside from being a historical acting performance- (Hillary Swank best actress Academy Award), this film is of the most daring, courageous films ever made. For director Kimberly Peirce to keep this story together, and for all these actors to have the courage sign on to this, and give such committed performances... it's a wonderful dance to watch. Truly a must see film. It's intense and hard to watch at times; but it does what few films do. It takes you on a ride- it keeps you guessing; it makes you love, hate, laugh and cry.
This is the true story of a trans-gender female turning male named Tina Brandon (played by Hillary Swank). Brandon, running from his past, moves to a small town in Nebraska and manages to convince his peers that he is a male. He falls for a girl named Lana (Chloe Sevigny). The love between Hillary Swank and Chloe Sevigny is real. It's innocent, it's dysfunctional, it's sensual, and sexual (Brandon makes love to her using a fake penis- and actually pulls it off! no pun intended). You feel bad for Lana because she's being lied to, and you feel bad for Brandon at the same time because you know their love is real- and you know the truth and Brandon's past is going to get found out sooner or later. Despite all the tension, you feel happy for them because they're both experiencing something real, regardless of what the truth is.
But you're also scared for them because there are dangerous people in their immediate surroundings. Brandon is the outsider into Lana's volatile, low income family and peers. When Brandon is detained for charges that arose prior to his relocation, he is placed in the women's section of the Falls City prison. Lana bails him out and asks why he was in the women's prison. He lies again saying he's a hermaphrodite- but Lana declares her love for him no matter what he is. But the word is out on Tina Brandon in the newspaper, and suspicions arise among local homophobic, neurotic, maniacs who are determined to find out the truth, regardless of anyone's happiness.
One of the main threads of this film is embarrassment. You fear for Brandon. You know what she's doing is wrong, but you really don't want her to get caught. She is so genuine as Brandon. You really feel for her/him. You completely accept Hillary Swank as a young man.
No need to explain the climax or more details of this intricate plot, as this is a must see film. The way the story turns and how the characters arc is is really fascinating. This is a film you won't forget.
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)
The Hallmark Hobbit
On it's own, this film is a solid 8, by Hollywood blockbuster standards. However, because it's intentionally designed to work together with the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, you can't have a conversation about a Hobbit movie without comparing it to one of the greatest achievements ever captured on film (LOTR). The Hobbit Unexpected Journey falls short of that bar by a considerable margin. It's not bad movie by any means. Go see it if you haven't! But it is disappointing. To use the parlance of our times, here's a win/fail operandi:
Win:
1. GOLLUM'S CAVE- Stunning.
2. FIGHTS BETWEEN THORIN AND WHITE ORC- The rivalry is one dimensional, but very intense.
3. GANDALF'S EAGLES- will leave your jaw open.
3. RIVENDALE- Rich with dialogue (although most of it was unnecessary as it foreshadowed what we already know will happen in LOTR), texture, and Gandalf subtext. Incredible acting and set design... and the Christopher Lee cameo was most welcome.
4. MARTIN FREEMAN-Completely nailed it. Unassuming, matter-of-fact like. He was Bilbo.
Fail:
1. RADAGAST- Really? A Santa Claus sleigh being towed by rabbits? Zipping back and forth across the hills, making Warg dogs chase it? It just looked ridiculous. Radagast was given about 30 minutes of slapstick screen time. He was over the top and animated like a Disney character- going cross-eyed while smoking marijuana from Gandalf's pipe- sure it got a chuckle, but it's cheesy and not consistent with the tone of the LOTR Trilogy. They could have done this character much better.
2. THE ROCK FIGHT SEQUENCE- Two mountains turn into human rock figures and duke it out for a good long while. It felt like a Transformers movie. Just too much staged action.
3. THE MUSIC- 75% of it was re-mixed from LOTR soundtrack. It was also very pompus and over the top at times- using unoriginal blockbuster orchestra templates. Hugely disappointing for Howard Shore. The original LOTR soundtrack was so groundbreaking. This was the biggest disappointment.
4. AND WHAT IS A DWARF?- They didn't grow on you- plain and simple. They didn't act or behave like great warriors, like J.R.D. portrayed in Gimli. But rather, it was a Hallmark portrayal of Dwarvdom. There was no Gimli here. Not even close. Thorin was the only badass, and he looked and behaved nothing like a Dwarf.
5. THE TROLLS- Very Pixar/Disney like. Not consistent with the look or demeanor of the great Cave Troll in Fellowship of the Ring. And again, the slapstick thing has infected Peter Jackson's ability to tell the epic story on film. It worked for "Meet the Feebles" or "Dead Alive", but once he made LOTR, he set a new standard. Now we're watching a legend overstay his welcome.
6. THE MOUNTAIN ORC LEADER- Way too animated. This was the Jar-Jar Binks moment. He was like Java the Hut mixed with a less intelligent Davy Jones from Pirates of the Caribbean. It was suspicious.
7. 48 FRAMES PER SECOND- This ruined the entire movie-going experience. It took you out of the story and it made the entire production look like a BBC special. And no... we don't have to "get used to it." I'm so tired of that executive excuse. It doesn't work, period. It's shocking that Peter Jackson & studio made this bizarre decision. 24 frames per second is the only way to watch this film or any film. Don't buy into the hype. It's a way for the studios to make an extra 500 Million, because people want to see it both ways. It's disgusting. 48 frames per second is for sports and documentaries. It's technology being misused like the auto-tune. Even if you like the auto-tune effect in some music, you wouldn't want to hear Pink Floyd auto tuned, would you?
The Hobbit has a few good scenes, a half dozen terrible scenes and a few GREAT scenes (Gollum's Cave is hands down the greatest achievement ever in motion capture acting. Andy Serkis' performance in this film really should prompt the Academy to open a new category). But it seems Peter Jackson isn't as hungry this time around. Too much collaboration with Steven Spielberg has clearly clouded his judgment over the last 15 years.
Lincoln (2012)
Should be Titled "13"
So what happened?
1. The first problem with this film is the script. The writer Tony Kushner is a Pulitzer winning theater writer, but other than "Munich" he hasn't done any motion pictures. The long drawn out dialogue between Lincoln's cabinet and the lengthy parliamentary congress sessions might play well on Broadway, but they linger on screen. It wasn't just Kushner's fault. Spielberg is one of the few directors who has final cut on anything he does, so ultimately it's yet another vast mis-judgment by the best known director and one of the wealthiest filmmakers in the world. He's currently slated to direct Indiana Jones 5, so I guess that tells you where his judgment is. We're all waiting patiently for him to retire with some dignity, but he's just Brett Favre'n it all the way.
It was a huge mistake for Dreamworks when deciding on the story, not to include Lincoln's childhood, his struggle with schooling, the severe poverty he faced growing up on the western frontier, and how he had to teach himself how to be a lawyer, family roots, his political career, and ultimately, his assassination. It's very clear from the beginning, that this film is not about Lincoln's life, but a very specific part of his presidency,(The Emancipation Proclamation).
90 minutes of this 150 minute film was spent on the 13th Amendment. So much so, that every single member of congress when voting, had their own screen time to voice that vote. It should have been called, "Emancipation" or "ep13", but not "Lincoln." Do not go into this movie expecting to learn about Abraham Lincoln's life. You will be hugely disappointed.
2. There was no sense of space. No aerial shots of Washington DC in the 1860s... no city shots showing how life was back then... just interior scenes, a few battlefield scenes, and a few outdoor speeches. And this coming from one of the greatest special effects pioneers of the medium- lame.
3. No secret service. The Secret Service was created by President Lincoln on April 14, 1865, the day of his assassination. Don't you think that would be an interesting thing to showcase in a movie titled "Lincoln?" One third of the US currency in circulation was counterfeit at the time. There was no mention of it. And also, at no point did you see ANY security around the president except for a few soldiers around him in wide shots. It just made it seem even more like a filmmaker trying to tell his own pretentious tale of history instead of what really happened.
4. To much cabinet delegation and congress discussion; not enough "Lincoln." Sure, the film made an attempt to show his affection for his son Todd, and you did see some private moments with his wife Mary, but it was all put there in a disingenuous way because the story wasn't about his family. It was hammering the 13th Amendment down our throats the whole film. Did the NAACP make this film? Lol.
5. The cast was too big. There's over 120 speaking roles in this film. 120! That's insane. Daniel Day Lewis was dazzling- his eyes just penetrated you, as usual. He projected the essence of Lincoln (at least from what legend suggests) through an indirect manner that can only be witnessed to understand. He will get the Oscar nomination for this, no question. My prediction- he will win the best actor Academy Award. Everyone else was very good, a few were great- Holbrook and Stratharin especially. Sally Field was good, but not great- and Tommy Lee was his old self- always brilliant, but never stretching beyond his usual.
6. The ending. Instead of showing the horror of what happened the night of April 14, 1865, Spielberg decided to leave out the Ford Theater altogether and instead show another theater during another play, in which a man comes on stage and makes an announcement that Lincoln was shot. Then Lincoln's youngest son Todd, who happens to be attending this "other" play, looses it. And that's it. Not only do you have to sit through 2.5 hours of boring film, but there is no pay off at the end (because we KNEW this ending was coming). To show it like they did was almost as tragic as the event itself. I'm not saying show the bullet rip through his skull, but show us the event as it unfolded- don't deny the audience of that emotion.
I understand not wanting to glorify Booth. I get that. But this is history now. It happened almost 150 years ago. And Spielberg didn't think twice to show civil war soldiers being brutally murdered in the beginning of the film, why not show the murder at the end and DE-mystify it for all of us? And if his argument is that this film isn't about that, then why even show that part of his presidency at all??? Why not end the film with Lincoln still living... insinuating that his efforts and spirit still live on? This Jewish filmmaker can make a film about Oscar Schindler and show atrocities of monumental proportion... he can make a film called Saving Private Ryan and re define brutality, but he can't show the death of our most beloved President from Lincoln's perspective? - there may not have even been a holocaust if Lincoln had survived. So Steven, please don't give me the "we can't show that" line because you showed it a hundred times in Schindler's list and you won an Oscar for it.
It saddens me a great deal to write this review. I never would have dreamed that I would be giving Steven Spielberg's "Lincoln" a 2 out of 10. My advice: Watch this film for a clinic on acting and cinematography- but wait for it on video. I might buy the DVD as a cure for insomnia.
The Master (2012)
A film half finished.
I would like to say that I mean no disrespect to Paul Thomas Anderson. His contribution of "Magnolia" and "There Will Be Blood" to the world of cinema have been more than enough to forever place him permanently on the top 100 greatest filmmakers of all time list. These two masterpieces also forever forgive him for making his one great stinker, "Punch Drunk Love."
Well, he made another stinker here with "The Master," make no mistake about it. Here's a few thoughts on this film (which I'll say is worth seeing, unlike Punch Drunk Love).
The acting is brilliant on all accounts. I think 90% of directing is casting, so PTA hit this one out of the park. All the other departments of the production were right on; but the most important department, the story portrayal, was just disregarded, almost offensively so. "The Master" is a great character piece. The actors did their homework. But the film is one giant character study- but with no coherent story.
There's no spoilers in this review, because there's nothing to spoil. So I can't even go into the details if I wanted to. This movie is about a series of subplots that meander into nothing- juxtaposed with random, unmotivated nudity, and intense scenes where Joaquin Phoenix either beats someone's ass or you think he's going to beat someone's ass. Paul Anderson spends roughly 55% of the screen time developing the character of Lancaster Dodd (P.S. Hoffman) as this great writer, persuasive teacher and potential cult leader (much like L.Ron Hubbard), and then... "ffffttt." The other 45% of the film is spent very deliberately developing the character Freddie Quell (J. Phoenix) as a tormented raging alcoholic and disillusioned Navy vet... which also leads nowhere. Dodd tries to mentor Quell who desperately needs help- and he doesn't really succeed. Phil Hoffman starts to get a cult like following, gets arrested for something unclear, and so does Phoenix for resisting Hoffman's arrest, then poof- they're both out of jail and nothing is explained. The two men separate briefly, and Hoffman winds up in Europe and asks Phoenix to join him there. Phoenix joins Hoffman. Hoffman warns Phoenix never to leave again. Then Phoenix leaves and winds up on the beach caressing a naked female sand castle (mirroring the first scene in the film where Phoenix is molesting a naked female sand castle). The film ends here. This is why I say it's a film half finished. Sure there was complexity and duality in the twisted past of Phoenix and the intelligence of Hoffman's character; but none of it matters, because there's no payoff for any journey the characters go on. At the end of the day, it was just about Hoffman mentoring Phoenix off and on, and the two men loving and hating each other. That's it. (The great Amy Adams was poorly used in the film- and doesn't deserve mention)
It's a familiar trend with Hollywood these days: The characters are fantastic but the story is unexplored and unmotivated. If PTA hadn't wrote and directed this, I would maybe give it a 4 or 5, as the casting was so strong. But a story-less movie can only be a maximum of 5 on my IMDb rating scale, even if Stanley Kubrick himself made it and sent it to us from the great beyond. This film had many great attempts at taking you on a journey, but always dropped the ball at every opportunity of beat, and started new, random, and unconnected threads that didn't mean anything.
I don't buy the "it's an art film" b.s... or the idea that it's s a "subjective piece" that should be interpreted differently for everyone. That's horse crap- and the people who wrote the 9 and 10 star reviews know it. They are just under the spell of Hoffman's tremendous stage presence. Because let's face it, without Hoffman, this film doesn't work. We all know the ability Paul Anderson has to tell a profoundly original story while still being surreal, and using music to motivate plot turns. The "Lets be surreal just for the sake of being surreal" method doesn't work for him. Sorry Paul, you're not a Warhol, Lynch, or Von Trier- why even try? The subjective 2001 Space Odyssey films have been made already. We're bored of people imitating that. (at least I am).
"The Master" is supposed to be based on John Huston's "Let their be Light" and loosely influenced by L. Ron Hubbard and the rise of Scientology, much like "Citizen Kane" was supposed to be about William Randolph Hearst. But try as it did, this was just a train wreck from the start. At no point did you get the feeling of a Scientology-esc uprising... or any kind of an uprising whatsoever. At least have the courage to show the cult rise to power- or come out and say that Hubbard was a frickin nut case. At least that would be saying something. This film says nothing. It keeps you guessing, and it's a huge let down when you realize the film is going to do the pretentious art thing and not explain anything.
I don't know guys. I would wait for Netflix or Redbox on this one. Unless you enjoy paying a lot of money to be bored in public, with a few hundred strangers, all pretending to be blown away by nothingness... constantly waiting for the genius character performance of Hoffman and Phoenix to be engaged in a story. Why tease yourself?
Get the Gringo (2012)
RARE movie
To choose this role is surprising for Mel Gibson, arguably one of the best actors working today, and certainly one of the most dynamic directors of all time. Mel usually always plays deranged characters, but there's nothing in this role that was really a stretch for him. Driver, the man he plays in Get the Gringo, is a pretty flat character.
I rated this film so low, because to me this is a movie half finished. Great concept. Great talent. Great story idea. But the dialogue and beats are horrible- and the story doesn't turn. It's just so cliché. Almost embarrassingly so. When you put the Mel Gibson Icon stamp on something, there's high expectations.
A few thoughts on the different departments of this film:
The directing:
Adrian Grunberg is Mel Gibson's friend. That's how he got the gig. End of story. He was an assistant director on Edge of Darkness, Wall Street and Apocolypto, and a few dozen other titles. Mel befriended him on Apocolypto, most likely because he knew everyone who was good in the Mexican film industry... and that leads us to Get the Gringo. Although Mel and Adrian had a great time making this- you can clearly see the difference between Mel's master directing talent, and Adrian's "I think I should try directing" attempt. The story is all over the place- it's all forced- ALL the action is cliché and very predictable (especially the police scenes and the gun fights)- and there isn't any dynamic or underlying subtext to the characters or the plot. This movie doesn't make you think. If I don't want to think, I'll watch a Michael Bay film. At least he can get action sequences right. And for a Mexican shootout/drug lord/gang/violent/modern Mexican pseudo romantic type of film, I'd much rather see Robert Rodriguez do it. Anybody else attempts this genre, other than Quentin Tarantino and a handful of others, and it's lame. If Mel had directed it, it would have rocked. But he's one of the handful. Adrian is not.
A lot of money was spent on this polished turd (20 Million USD). There were long, boring, expensive action scenes that were totally unnecessary. They could have made a much better movie for half the price. At the end of the day, Mel Gibson was mentoring the director, and he's got a long way to go. I think he should stick with being an AD. I mean really, if you can't get it right with Mel Gibson mentoring you, then you should move on to doing something else. But he doesn't know this, and neither does Mel- they're close friends now and they both love the movie. I'm a little disappointed in Mel's judgment for this. But then again, Mel hasn't used the best judgment over the last 5 years, has he?
The editing: This picture was saved in the editing. I will give Adrian some credit as there were some very intense action scenes that were well executed. But without good editing, this movie would have been unwatchable. I was impressed. The story was bad and the camera work wasn't that great. To pull it together like they did in post was an accomplishment.
The cinematography: It was mediocre at it's best. A few places (ie the action sequences) the camera moves looked like daytime television. Pretty bad. Mel obviously didn't play the John Toll or Dean Semler cards for Adrian. Probably a good thing he didn't.
Acting: Fantastic. Great Latino talent. Great chemistry.
Production design: Great. no problems here. Great locations, fitting wardrobe, effects and make up.
On Mel: Mel's acting has always been consistent throughout his career, but his choice of projects have been very bizarre this last decade. Edge of Darkness (2010) was bad, but forgivable. Paparazzi (2004)was a big swing and miss. Except for The Beaver (2011), as an actor, Mel hasn't made a decent film since We Were Soldiers (2002) and the botched Signs (2002). If he really thinks that Get The Gringo is a good movie, then Mel has truly lost his mind.
They couldn't even get the title right. Get the Gringo? Are you kidding me? You watch the movie, and the title becomes even more lame. The entire movie is as shallow as the title.
As for the plot- read the tag line under the movie's IMDb page. That's all you need to know. I won't bother with any spoilers-the plot is spoiled from the very first scene. BUT... the film remains watchable. It's worth your time because the acting is so strong and the action is intense.
So that makes it a rare find. I say give it a shot. Don't take it too seriously. It'll be a love hate thing.
Män som hatar kvinnor (2009)
*Sweedish version SUPERIOR to US version*
My actual rating for this is about a 9, but I'm giving it a 10 because for some reason it only has a 7.8 on IMDb. Since IMDb is US dominated in usage, I can only guess it's because many IMDb Americans can't handle subtitled Swedish movies.
This original version of Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is one of the most compelling and realistic suspense films in existence. It is uncensored, raw, and uncut. Make sure to watch the Netflix extended edition.
The Swedish cast, locations, culture and music all serve the story well. The acting is of the highest caliber you will find anywhere, and the action, sex and brutality move the tension and suspense forward in unexpected ways.
If I had to categorize GWTDT, I would say it's Sherlock Holmes meets Twin Peaks, with a serial killer Psycho kind of twist, and a pinch of Hacker. But it really stands on it's own. I've never seen anything quite like it. It's refreshing, smart, sadistic, seductive, charming, and thrilling all at the same time. It really plays with your emotions. You will see some very disturbing things, but are never left without a sense of justice.
There are a few things I didn't like, but the movie is so interesting and the characters are so compelling that you are completely engaged in this masterfully suspenseful and tense story.
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is just the first part of the 3-part Millennium Trilogy. The next two parts (The girl who played with fire, and The girl who kicked the hornet's nest) are compromised, a bit forced and not as natural as the first, but they are still excellent- and still have the same strong character base that made it successful in the first place.
Check this out!
The Tudors (2007)
Top 10 time period show of all time
If you're a writer and you want a lesson on cunning dialogue and historical plot twists: watch The Tudors.
If you're an actor and you want a lesson on character depth, duality, and total commitment to a role: watch The Tudors.
If you're a set designer and want to see practical locations being used to their full potential: watch The Tudors.
If you're a costume designer, aspiring director, casting director... the list goes on for anyone interested in watching or creating dramatic storytelling. Though only 4 seasons long, The Tudors should be hailed as a standard for excellence in dramatic Television.
The Tudors is comprised largely of unknown actors, with a few all-star exceptions. These actors will undoubtedly grow on you and earn your respect, if you give them your time and commitment to finish the series.
The show starts out promising with the legendary Sam Neil (as Cardinal Wolsey) as the lead supporting role, second to the King. He is absolutely brilliant, but I feel they killed him too soon (much like like they killed Kieth Caradine too soon in HBO's Deadwood). However, it is a fine testament to the cast that after the very strong presence of Woolsy was gone, they not only carry the show, but rise above the standard set by Sam Neil. The legendary Peter O'Tool comes on board in season two, just adding even more depth and complexity for the cast to play off of.
The thing I like most about this show is the duality of characters. Every single character has a good side and a bad side. At first you're unsure, then you love them, then you hate them, then you reason with them, then you hate them... it goes on and on. Every character has done a bad thing, and every one has done a good thing. And the honor of the characters is great. Everyone lives and dies with dignity and respect for his majesty the King, no matter how cruel, misguided, unreasonable he was.
The sex appeal is enormous. This is a very sexy show for both men and women. I doubt if people were as polished, trimmed, and in such perfect tone and shape in the 16th century as the show portrays, but it does not detract from the story. Though the king and his duke are royal douche bags, their behavior exemplifies their characters and really plays with your own morality as you love and hate them, approve and disapprove. The sexuality might seem a bit strong, and unnecessary at first, but you respect the fact that Michael Hirst doesn't pull any punches with this show. It's raw, and it works.
Every frame of Tudors is important. The 4th season is definitely the weakest- but still on point. You really shouldn't miss an episode- watch it on Netflix or something. Though, it's not the best show of all time, I would say The Tudors ranks best among English 16th century dramatic serials ever put on film. Well worth your time!
And great breakthrough role for Henry Cavill (A new "super" star).
Gleason (2002)
a fine slap in the face to the Gleason family and legacy
First off, I am a Jackie Gleason expert. I'm am not a Gleason biographer, but I know more about this man than the average fan.
This movie is not the story of Jackie Gleason. If you go into it, thinking that you will have any insight whatsoever into the life of the real "great one" you will not only be disappointed, but rather upset.
Brad Garret, a talented actor in his own right- I'll give him that, didn't show you Jackie Gleason, but rather he showed you Brad Garret acting like Jackie. He had some of Jackie's mannerisms down, and was close with the voice; but it was only half way. The real Jackie Gleason was big, and powerful, and smooth, as Garret rightly portrayed. But Jackie was also vulnerable, tender, sweet, loving, and bashful- especially on stage when he would often exaggerate the many sides of Ralph. NONE of that side was portrayed on or off stage. Watch the movie. See for yourself. It's just a disgrace to the legacy of Jackie Gleason. I know it was Brad Garett's dream to portray Jackie Gleason, and I'm glad he got to live his dream. But seriously Brad... you half donkey'd it.
The dialogue was sinful, and the directing was that of a 6 year old. At no point, did any emotion come through, or anything remotely inspiring happen. This made for TV movie makes Jackie Gleason out to be a jerk- a womanizing, ego-maniacle alcoholic control freak, who was always stressed out, upset and who could care less about his family.
We know nothing of how Jackie Gleason really became a star, the effect he had on people, or the real class act he was. We see nothing of Jackie in New York City, or Los Angeles, (I don't think there was one exterior shot in the entire film except for a few car scenes). They spent way too much time in Miami, and his manager might as well have been a co-star, because there's about 45-50 minutes of dialogue between him and Jackie.
Art Carney has about 3 minutes of screen time. The focus was entirely on Jackie, Jackie's manager, and Jackie's poor neglected wife. EVERYTHING else was marginalized. Even the Audrey Meadows character was over-acted, and marginalized with the rest.
It just seems like the filmmakers didn't care to learn about the real Jackie Gleason, his motivation, and his extraordinarily rare talent. Or if they did learn, they didn't get it. They got the misery part down. This is a very negative film. In fact, if you knew nothing of Gleason before watching this, you would probably hate the guy. This film was focused on Jackie getting deals, and smoking cigarettes, and drinking, and arguing with his wife, and talking to his manager, and working random clubs, and just being a real d bag; which is the polar opposite of the real Gleason.
They tried to bookend the movie with the subplot of Jackie's childhood and his long lost father- which just fell apart in the filmmakers hands from the get go. They also decided to just end the film re-enacting(poorly and inaccurately) classic scenes from the Honeymooners. Why?
The two things that they got right were the art direction and costume design, and the actor who played Art Carney was about 75% right on. And that is literally all the good I can say.
The name of the movie is called Gleason. It should be called Train Wreck. Rest in peace Jackie. Let's hope you never had to watch any part of this wherever you are, because how could they make a movie about you with zero integrity, and above all that wasn't funny?