jerrycoliver's Reviews

Bad Surgeon: Love Under the Knife (2023)

8/10

24 February 2024

There is a theme to some docu-series you can find on Netflix/Hulu...which I suppose is a genre now: "Escaping Twin Flames", "Don't Pick up the Phone", "The Tinder Swindler", "Bad Vegan", "Betrayed", etc.

They're all just profiling people who were dumb to the point that they were manipulated, but also so dumb, they don't realize they enabled the villains' behavior to get to the point that it does. This upsets me a little, because I have yet to see any of these people show any remorse for the lives they hurt by being so dumb. This particular series is probably the worst because it got people killed. (But more on that later)

Overall story-telling...they have it down to a science now. It's told extremely well, flows nicely with good cliffhangers. They really learned their lesson with "Making a Murderer" which was 6 episodes too long, way too much repetition. Now they make these series tight, 3-4 episodes (perfect to binge) and it never slows down. Well done.

Production value is good, not the best of these series, but good. Possibly it had a lower budget, and that's fine because it relies more on archival footage and graphics.

Sound design is good. Editing is not stylized, much more traditional and that makes it an easy watch and doesn't distract from the story. And the story is great. A couple times the interview splices were pretty noticeable.

So production-wise nothing to complain about. But the primary "victim" is unlikable and sadly contributes to people's deaths and she still doesn't realize it. She thinks the biggest travesty is him lying to her, but never acknowledges that her "reporting" helped increase his profile and credibility which allowed him to continue killing people longer. If that isn't bad enough, so consider that this woman continues to call herself a "journalist" whilst admitting that she violates the core principle of what it means to be a journalist which is objectivity...it's literally the only thing asked of the job. Fair is fair, and most people today that call themselves a "journalist" are actually just activists with no commitment to their cause. They just want to trick people into doing the things they want done.

There are some people they interviewed that you can root for, though, and this salvages the emotional response to the series.

1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

A Murder at the End of the World (2023)

3/10

This is how you ruin a good premise

13 December 2023

Warning: Spoilers

All the elements are here for an exciting limited series: Murder, investigation, cool music, Illuminati type organization, the end of the world, etc. Sure it can seem like they're forcing every gimmick that's been popular the last 10 years into this, however there is promise it will come together.

Unfortunately, it's just the same thing we keep seeing in everything the last 4-6 years. Just blunt political identitarianism that sacrifices storytelling for a message nobody wants to hear. I mean, it's not a problem to have a message or politics in a movie, but they used to be clever about it, use symbolism, and never sacrifice the audience experience.

So the major flaw in storytelling, that I keep seeing with these types of stories, is that the writer doesn't understand that the protagonist needs to have an internal flaw that they overcome...rather, they choose to make the protagonist perfect in every way, and also exceptional in every way, and also the thing they have to overcome is something that happened to them in the past, but not their reaction to it. That's not good storytelling. Why should I root for Darby when she's already perfect in every way and it's clear nobody can stop her?

(Spoiler) Here's the examples, just in the first half of the first episode, and if you can make it past that, hey, maybe this is for you. OK, so we start with Darby who is...apparently the greatest novelist that's ever lived and a mere 2 sentences of her book are so engaging, it stops everyone dead in their tracks and they have to hear more. But also, she's a gutter kid that lives in a hip warehouse where poor young people are just partying and doing drugs...so basically in spite of her literary genius, she is poor, but also, poor in the way where she can afford massive real estate in the city.

Oh yeah, but she's actually from the country where she learned everything she'll ever need to know about autopsies from her father who works in a morgue. Then also, she's the greatest investigator ever who also solved the crime of a serial killer. She did so by hooking up with some other gutter trash with hipster tattoos all over his face...she found him on reddit. And she has an affinity to classic moody rock anthems, but also cheesy pop music (all of which popular long before she was born) which she plays on her ipod from 2004...I don't know.

Oh also, she's been "hacking" on computers since she was 12 and apparently is so good she can hack into the pentagon and was able to find out that 20,000 women are the victims of murder with no arrests...and that's her motivation to find a serial killers. Also, she learned from the greatest "female hacker" which is fine...but, I would think maybe, learn from the "greatest hacker", IDK, not sure why gender lines need to be drawn. Oh yeah, this "greatest female hacker" was apparently not that great because she was "Doxxed" and that ruined her "hacking career" (??? Yeah I'm confused by that) and oh yeah, once her career was over she instead married a tech billionaire...just saying if that was an option before, not sure why she did all the hacking.

Anyway, she randomly gets a text message from the Billionaire's assistant then jumps on to (and I can't make this up) a public chat forum reddit for advice. Now, I'm not a "hacker" but I know a few things. And all I'm saying is: If I'm capable securing an attachment and reading the metadata in it, surely, the greatest female hacker in the world would be able to do that...and also, I'm not that smart, but I think I'm smart enough not to post these communications publicly in a chat forum.

Keep in mind this is the first half of the first episode: she's a 22 year old expert investigator, novelist, and hacker. Oh yeah, and apparently for s 100 lbs woman, she has no problem swinging a sledge hammer and breaking up cement...so she has adult muscular man strength somehow as well. And also, the Billionaire knows who she is and has chosen her to be one of 8 guests at a super secret party he's having.

You can see where it's all going. Predictable if you saw the trailer, you know who the murder victim is going to be, and that person isn't going to be murdered because of any actions or faults of Darby...no. Of course not. That would be good storytelling.

Good luck with this one, just more bad junk that force feeds you about how white people and rich people are bad.

26 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

My Son Hunter (2022)

4/10

Trying Too Hard

10 November 2023

So, when considering politically motivated movies, it's not the worst script in the world. It's actually on part with "W." (which was Oliver Stone's weakest script.) They both take very famous quotes the characters have said, but then use them in different situations and contexts...which is really cringy to me, but maybe not to everyone. The problems with "W." are the same problems here: too many characters not enough development.

Script-wise, outside of that, I have no reason to "like" Hunter (I suppose there are reason feel sympathy towards him) which was the same issue with "W.".

As far as "breaking the 4th wall", which many people hate, I do as well, I give credit to the writer for trying to do something different...then about half way through the movie, you take that credit back because, yes it is being used creatively, however, it's also being used as a crutch and it's not a good enough gimmick to sustain for 90 minutes.

Lighting...wow. Inconsistent at best but never great...struggling to even call it good.

Production overall...well it was a low budget movie, so I'm not going to beat on them too much. I have seen lower budget movies, with better quality. I think the ambition of the director overshadowed the production capabilities. There are times they keep up, but too many times that they fall short.

If you're looking for great acting...this is not your film. Nobody comes close to delivering a good performance. John James probably could have, but his dialogue was so stilted, there was never a chance.

As far as content, there was so much to work with given what we currently know about Hunter Biden...you could make a great film, and someone will eventually. The guy was a bastion of sex, drugs and corruption...that's a great setting.

Oh, and casting Gina Carino, which came because she was recently fired from Disney for tweets...not good at all. She's pregnant and filling the role of a male character...it's obvious, and it doesn't work.

3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Convicting a Murderer (2023– )

6/10

We didn't need this, but glad it was made

19 October 2023

Starting off, I think Daily Wire has some very incredible post-production capabilities and I'm somewhat familiar with their structure and resources (as well as their slate) and it's pretty remarkable the volume, consistency and quality they can put out.

On the down side, Candace Owens, who is a personality who is divisive, that's not a criticism from me...what is, is her obsession of interjecting herself into these stories. It's like she wants these movies ("Greatest Lie ever sold" and "Convicting a Murderer") to be a documentary but she also wants to be a star. I could understand if she had a journalism background and she was building off the concept of a reporter package, but she doesn't, and it doesn't read like that. Either way, nothing against her, but the documentaries she's a producer on would be exponentially better if she removed herself from in front of the camera.

Now there's a complication with this series, I'm not sure who I'm following down the rabbit hole. There is the "Foul Play" woman who we spend a considerable amount of time with, but one scene she's in a group chat with no set up, then she's interviewing pro-Avery protestors with no set up...there is just no focus on who we're supposed to identifying with and where we're going. To make matters worse, watching "Making a Murderer" is a pre-requisite. Throwing Candace in the series also complicates things.

There is no story. If you're looking or waiting for a story, it's not here. That really frustrates me. Everything done using video needs to have a story. Each episode just explores one aspect of Steven Avery which the "Making a Murderer" left out.

The above two complaints are easily fixed. All you need is a writer. For how exceptional Daily Wire is on the back-end pulling things together, if they had 1/10th that quality in development and pre-production, they would be the premier documentary production company.

Here's how it could have been approached: Similar opening episode, explain the hype and all these people believing the lies. Then you take your main character(s) and have them explain the first crack in the facade, then travel with them in a linear story through the rest of the deception. Then you reveal who the film makers are and why their motivation (instead of talking about them in the first episode and kind of glancing over them, you reveal them as the story unfolds.) Then you end with a resolution. This video doesn't have that. There is no resolution. It's the problem with "Bowling for Columbine" (like it or not, there is no resolution, thus it's empty.)

The whole "Michael Moore" documentary approach is wrong though. Kevin Spurlock, Michael Moore, even Matt Walsh, they don't make documentaries. They're basically reporter packages. Moore is the worst though because he stages things then passes them off as legit.

All in all, very cool that people did do the research to get all the information that wasn't explained in the original series, but it's 8 years too late and poorly executed.

4 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Wrestlers (2023– )

9/10

Fantastic

18 September 2023

Truth be told...I don't like reality shows, so it was pitched to me as a reality show and I was not interested. Then I saw a trailer and I gave it a chance, and I was not disappointed.

It's not a reality show as much as it's a documentary series, and it is seriously a rollercoaster of emotions. The people they profiled, the stories in and out of the ring...just perfect casting. It's incredibly difficult to get a through story just right, and then on top of that, have it deliver. It's one of the those rare moments when the storyteller is the right person to tell the story that happens at the right time and they had the time and money to do it justice.

The art and music devices and SFX for the sound (which is always difficult in docs) was top notch. The camera work was great, they really did a great job creatively with the frames in the interviews but also being able to capture the chaos when they needed to.

I really don't want to give anything away as far as story but it tugs on your heart strings as much as "Anvil:The Story of Anvil" You hate some people, you resent them, you love some people and your heart breaks for them. Just great emotional storytelling about people who are passionate about what they do.

7 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Bad Batch (2016)

6/10

Meh

27 August 2023

There's nothing to really write about it because nothing is really special.

It really indulges in itself which hurts it more than anything else. I can say it's a nice homage to dystopian movies of the 70's and 80's, but those movies had charm, this one is too slick.

Speaking of dystopian landscapes, they are cool, and this one is okay, its problem is that it doesn't know what era it should be set in. For example, there's cassette tapes from the 1980's, then tattoos from the 1990's, then music and raves from the 2000's...it's like the art department just "yeah, whatever looks cool" rather than "What's going to support and help tell this story."

That pretty much sums up the film making. They're not telling a story they're just trying to do what they think is cool.

As for what story is there...well...it's a story without motivation. So normally the story is pretty clear and set up from the first act, and I don't want to give any spoilers, but this does not happen. The people who are supposed to be the bad guys, are actually the good guys doing bad things, and the good guys are into doing a bunch of drugs and partying and their leader is the actual bad guy who is actually the guy who's making the conditions livable in this dystopian world. Oh and for storytelling purposes: You can't introduce a main character halfway through the movie...that's just basic storytelling failure. I'm not sure how that made it through.

It's just another movie that has moments that look cool but not enough story to make you want to rewind if you missed something. Watch it as white noise and it's fine.

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Jesus Revolution (2023)

5/10

Time appropriate but falls into the same old tropes

12 August 2023

Without question, the story of Calvary Chapel is more relevant today than ever before and it's a great story to tell. Movies with a positive message and clean wholesome fun are always welcome...however...

To get the technical stuff out of the way: Sounds great. Very good soundtrack BTW. Lighting is inconsistent. Directing is average with no real imagination. Sometimes the proximity of the scene is lost, but it could be because of smaller sets and they had to shoot around things. Bang for their buck: A little above average. Kelsey Grammar and the music rights were probably worth the extra cash.

The principle actors are all fantastic, however, the directing left them out to dry sometimes and so you get scenes where actors slip out of the spirit of the character to try and make the scene something it shouldn't be (for dramatic purposes) or make a joke which isn't really in the spirit of the religion they're trying to promote (it's odd...even uncomfortable a few times.)

The real problem is the script. It's disjointed, which is forgivable in some places because the real story of Lonnie Frisbee is very complex. He was one part savior, one part conman. They never dive into the true complexity of Lonnie which is a far more interesting story (even amongst Christians, he really challenged a lot more conventions than they show in the movie. Like sexuality.)

So you may say it's a story of Calvary Chapel...sure, but then why change so much about Greg and Chuck and who they were and how they were involved in the evolution of the church?

(Totally unforgivable is Greg's story which is super rushed at the start. There's one scene he's getting high and in love with his girlfriend, then the next time you see them they've been broken up. It's confusing.)

All-in-all, it just falls into the same tropes that most Christian movies do. There's no real "mission" to walk us through acts I and II because it's never defined (no end goal is established.) Had They spent more of Act I showing the tension of Chuck and his daughter and how he felt like he was losing her, then focused on their relationship building through Act II...that would be good (instead it's presented and resolved in Act I.) They could also focus more on Greg's story with his mother, instead we get two scenes before their story is resolved...and it's not actually resolved.

The left turn everything takes comes out of nowhere because it's not built up and it feels more like the writer checking a box on his screenplay template. There is some forgiveness because it's a complex story overall, hard to tell in 2 hours, additionally, the more interesting parts of the real story, aren't things you'd see in a movie made for Christians. I think focusing on one story (Lonnie's life, with a b-story of Chuck and his daughter and then just touching on Greg's story...would have been a much better movie. It's not an ensemble cast movie like the writer wanted it to be. But knowing where the church is at later on...it kind of feels political that Greg was made into a main character when he really doesn't have as powerful a story.)

Here's how to fix Christian movies: There should be two genres. "Recruitment" and "Congregational". Movies made for people who are already converted should focus on challenging their positions and understandings of Biblical beliefs. And the "recruitment" movies should be those that are more secular generally that usher people to acceptance of the teachings. (If I'm agnostic or atheist and I'm watching Quentin Tarantino movies...this isn't going to make me change my mind.) So they need to be more R rated and show the graphic nature of the world. In this case...you have a movie about hippies and the most soft-core overdose scene I've ever scene. You're talking about hippies and free love...yet not one topless scene. Just saying...movies are show not tell.

Overall, it's just too long. That's really the biggest problem. I enjoyed it because I like that Christian movies are made. I think they're an important genre in society and they offer a beautiful interpretation (and invitation) to the religion. But this one isn't there. The thing the genre needs to become relevant is going to scare away Christian financiers, and the nature of the genre is going to scare away secular financiers. But the more movies like this that do well, means there will be more opportunities to take risks in the future. And for that, I would support this movie.

3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Nefarious (2023)

8/10

Why so much hate?

29 April 2023

I'm not a big horror buff, I really haven't been into the genre since middle school, but it's not really a horror movie, more of a thriller.

That said, pretty much every 1 star review I read was just hating on it because it had Christian overtones...okay, I mean so did the Exorcist. I didn't feel like it was a Christian movie, just a slow burn thriller/horror.

For such a low budget, it came together very nicely with cine, directing, production. Post-production editing could have used a once over, there were a couple scenes which were paced out poorly, but nothing technically wrong, just stylistically jarring.

I specifically came to watch the movie because of all the anti-Christian hate. I was part curious how anyone could make a Christian horror movie, and partly because I sought out several other movies that were described as "Christian" movies which turned out to be...really very good. Like, "Shut In" and "Run Hide Fight". I'm the first to hate on anything preachy and overtly messaged like "Saving Christmas" or "Moonlight" but this isn't one to hate on, it's actually entertaining.

56 out of 114 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Waco: American Apocalypse (2023)

4/10

Misleading

25 March 2023

There are plenty of documentaries on this subject, and several movies. So much information about all aspects of this are out there...and this documentary just doesn't seem to care. There is no new perspective. The promise of new footage, does reveal anything. The cardinal sin of anyone telling or retelling this story are the debates of things like: Who shot first? Who started the fire? Was the search warrant legitimate? Etc.

It looks good, and the CGI recreation of interesting the first time you see it...then they start relying on it. The editing is by far the worst part of this. You have so much footage and recreations (and supposedly all this "new" footage) yet the interviews look like Max Headroom with the constant chopping...it's Netflix, you can make each episode any length you want, so it's not being cut for time...so why are you manipulating the interview so much? Seems like they're trying to force the story in one direction.

It wasn't revealing. It's basically the CNN recap of event. They don't dive into their beliefs which explains a lot of the things they did. They didn't talk about anything to do with the congressional hearings which revealed a considerable amount detail about how the FBI and ATF operated and the mistakes they made.

In my opinion, just watch any of the other documentaries that actually dive deep into the story.

11 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

M3GAN (2022)

7/10

It's not bad... though

18 February 2023

First and foremost...this is an episode of 'Black Mirror' and shouldn't be drug out any longer. There is a lot opportunity to explore the interaction of AI and humans, which could make it a feature length, but this doesn't do it, it just leans into being a horror...which is fine, it is what it is, many people love that genre, but just know if you're looking for something philosophical about man and machine...this isn't it.

Production value is great. Most movies are. Even on a $12 million dollar budget, it looks really good.

Some good cameos, like Ronny Chieng, though it is weird to see him in a serious role after you watch his standup.

The acting is just...unbelievably bad. Allison Williams may be the worst actor in a lead role I've ever seen. It's worst than Kristen Stewart because Kristen I think understands what she's supposed to feel, whereas Allison is completely oblivious to how feeling work. Without a spoiler, her inability to react to something traumatic is shocking bad. So bad, I nearly turned it off.

The overall concept...is fantastic and appropriate for the day and age we're living in. Great work. The script on the other hand...well there isn't a lot of good acting, but part of that is the stiff and vacant dialogue.

The script, while it is a horror genre piece, is clearly written by someone with no experience in tech, never had an interaction with a police officer, and generally put no thought into any character backstory. Everyone is just a arch-type from other movies. There also isn't any motivation to get us into the second act, which is kind of important. There are also so many plot holes, you just stop caring at some point...however, that is the genre, so it's forgivable.

Overall, it's good. It's not going to blow any minds. It's not going revolutionize anything. Just a fun sci-fi horror. So if you know that going in, you won't be disappointed.

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

You People (2023)

2/10

Hallmark Movie with Cursing made 40 years too late

30 January 2023

Remember "Look Who's Coming to Dinner?"

Take that movie, subtract all the chemistry the actors have. Then add in every offensive joke at race you can think of. Then give the movie plodding pace and make sure it has no director, because, that might make it aim towards something. So it's clearly not working, throw in a many celebrity cameos as possible.

Seriously, it's just a huge step backwards in race relations. I'm in an interracial marriage. I've met all my in-laws, probably 30 of them...never has any of them ever used the "n" word, yet, this movie has people saying it every minute. It feels like liberal white people make these movies just so they can "get away" with saying that word.

If you watch it, and you enjoy it (you're probably a white person with one black friend or coworker, so) do them a favor, don't mention the movie to them because it will put them in the awkward conversation they really don't want to be in.

1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Captive State (2019)

5/10

Eh

31 December 2022

I mean, I was expecting more from a movie with this budget. Focus Features used to only do very good independent movies that were profound and unique...now they're just generic knockoff of popular movies.

I don't have anything against it for the most part. It feels like a low budget movie with lots of tight handheld shots to disguise the lack of set design budget...but it looks like they had movie for that, so I'm not sure where the money went. It can be frustrating, but it is a style. It just doesn't progress that style it just kind of blends in with the herd.

As far as story which seems to be everyone's major critique...yeah, it's not really flushed out and so the climatic moment doesn't land as well, but certainly not the worst example of this.

I guess my major critique with the story is that movie used to be very cleverly vailed critiques of the times or situation that is controversial...this one is not. It's pretty overt, and the only frustrating thing about that is the tropes they used are completely reversed. So you're criticizing a political party for the exact things your political party does...that's just delusional.

2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Pledge (I) (2001)

5/10

It doesn't get more average than this

31 December 2022

I saw this on Hulu and was curious why I never saw it before. I think 1998-2003 was a period of great cinema which sadly gets lost because it was also a period of really lazy and bad cinema.

This movie is right smack in between them. It's partially coming on the heels of the "every movie needs a dramatic twist that turns everything upside down" and this has that, but is executed in the worst way possible. Shock for shock's sake. A plodding second Act that doesn't know if it wants to be a story of emotional growth or a thriller investigation movie...so it chooses both.

You need setup and payoff in a movie, if it's not setup, you can't pay it off, or you're just betraying the audience. Some really good and interesting shot choices are edited in with some really poor and distracting choices. Some interesting editing techniques are tried, but fail, and because they're no utilized throughout the piece, they feel like mistakes rather than a style.

Friedrich Dürrenmatt is a decent writer but his books have some nuance which is lost in translation. He also has elements that become repetitive, to the point you for get they're elements in the storytelling. That works in a novel, but in a movie, you need to show those things. For example, if one of the "twists" turns out to be that main character is an alcoholic who is losing his grip on reality...maybe you show the main character drinking more than twice in the movie.

This feels much like the producer/director read a translated book by Friedrich Dürrenmatt, and knew it was popular so commissioned a screenplay then took the first draft of the screenplay and ran with it. There is so much potential with this story that the execution leaves out. For example, part of the premise is that the main character is lonely and isolated and all he has is his work...well...lets see that more than just one sequence at the very start of the movie when he's ice fishing.

There is something there, it just missed, and who knows who's fault that is, I'm not going to point fingers because there are a lot of people who could have dropped the ball. This would be something that should be re-visited with a better understanding of the source material.

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Emily the Criminal (2022)

4/10

Well, that's one way to end your story

25 December 2022

Warning: Spoilers

Right off the bat...technical and creative aspects of the movie...great. The crew did great, sound design is wonderful. Score was almost perfect. DP did an amazing job. Editing paced everything flawlessly ( in fact, editing might be the best part of the movie.)

Directing was good. Great choices for the most part, but what falls short is the lack of film language. It's those little things such as screen movement, and framing, dirty frames that the director doesn't understand. It's not uncommon with younger directors to get the shot they think looks the best rather than the one that tells the story (people watch older Spielberg and Zemicks stuff and they enjoy it, but when you study the frames, you realize very quickly, they aren't always the prettiest shots, they're the ones that tell the story with framing and movement.)

Now, onto the failure of the movie which is the script. I can believe someone picked up the script because there are younger people who might identify with it, because of their lack of real world experience, however, the movie isn't written by a teenager, so you would think that it would start that way, and over the course of the movie some realizations would be made that could help inform and motivate the main character which would in turn, show the growth needed for a protagonist. That doesn't happen. She's a brat that is delusional at the start, and the end. No lesson learned. Nothing changed, just an hour and a half of a brat, whining about herself, not learning a lesson.

I try to avoid spoilers, but I can't with this one.

So the movie starts with Emily at a job interview. She's in debt and looking for a better job. But it's hard because she has a felony conviction for an assault (which is never explained.) So she lies to the person in the interview. Then he calls her out on the lie. Then she gets mad that he knew about her past, but still asked...so I'm thinking "okay, she's a brat who is a liar and has little morals...so we're going to see her evolve and learn about honesty and integrity and she'll succeed in the end." Nope.

Oh turns out she has student loan debt which is her main motivation for money. She dropped out of art school (shocker, a writer who graduated from art school write about an art school drop out...maybe the moral of the story is an art degree is the least likely degree to get you a job and the least essential skill in society. And this is coming from someone who went to art school and was lucky enough to make a career out of their skills, but I'm fully aware I'm not the most talented just the one out of the other 32 in my class that understood how to compromise.) Anyway, she's looking for work and she's an artist...so naturally you'd think, "Okay, a happy ending for her is getting a job where she can do her art." Nope.

A friend somewhat randomly gives her a contact for some illegal work. I should say mostly random. She does him a favor and he gives her the contact for something that can get her into more trouble with the law. (That's a crappy friend.) Anyway she does it and act 2 starts.

The crime stuff starts, and frankly, the second act is always the most difficult and the story does a decent job weaving in the job interview at the agency and her desire to stop being a criminal. The romance stuff...is so bad even my wife rolled her eyes. It just comes literally out of nowhere. Whatever, people like unmotivated nudity, I get it.

Now, she's making money, and you would think, ah, she's going to pay off her debts, which is her motivation to do this in the first place. Nope. She just saves it, for no explained reason. Then she gets robbed, and she turns out to be a badass fighter and she tazes the people who robbed her...so to recap, she's now also a "bad ass" fighter, along with being pretty, smart, witty and an artist. She gets the money back and you'd think she would learn her lesson: put it in the bank or pay off her debts...nope.

Her boyfriend, btw, is the guy who organizes these criminal events.... I have to take a deep breath...Emily did what her boyfriend told her not to do, which is rob from the same store twice...she robbed the same store twice anyway and she was caught on camera. This puts the cousin and her boyfriend in a lot of danger, so you'd think, she loves her boyfriend and doesn't want him in trouble and the cousin could seriously hurt her (because he's the patriarch of the Armenian crime syndicate)...plus she's new to this and she made a mistake, she'll own up to the mistake, apologize maybe...nope she doubles down which puts her boyfriend in even more trouble. Now you're thinking, "Hey, this is all Emily's fault, she'll offer for him to come live with her and they can start a new path together. Since she has so much money saved up." Nope.

Her boyfriend comes up with a plan to steal from his cousin. (I still don't understand that one.) He asks Emily to help...I know what you think she will say...but no, she says "no." She says "Sorry dude, you're on your own. I ruined your career (albeit one in crime) and destroyed your family connections...but you're on your own, I'm going to interview at an Ad agency. Peace."

So she finally gets the interview for a job to apply her craft. It's an internship, which is very common, shouldn't be a problem, she has thousands of dollars she's saved up by not paying back her student loans (which, reminder, was her main motivation in the first place!) so she'll take the gig, right? I mean what else does she have? Nope. She gets an attitude towards a person who overlooked her felony convictions, did a favor for her friend and offered her an internship. She just acts like a spoiled brat because it's an internship and not an actual job. Can you guess what happens next?

She goes back to the boyfriend, who's life she ruined, and says "I'm in." Too late, cause the cousin already ripped the boyfriend off, now the boyfriend, literally has nothing, but that's okay, Emily convinces the boyfriend to "fight back" against an army of criminals to get his money back and they are going to use....a tazer and some zip ties against the Armenian crime syndicate.

This is when my wife went to bed, she thought it was too absurd. I agree. But, I invested this much time so I might as well finish it off. The pacing for act 3 is good but you're just thinking the whole time: "This is so dumb, I get the call back to stealing the car and pinning the guy down, but is an art school drop out the weakest cousin of a criminal enterprise really going to get one over on the Armenian crime network? Please." Well they don't, the boyfriend gets killed. And, even though she let the cousin call an ambulance while he was dying, she just leaves her boyfriend to die in a car and then...not making this up...she walks with a bag full of money to a bus stop. Then takes her shirt off and gets on the bus.

Sigh.

So, she probably went off and became an artist with all the money she got right? Nope. She set up the exact same crime syndicate in South America and now she's playing the role of the cousin in some non-descriptive South American country. (Oh, so to recap: bad ass fighter chick, smart, witty, artist and fluent in Spanish.)

Did she ever pay off her student loan debt? Probably not. Did she become an artist? Nope. Did she learn anything about "doing the right thing and hard work"? Doesn't seem like it. She just kept on being a petulant brat, ruined everybody's life around her, got people killed, and she's happy. Slow clap. Those are our heroes today I guess.

5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Dangerous Breed: Crime. Cons. Cats. (2022)

2/10

How NOT to make a docu-series

27 November 2022

So I had the fortune of time to watch a documentary and a docu-series this long weekend....and I just had to shake my head at both of them.

Just for reference, I taught documentary film making for several years, I've been working in film, television and advertising for 20 years now. So when I talk about documentaries, I'm not just looking at it for entertainment value as most user reviews. So some of the things that bother me, might not bother you.

First off, knowing some of this was shot over 10 years ago with a minimal budget, the post-production processing is great. The director was moving from news tv to documentary, and he had some nice lighting set ups early on. So many props to him.

The subject matter is stellar. The whole persona and history of Teddy Hart is veryy compelling. He is absolutely a character and that's why I watched the series, because something that unique, even in a bad docu-series is entertaining.

It really all falls apart after that.

First off, the director puts himself into the documentary, which by definition makes it investigative journalism not a documentary. (If you're influencing the film or show and producing it, you simply can't say you're documenting it, you're an active part of it.) I understand this is common. I also understand it can be very entertaining for example, Michael Moore, Kevin Spurlock and recently Matt Walsh. This director, however, is not compelling, rather he's just whining and complaining. He feels sorry for himself more than he assists the story.

If you take out the director, you have a, for the most part, a very solid documentary, however, they went for more money and made a series. So when it feels like it's dragging on, and they're repeating things and giving you information that is pointless....that's because they're trying to fill time. It hurts the product.

Now the main point of the series is the missing girlfriend (Samantha Fiddler), who we don't even meet until 15 minutes into episode 2. Now, with respect, the investigative journalism is lacking. You walk away saying "There's a lot of speculation...but there actually isn't any proof." I'm not defending Hart or his associates, they're pretty crummy, but the girlfriend wasn't a saint and could easily have been mixed up with other people (which is something the director never explores. He seems committed to prove it was Teddy, rather than being open minded exploring different avenues.) So there's no resolution, you're just screaming "What is your obsession with this guy, go look for evidence."

Lastly, I have to criticize the director. This is someone who does not have the personality and leadership traits to do these types of documentaries. He's a sad, dishonest, pathetic person. (My opinion.)

Sad, because he seems more fixated on wallowing in his own self-pity than his documentary. (He literally asks people "Do you think my documentary caused all this?"...dude, get over yourself and do your job.)

Dishonest, because in spite of the fact of his wanting to feel sorry for himself, he certainly seemed eager to get shots of the girls naked and exploit them.

Pathetic, because any producer or director knows, you can't let the talent walk all over you or push things in the direction they want it to go. The director is a pushover. That's why his reality show didn't get made. Executives saw he was weak and despite the compelling subject, they knew he was getting pushed around. That's why there's no evidence of any crime in his footage, because he wasn't asking the right questions, he was just doing what Teddy told him to do. He even admits he was "under Teddy's spell"...yeah because he was so desperate and pathetic he couldn't command the situation.

If you're a wrestling fan, I imagine this is good stuff. If you love crime docu-series and can't find anything else (I would honestly suggest, the first 48 or forensic files before this, but whatever) I can see value. Otherwise, you'll be disappointed.

Also, very strange, but literally in the last 3 minutes they present this one guy and try to make you think he had something to do with the murder. I had to research him, but it was really, really dishonest. They present him like a republican, white-supremacist (maybe he is, IDK, but none of that had anything to do with his involvement.) I watched the podcast they referenced, and he's accusing Teddy Hart of the murder, and frankly doing a much better job at asking questions about the murder than the director of this series and he even lays out evidence. So I kind of feel like the director wanted to put something on him because that podcast was far more interesting this series.

10 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Greatest Lie Ever Sold: George Floyd and the Rise of BLM (2022)

8/10

Technical failure but enough Research to Boost it

17 October 2022

I will say I wanted to give it a '6', but there were several 1 star reviews written before it came out that made me say "Yeah I need to skew things a little higher...like how can you review a movie before it's released? And how are these people bashing Daily Wire when they need a Daily Wire l/p just to watch it?"

Anyway, the direction of the whole thing is a mess. It really doesn't know where to go. They try a couple ways to make it about "the truth" and the idea to show the harm the "lies" did, but it never comes together.

There are several scenes where it's clear they got the interview then didn't know how they were going to use it and in what context...which isn't uncommon for people who only have experience with reporter packages (wouldn't surprise me if the director/producer comes from the News Journalism world.) Ultimate the direction fails because there's no story. They offered a sprite of story as a revenge piece for Candace, but she wasn't as big an enemy as she thought, and consequently, her celebrity only increased with the attacks on her...so is it a revenge story?

Several scenes the director didn't know what was going on so they couldn't communicate to the camera operators where to be, and it showed. They left in several shots where the cam op is fishing. I lean towards the director being the issue not the camera because the frames they hold a great, and there are other issues with the direction.

The post production was a mess. The title screens were sloppy, some of them didn't even have consistent spacing. It's clear they used Premiere Pro to edit, which is fine, I point that out because they used the "Warp Stabilizer" effect on a lot of shots but just used the preset which made the frame bend like a funhouse mirror. At least set it to position-only so that doesn't happen. The handheld camera would not have been as distracting as the fix, even if the shutter was at the wrong angle during production. (Or speed, depending on the camera.)

The storytelling is sigh worthy. Look, you have to build the scene and reveal the details. For example the first scene with Floyd's roommates. If the scene's purpose is to show the lack of concern from the family...well, you need to show the family's concern first and play to it because that's what the audience knows, then you drop the bomb and hit us with the reveal that they're just playing a role.

The other issue is the first person doc style. I can't say I'm a fan, because it's not really a documentary if you're involved, but I acknowledge it's a style in the genre. Usually, the personality of the first person needs to be big or charming for it to work. (ie, Kevin Spurlock, Bill Maher, Michael Moore, even Matt Walsh.) Sadly, and I don't wish to hurt people's feelings, Candace, although smart, is very serious and not very likable. She doesn't have that "human" side you need to pull off that style.

On top of that, she plays to the most loathsome aspects of people who do reporter packages and 1st person docs, which is that she initiates confrontation. Example, in the first scene she built the who thing about her, and how she's a "bad ass" fighting back and even mentions that she doesn't know how the roommates will react when they meet her and if they'll "run away", then surprises the roommates and...they clearly have no idea who she is. Another moment she's trying to secure and interview which would have the movie an incredible piece, but fails to get...so she exploits the fact she failed. Now the audience is confused: Are you a victim? Are you a "bad ass"? Are you a loser? What are you? How are we supposed to care when you have no consistency?

The whole thing plods along examining different stories of how BLM hurt people, and all of the stories are incredible, really the news we never got in 2020, but there's no through line. That's because BLM is the "bad guy" but who are they? We need to have a face of the enemy. It's very similar to "Bowling for Columbine" and how it failed. They spent this whole time attacking the organization then at the very last minute introduce the villain but never show how they've been orchestrating all the action preceding it. And you get the same result in both movies, a really big flop of a climax.

Outside of all that. The technical aspects are good. The information and the revelations they have, are incredible...like shocking. They're better journalists than the major news outlets are and just for that alone, you should watch this.

All in all, it kind of sucks as a documentary, but there is value to their efforts. What they should do, because it's disjointed already, is release each segment as a stand alone youtube story and polish it up a bit, then release one a week for a specific amount of time. I think that would be far more effective because audience attention span is short. The people who have access to this doc are the converted and probably already know a lot of this information.

20 out of 66 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Bros (I) (2022)

3/10

I think it's offensive

3 October 2022

The overall production and execution is great, credit to the tech and crew people. After that...not much positive to say.

The three act structure is solid where it doesn't need to be making it feel rigid, and loose when it shouldn't be, making it feel messy. All of that is fine if the story is good...but it's just unoriginal. The "twist" is that they're gay? It's 2022, how is that "the twist"?

The characters outside of the two main characters are so one dimensional, which would be fine, but the actors in those roles are such horrible actors it's painful to watch. They're just generic stereotypes of their LGBTQ+ representation.

Honestly, I feel like this is a movie made by people who hate gay people because it reaffirms all the worst stereotypes of them.

Outside of all that, there are some chuckles, nothing that makes you laugh out loud. There are a lot of very "inside" jokes to the gay community, or so I thought, my friend who is gay said he didn't get a lot of the jokes either. (He said he was very disappointed by the movie, but this is my review so I don't want to reference his thoughts.)

Even with all the poor acting and writing, I can still give the movie a decent score if it made me feel something. It didn't. I mean I did feel sorry for the characters, but I didn't really care because one of them is so unlikable with no redeeming characteristics, I didn't really care how it resolved.

If you're gay and there is humor that I'm just not getting, you may like it, but otherwise...IDK, not for me.

77 out of 144 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Gold (I) (2022)

7/10

Really not bad

9 July 2022

I'm actually surprised we didn't see more movies like this coming out of the lockdowns...minimal cast, remote setting. Basically a psychological drama from isolation. There have been plenty of movies like this, and it really isn't horrible.

They really seamlessly blended the greens screen shots and on location shots very nicely. I don't think people who work on movies will even notice. The CGI in one scene (no spoilers) wasn't great but it wasn't distracting.

There are some questions as for the motivation of some actions which anyone who loves the movie will excuse with a "cabin fever"/"dehydration" line. It's just a movie after all. Nothing to get disappointed about.

The only reason it's a "7" is because, we've seen this type of movie before and there are several metaphors that never got resolved, a couple on-the-nose lines that were eye-rolling but mostly, you say the end coming after the first 15 minutes. It really was a no-brainer and then the delivery of the ending wasn't all that well presented.

Other than all that, it's a fun movie to watch, I wouldn't recommend anyone not see it.

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Terror on the Prairie (2022)

4/10

Swing and a miss

20 June 2022

This was...very slow. Very very slow. Even by 1970's western standards, it's slow. It seems to be the trend now for westerns to move at a snail's pace. If you compare it to "The Power of the Dog", they're about even though this movie has some action sequences, they both dwell on things a lot longer than they should. In "The Power of the Dog" they tried to be profound, and though they didn't achieve that goal, this movie wasn't even trying to be profound.

The lighting was shockingly bad. About as bad as the acting. Sound design and set dec was fine. Directing was lackluster. (For example, there are some shots that get punched in on with an insert to make sure you don't forget a key piece of exposition...and I do always prefer exposition that is shown rather than said, but at least work it into the shot you're using and for God's sake, don't return to the same shot once it's done.)

I mean, I guess if it's on in the background while you do something else, it's fine. Please don't ever give Donald "Cowboy" Cerrone lines in a movie ever again though.

110 out of 169 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Pistol (2022)

8/10

It's entertaining, much worse out there.

9 June 2022

From a production aspect...pretty great. I honestly stumbled upon it on Hulu and didn't read anything about it, missed the opening sequence and just thought "man this director is just trying to be like Danny Boyle...they're doing a pretty good job imitating him." Low and behold it was Danny Boyle.

Sound, editing, creative lens choices, dutch angles etc. The crew pulled it off nicely. They clearly had a lot of money behind them and they did a great job making it feel dirty and cheap but keeping it high quality (if that makes sense) There are a couple parts where the creativity of the directing is distracting, but not enough to ruin any episode. There are some scenes where the lighting was questionable, but again, never ruined the experience.

Given the drugs and scumminess of the content, I think Boyle was the best choice to direct it. The episodes feel like you're a little high and disoriented and it plays nicely.

On to the writing...man there are just some scenes where the dialogue is stilted and extremely cliche. I understand to compress time you need certain types of scenes and dialogue, but given everything else about the series, it really stands out as bad...even eye-rolling. Episode 1 has a scene which I swear was lifted line for line from 'The Dirt'. We have to forgive that (to a degree) though as is the nature of these biopics.

Acting is hit and miss. All the main actors are strong, nobody feels like they're doing an impression which is good. Boone and Brodie-Sangster are very cringy at times, but looking on archival footage, Lyndon and Malcolm were pretty cringy too.

It's hard to tell who is to blame for Malcolm's character. It's played like he was a mad scientist or conductor to the madness, but in reality, he fell into a lot of things that he took credit for later on. So it's not an honest portrayal of the character, and because of his centrality to things, it makes me wonder about a lot of other stuff.

Now, outside of all of that, I'm not impressed. The story shouldn't be claimed as "based on actual events" because that is remarkably misleading. I'm not counting this against the series because it was based on 'Lonely Boy" Steve Jones' "autobiography". That "autobiography" has been noted to have had some discrepancies. On top of that, there were some revelations in it that...people can't disprove, but certainly are questionable. And then there is completely omitted things which shroud the scene (and would give context as to why people didn't like the music scene then.) For example, there is a famous shirt they reference with a list of people they love and hate. One of the people they loved was Adolf Hitler, but in the book Steve doesn't mention that, yet there are many photos that show, indeed, Hitler was very loved by punks. (Mostly for the socialist idealism, and punks in general did not like black people. This blending of Rasta and punk happened years later and only in smaller circles.)

After that there are some really...bushleague attempts to put modern commentary into it. Like Steve going to a drag show and things to that nature. I really hate this type of activism and revisionist history, but for what it's worth, they did do it subtlety enough and it helped with the story telling (sort of, episode one has a through line that seems to be dropped and never explored again.) So I give them credit for that.

All in all, I think it's worth watching. It kept my interest and I enjoyed the ride.

2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

What Is a Woman? (2022)

9/10

An Actual Documentary

3 June 2022

So, its fairly well produced, it looks good (certainly comparable to other documentaries out there.) All of the technical aspects of the film are in order. Nothing truly stands out as exceptional, but everything is very much professional.

From an approach perspective, it really is more of a documentary than most "documentaries" in that, the main character (Matt Walsh) is asking questions to try and understand the opposing opinion. Most "Documentaries" have a side and then only interview supporting perspectives of the thesis. In this case, Walsh actually interviews the opposing side a lot. For that reason alone, this a more honest documentary. Now, fair-is-fair, I don't like the subject of documentaries to be the documentarian. I believe that would classify it as more journalistic or activist (a-la, Moore or Spurlock.) But it is a common documentary style.

That said, I guess we get into the meat of it and why people love it or hate it. As before mentioned, there is a lot of exchanges with opposing view points, and those view points did not make strong arguments. Did Walsh interview the actual leading experts on the subjects? Maybe, maybe not. They do have considerable credibility, but Walsh himself is by no means an expert in the field, so even if the people he's interviewing are not the leaders, it's not like it's an unfair fight.

I think if you're for or against this subject matter, it's probably a good film to watch. It's always good to know what the opposing arguments are, but for some reason this topic people get very passionate about. From a purely creative standpoint, I think it's great, not exceptional, but if you like documentaries, it's going to be one of the best ones this year.

568 out of 886 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Top Gun: Maverick (2022)

9/10

A remake that actually worked

30 May 2022

So I can't give it 10 stars because ultimately it is a remake or sequel however you prefer to look at it. It falls into the same traps these films do with too many callbacks and rehashed scenes.

That said, there is a very honest story about changing times and aging which ultimately drives the movie. Good cinema is subtle about real world situations (best example being Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. People not watching it when it was released probably would miss all the commentary on politics from the era.) So in that sense it's pretty bold and genuine.

The flight sequences are...outstanding. It was mostly shot practically which is why is looks so much more impressive than other movies. Directing is good, not great (sans the action sequences, which are great.) Acting is great. Connelly, Cruise and Teller are all A-listers for a reason. So anyone who says "there's nothing good about this movie" are just haters. You can't by any stretch of criticism say the action sequences and acting aren't some of the best you'll see all year.

It is very much a throwback to blockbusting movies from the 80's and it really feels like it. But we haven't had that in so long, it was nice to revisit it. I don't think it's one of the greatest movies of all times, but I gave it a 9 because it could be the greatest movie from the last 3-4 years. It didn't ask you to have watched a bunch of other movies to appreciate it (like Marvel) it wasn't preachy with its messaging, it didn't drag, it was humanizing but indulgent with drama. Just a perfect summer movie for the times.

119 out of 188 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Dead Don't Die (2019)

4/10

Why did I watch that?

22 April 2022

The good:

Production quality is great.

Cast is amazing, seriously it's the only reason I watched it after seeing the trailer. Although, a couple actors are phoning it in, it's still amazing that they were all a part of this.

It's one sheet is fantastic.

The bad:

It's another comedy zombie movie (which we've seen several dozen times now, "Shaun of the Dead", "Fido", "Zombieland", "Cooties", "Little Monsters", "Warm Bodies"... except this one wasn't original and had nothing to say.

Really the big thing against the film is the script...I am shocked this many talented actors read it and said "Yeah, I'll do that." The characters are generic. Only one character (in an ensemble cast) has a story arc. Everyone else is just kind of a generic shell that relies on the brilliance of the actor to bring to life.

There is a very odd self awareness reference that keeps coming up between two of the leads which doesn't work. And then there is the character talking a loud to himself the whole time explaining everything that is going. So it's odd, like the writer didn't know which troupe to do so he half-assed both of them, when, had he picked one or the other and committed to it, it would have been much better.

You start asking yourself: "Is this whole movie based on a crappy country song that was written for the movie?" It kind of feels that way. Like the director asked Sturgill Simpson to write a song about zombies then the wrote a script using that song as source material.

Just another "comedy" whose humor is based on awkward pauses...it's such a lazy way to do comedy and it hasn't been done well since the mid 2000's. Can we stop acting like movies that indulge in themselves are "good"? They're just being smug.

Conclusion:

It's good white noise. If you're super into zombie movies, you probably have to see it, but it doesn't expand the genre in any way. Maybe teenagers would like it as a "naughty" film their strict Christian parents don't want them to watch or something.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Windfall (2022)

3/10

Alright...what was the point of that?

22 March 2022

Warning: Spoilers

Just because a movie is slow and boring, it doesn't make it good. I've noticed a lot of movies are doing this now. They just indulge in themselves far too much for no other reason that they think that's what makes a good movie.

It's supposed to be an homage to film noir (which the music and one sheet get right, but the script clearly didn't.) The biggest issue with the movie is the fact there are is nobody to root for, except, you end up rooting for the Tech Billionaire because he's the only reasonable normal person. (You root for the gardener too, but he's not around long.)

They try to make you cheer for the wife and the robbery, but these values are so opposite from culture (literally any culture in the world) except the ultra-woke. They want you to cheer for the guy who actively robs people, holds people at gun point, kidnaps people for money, and doesn't give up his actions to call for an ambulance when someone is dying. Then with the wife, you want me to root for a woman who only married a billionaire for his money so she could give it away to charities (mind you, money he made before they were married) and all he wants is a family and she won't give him that.

No thanks, those are horrible people.

Then with the tech billionaire, he preaches for people to work hard and take life by the horns and try to be successful. (How does that make him bad guy?) They even tried to make him the bad guy for trying to get help from the police. (Which is so absurd, it almost blows your mind. Like, if your spouse and you are held at gun point and your spouse tried to contact the authorities to help...that would be a good thing...I would think.) Nope, the wife got mad at him for putting their lives in "jeopardy" and because, I mean he's a billionaire and and what is $500,000 to him? In fact, the robbery only wanted $50,000 , then she was the one that said "You're going to need more than that." What does she care? It's not her money after all.

They try to make the Tech Billionaire be a bad guy by doing things like having him yell at the assistance (which is totally unmotivated) and he him getting really intense when talking about "freeloaders". It feels very unmotivated and I wonder if the writer was realizing while writing the script that the Tech Billionaire is only sympathetic hero option so they throw those things in there to make sure people weren't confused as to who the "bad guy" was.

Production quality was fine, typical small budget flick. Acting is good, above average even. It does feel though, like this movie was conceived, written and produced during the pandemic and they were just trying to tell a story with limited cast and locations. (Not that it's bad, they did what they had to do.)

It was just so insulting. Like, who in their right mind would cheer for these despicable people? I just don't understand.

Horrible morals, slow, boring, everything else is average.

4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Last Man Down (2021)

3/10

Oh boy...Where should we start

16 March 2022

I'll admit. I was super drunk when watching this on Netflix. There were times it felt like I was missing huge chunks of the story, but as it turns out, I was not.

It's really hard to tell what the worst part is: the acting, the writing, or the sound design.

It's a nonsensical beefcake driven action movie. It sadly takes tropes from other action movies (and even one-liners) and just kind of slams them all together to make something.

All that said, it may sound like this should get a 1star, but, the directing is better than it will get credit for. The production value is wildly overachieving and the DP did a solid job.

Look, it sucks, you know it's going to suck. Probably the only way someone should watch this movie is drunk, but for what it's worth...I was entertained just enough not to turn it off.

2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

jerrycoliver

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed