Change Your Image
bhcoopa
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Barbie (2023)
Rushed
I'm a single guy. I studied a little gender roles while I was in college, and actually went to the movie with 3 of my best friends I made from that course. I was really optimistic about the movie.
Personally as the title suggests the movie felt rushed. There are some parts and themes in the movie that are really well-developed, and some parts that are just overwhelmingly bad, including some of the larger arguments about gender roles found throughout the movie.
A lot of the film is saved by the fact it is played out in a way where they're from a set of a little girls play house, so a lot of critiques can be overlooked.
I didn't go in wanting to hate this movie. I wanted to see a movie of the caliber of its star-studded cast, but it was bit of a let down to me.
Madoff: The Monster of Wall Street (2023)
Solid Documentary
Ponzi Schemes are something I've struggled to understand for a long time. I also know Bernie Madoff had the largest in history.
This documentary does a great job creating a timeline of Madoff's personality, success, and significance to the investing market. It also illustrates the key players involved in his success and investigation.
I will also echo it might be a little stretched for 4 episodes, although 4 decades worth of fraud and lies are certainly worth 4 episodes. None of the content is irrelevant, but the grandiosity of the story is just not executed well enough.
It's an incredible story. The number of times he narrowly avoids fate, growing so much larger each time. The actors involved in keeping his interest alive. How involved he is with the development of the SEC. Just the sheer stature of his character. We're told about these elements, but they're kinda glossed over in a way. A lot of the details could've been acted out through the playing biopic rather than being told by interviewees
He accounted for 9% of volume exchanged on the NYSE, and yet i don't feel like I get a good glimpse of how extravagantly he and everyone around him was able to live. How much worse are the effects of the crash in 2008 made when this market maker can't pay everyone back?
Overall great content, just leaves me wanting more.
Ancient Apocalypse (2022)
It's concerning that this is what we call Docuseries
This isn't a very well made show at all. It feels like something they made for a NatGeo show back in the 2000s but much less factual. The amount of slow-motion, pan-over drone shots of the worksite and Graham Hancock power-posing seem to outnumber the frames that actually meaningfully push the content forward.
Essentially the show continuously presents archaeological evidence that refutes the typical timeline of human history, which Hancock insists must be because of this advanced ancient civilization we've lost contact with. There's no evidence though of these mystical capabilities.
It genuinely feels like Graham Hancock is just showing up to various active archeological sites with a film crew, asking the workers questions, and then splicing out the parts of the interview that may further the ongoing narrative. I'm not convinced that the archaeologists presenting their findings are doing so in support of his theory, they're just having individual frames of content being mined out of interviews and interaction.
Why is this concerning? It's a film that has been made professionally enough to be called documentary even though it's not factual. Someone who doesn't really have a whole lot of attachment to the issue would probably entertain this as a factual documentary without looking too critically at it. And someone who is a genuine conspiracy theorist would allow this to feedback into their disbelief in genuine science anyway.
Could go on on, but I'll stop here.
The Lodge (2019)
Director has potential
I really wanted to like this movie, but there were just too many things not explained. However, its evident that the director knows what elements of horror he'd really like to toy with, so I'm looking forward to future projects.
The Great Hack (2019)
It's not TOO biased
Those expressing their concern over this being a liberal piece aren't necessarily wrong, however I don't think it's propoganda. It really is a piece of real time journalism about Cambridge Analytica which is a right wing Political Technology Company. It's only natural that people from the left might make it.
The film is an exploration of to what degree companies like Cambridge Analytica hold away over elections. What they repeatedly say throughout the documentary is "whether left or right the sad thing about this story is it's about Cambridge Analytica and we're the ones who will go down, but there are so many other companies out there doing the same thing who will take our place."
It's a fantastic documentary highlighting the importance of data rights and shines a light on what a modern political campaign for anyone looks like today. Very shocking.
Bohemian Rhapsody (2018)
Misleadingly titled "Bohemian Rhapsody;" should've been "Mercury."
I'm a guitarist and a huge fan of Queen. I took my mom to see them when I was 19 because they are part of what truly defines classic rock to me. It's classical. Anyone from the 60s who made timeless epic ballads of rock was classically trained, including everyone in Queens band.
This movie is called Bohemian Rhapsody after what is surely their most successful song. However, the movie should have just been called Mercury, because it wasn't about anyone else. Freddie Mercury is the vehicle in this movie for which we get to be exposed Queen, but we don't learn anything at all about the band mates and their personal lives who, as reinforced by the movie, played just as big of a role in making the music and the performance as Freddie Mercury did. The movie doesn't explore how the band mates really meet. Just how Freddie Mercury comes to know Brian May and Roger Taylor. Never mind that Brian May was both an Astrophysicist and voted the 7th greatest guitarist of all time, 2 fields feats that require enormous dedication and attention to detail, yet the movie only lightly touches on his capabilities as a musician.
Overall, everything about this movie is larger than life. I thought the acting and shooting of the movie were superb. But it wasn't a movie about Queen, it was a movie about Freddy Mercury, and while the man is likely to be one of the most influential figures of all time, giving him such a stature of omnipotence really shortchanges the movie. The story does somewhat touch on the fact that Mercury needs queen and Queen needs Mercury, but it doesn't feel like it.
This would be like making a movie called "Stairway" and us only seeing the life of Robert Plant and attrinuting all of Led Zeppelin's success to him, and not to the other classically trained musicians in his band Bonham, Paige, or Simon. I put off watching this movie for fear that it wouldn't give a wholistic look at Queen in favor of "giving the 'fans'" what they want, not genuine lovers of Rock and it's history.
At 23, this movie should really appeal to me, but as a musician, it does not. How could you make a movie and not have the musicianship of the entire band at the forefront of this film? It was a let down for me.
Conversations with a Killer: The Ted Bundy Tapes (2019)
In terms of being a single Source
Right now I'm on episode 3. I'll admit, I only knew vague, trivial details about Ted Buddy, (e.g. he was a major serial killer in the 70s, his choice of victims, his style of crime, that he had a fan club) but I didn't know much about the history of his childhood development, his personality, etc.
Personally, I don't think we often speak of intellect as being separate from specialization, although the ability to quickly and efficiently specialize in a skillset would characterize an intellect. This documentary touts Bundy as an intellectual, but it only goes as far to prove to me that Bundy was simply specialized through a Psychology degree, time in Politics, and some Law schooling and was afforded several random, but crucial opportunities through his political career as well as with being in captivity. You can disagree with the negligence that must have occurred for Bundy to escape not once, but twice, and yet you still must acknowledge with what luck Bundy was afforded to be placed into the responsibility of the people put in charge, whether by ignorance or complacency from trust within their own system. Something should be said about his capacity to observe and take advantage of the opportunity before him, but he could have gotten away with it had he not gotten impatient.
He only manages to escape for a few months, and it's because of his inability to restrain himself, lie low, and also to let someone else take the reigns of his own case. It's this simple capability that he lacks, because of his inability to overcome by not indulging, that flies in the face of the intellect this documentary proclaims so much about him.
Past that, there are several things the documentary makes mention of but doesn't go into detail enough about that are important clues into his past: his childhood history of violent pornographic material, abusive grandfather (who was quite literally every "ist" one may fear in today's day), the fact that Bundys girlfriend is actually the one who showed him his birth certificate, his part in the LDS Church etc.
In all, I thought this documentary was a fantastic introduction to learning about Ted Bundy by providing the highlights of the case, who he was, how he thought of himself, and by identifying with what scale geographically his spree took place and some key players within the case. I think it wrongfully, like many serial killer documentaries, attributes intellect to Ted Bundy due to his unyielding confidence and persistence.
This is an important distinction to make because it is reoccurring theme in serial killer documentaries. A similar example I might give is Netflix's "Evil Genius." The difference in Evil Genius though is, our film maker really begins to seriously doubt the credibility and the true character of Majorie Dehl-Armstrong and the ample examples of certain nuances of her character are intentionally placed to show with what frequency her insistence and ferocity both manifest and how it impedes her own credibility.
With the Ted Bundy Tapes, I don't think our film makers are harsh enough on Bundy's character flaws that ultimately get him caught, which ultimately detract from the aura of intellect they try to dress him in.
Deadpool (2016)
Just Another Nostalgic, Family-Friendly Super Hero Movie...
Let's get rid of the dandy, family-friendly superhero who flits across the screen already. My biggest problem with super hero movies today is that they are too family-friendly and largely unoriginal.
Given that you are a superhero, you are most likely fighting the most evil men on the planet, and fighting the most evil men on the planet on a daily basis has got to take a toll on your psychology and you world outlook. It makes me cringe every time I see a superhero movie where you have got a guy who is just dancing around happily on screen without a care in the world. Yes I understand, "but Deadpool isn't really a superhero he's just a terrible person who gets paid stop even worse people." Oh you are so right. Simply making the winking suggestion at how bad ass and full of yourself you are makes you a terrible person. I mean seriously, there has to be more to being a hero or a villain than simply thinking about how bad ass you are, because its old news and I don't find it even remotely clever or daring for this glamor boy to break the fourth wall.
Deadpools humor is not original. Simply winking at the fact that there are cameras that are supposed to play "the invisible narrator" is a concept that has been overdone in Comedy and Advertising today, and people love it for whatever reason like its never been done before.
If you would like an example of non-family-friendly superheroes, go Check out Blade. Go check out the Watchmen. Go see the Dark Knight. All the superheroes here are largely affected by what they have seen on a daily basis. They have real questions about humanity and real questions about saving the planet. They are not simply some attractive looking superhero who wears spandex and dances across the screen.
Southpaw (2015)
Disappointment to Fighters; Plays on Stereotypical, Hyper-Aggressive Male Boxers; Not a Credible Story
As a previous fighter, this movie is a disappointment. The movie stereotypes boxers as hyper-aggressive characters who need vice and aggressive behavior to handle the short comings thrown their way. Gyllenhaal's performance was pretty impressive in contrast to his previous roles, however it does not save the movie from its bad writing and directing. Although some of the boxing sequences aren't bad, some of them are awful and some are impressive, good fight sequences don't make a story great, and for that matter, a movie.
The movie just doesn't have a very credible story, as Billy Hope accepts fights as early as 4 weeks away from one another, not nearly enough time to actually prepare for a new opponent. His wife takes on the "momma knows best role" as she makes the majority of decisions for him and his family, including their decision for Him to stop fighting, and when she is accidentally shot, Hopes life spirals out of control. After engaging in a spree of self- destructive behavior, CPS takes custody of his child until he can prove that he is a responsible adult. Normally, this would imply that the movie should be about the Hero overcoming and conquering himself and his aggressive habits. He is instructed to go to Anger Management classes, which are not present in the film, and gets suspended from professional boxing after head-butting a referee, after his corner throws the towel in for a fight.
After losing his luxurious lifestyle from not having the cash to pay for his bills, he finds a new gym that is ran by Tick Wills (Forest Whitaker) so that he may teach young men how to box in hopes that it will lead them to grow up and become responsible men. Billy Hope cleans the gym at night for a job and trains with Tick in the mornings so that he can improve his image and possibly get a few side fights. After fighting for a charity event, Hope's agent (50 cent) finds him yet again pressuring him to get back into the ring, that he can get his suspension lifted and makes a $30 million offer to fight Miguel Escobar only 6 weeks away, a disgustingly short amount of time away to prepare for a fight. Understandably, these quick fights are supposed to represent the greed of his Agent making money, but fights like this at the professional level, at the championship level do not happen this quickly, ever.
Billy Hope takes the offer and continues to train with Tick Wills, but for this upcoming fight, it's back to fundamentals. During a montage with Eminem in the background, Billy Hope is working on basic things like stance, bobbing and weaving, blocking punches, blocking punches with your shoulder and other very basic things like that you couldn't have previously won a championship without, that apparently Billy Hope did. Meanwhile, Miguel Escobar is doing hardcore ab-workouts, and going hard on a double-ended bag, things that real professionals work on, also things that you couldn't otherwise do at that speed, without previously working on basic things like Billy is currently working on. Billy also works on boxing Southpaw upon Ticks suggestion.
Night of the fight, Billy and Miguel go at it, it is a very close one, and of course Billy Hope is hit with a low blow and whenever Miguel can't win the round, he mentions something to Billy about his wife which causes him to get very angry. Round 12 comes around and after a long round Billy connects and then connects again with a left handed uppercut.
The movie shouldn't be named "Southpaw" just on the premise that the winning punch was left handed. I really thought I was coming in to see a really awesome Southpaw performance out of Jake Gyllenhal, as those fighters give a different dynamic to a fight; Southpaws screw everybody up, even other Southpaw fighters, because everyone is used to fighting right-handed fighters. I give this movie a 5 because it plays on stereotypically, hyper-aggressive male behavior in boxers, and because the story just wasn't very credible. Impressive fight- sequences don't save a movie from the use of too many melodramatic scenes of one on one dialogue.