Change Your Image
awnuce360
Reviews
The Unknown Country (2022)
"Guess I'll never known anything about mystery girl!"
Reminded me of Nomadland, a film that did nothing for me personally. Look, if you like films with pretty postcard cinematography and plotless slice-of-life storytelling, then this is for you.
The documentary-esque scenes interviewing random non-actors that "rising star" Lily Gladstone encounters on her journey may appeal to some, but I found them unaffecting and disingenuous. The people were so obviously acting unnaturally during the scenes where they were supposed to be interacting with the character Lily plays. You can't pretend they weren't voguing because they knew they were on camera, which means it was no longer captured reality in any sense.
The format also severely limits the negative interactions that can take place because these non-actors are obviously going to want to seem pleasant and high-energy on camera. They share their homespun wisdom which lacks real insight and offers the viewer nothing to latch onto, really. The only real humanity here is etched in the wrinkles on their faces, something standard Hollywood fare is normally reluctant to feature in its stars. Some will find seeing these non-actors on camera refreshing, but I personally couldn't get past how sugarcoated everything was.
Gladstone has a pleasing presence, but she's not asked to do much emoting. She wanders from place to place, having quotidian interactions with strangers and engaging in the most banal of conversations. The format of these unnatural interactions ensures that Gladstone comes across as a passive viewpoint character. At some juncture, I expected the film to do the requisite character development for a film, but it never did. Nothing Gladstone's character says gives us much indication of who she is or what motivates her. We have a dead grandmother. That's it.
Finally, the big question, was this film saying anything important? I'm sure many reviewers, myself included, want to give this film credit for portraying aspects of the American experience less-seen in film. However,
Morrisa Maltz has absolutely nothing to say about these experiences, either visually or through character's dialogue. We listen to countless radio hosts share opinions on numerous issues as Gladstone channel surfs during her long drive. But we are given no indication of what Gladstone thinks of these opinions or visual context to iron out Maltz's understanding. The scenes with Native American characters seem designed purely to convey the humanity of these people. Is that such a novel concept in 2024 that we have to give a film credit for putting it on display?
The conversations these characters feature in are dull as dishwater and offer no insight into their feelings about anything except quotidian existence. One scene features a character telling us the names of all the children in a room and their ages. In a fictional film, this would never be tolerated because it's information we don't need to remember about characters that don't even speak. Documentary filmmakers need to adapt more effectively to the needs of narrative filmmaking if they want their movies to engage. At 1 hour and 25 minutes, this film was a drag for me personally.
Shiny Happy People: Duggar Family Secrets (2023)
Poorly sourced and slightly hysterical in its presentation
This documentary could have been a timely and informative piece that pulled back the curtain on the problematic behind-the-scenes story of a family that grew up before our eyes on our tv screens. Instead, we get a poorly sourced and slightly hysterical hack job that loses credibility with each successive interview and sequence. Look, I'm not triggered by this or seeking to defend anyone involved, but calling this a documentary is kind of a stretch given the lack of actual factual evidence and explanation being given.
For example, when seeking to establish that American Christian minister Bill Gothard was secretly hoarding wealth, instead of presenting any kind of facts about his wealth, the documentary highlights a former IBLP member who says that Gothard tried to present himself as having humble means, but she "had heard others say" that his family actually had tons of money. The documentary then cuts to shots of a private plane and other evidences of Gothard's alleged wealth that could be stock footage for all the viewer knows. Again, I am perfectly willing to entertain the idea that Gothard weaseled away millions of dollars for family members, but this an extremely poor way to establish it. Honestly, wouldn't anyone want to know exactly how much wealth we're talking here because knowing specifics is more interesting? And why was a former IBLP member, who could be considered a problematic source by some, considered the proper person to establish this? Shouldn't the documentary have contacted someone with actual financial expertise or knowledge? That's just one example, but it's highly emblematic of the documentary's flawed approach.
The documentary entertains us with numerous unverifiable accusations against IBLP and the Duggar family from family members that are clearly estranged, former IBLP members, feminist university professors, and a YouTuber who apparently spent her days mocking the Duggar family while they were on air. This latter interviewee is used to establish factual information that she cannot possibly be the best source for. The only thing that this individual should have been used to establish was the reasons that the online community hate-watched the Duggars' series and the feelings of said community. She isn't really a valid source for anything else given her lack of expertise, but the documentary frequently uses her, essentially a nobody, to establish numerous important facts and details. Likewise, numerous interviewees are allowed to project from their own experiences what might be going on within the walls of the Duggars' home as if they had actual insider knowledge of the happenings of the household.
On a separate note, the documentary relies heavily on the narrative of Jill Duggar Dillard and her husband Derick Dillard. However, with twelve adult children and the parents themselves still out there, it's extremely troubling, at least to me, that the documentary was only able to interview one adult child. This means we are only getting one person's side of the story, which could easily be heavily biased or even outright false.
Nonetheless, I feel many will find this entertaining and insightful into the mindsets of those involved and of the communities they represent. For my part, I found myself unfortunately forced to take everything with a grain of salt. What could have been a factual account too often devolves into mud-slinging.
Guillermo del Toro's Cabinet of Curiosities: The Autopsy (2022)
Glynn Turman Is This Ep's Saving Grace
As with previous episodes, the cinematography and technical aspects are great, but the script is only so-so. However, Glynn Turman elevates this episode with his performance as Sheriff Nate Craven, stealing scenes from the legendary F. Murray Abraham! Worth watching, but only just in my view.
This series could have been so much better if they had focused on writing as well as directing. At least this script is not a retread of the first two episodes which were basically variations on the same themes and basic setup.
On a side note, since I have words to burn: I subscribed to Netflix's 4k plan for years off and on, but after switching to the much cheaper HD plan to save money, I can't honestly see that much of a difference, despite having fast Wi-Fi and a great OLED TV. Consider spending less on a cheaper plan if you need to save money.
Halloween Ends (2022)
Almost indescribably bad
This is not the end of Halloween. Not really. To say more would be to spoil this film. I can't really describe myself as a fan of horror or of this particular franchise, but it seems to me those expecting some kind of satisfying ending or resolution will be deeply dissatisfied with this. It works neither as a sendoff to a series of films well last it's expiration date or as a standalone horror film.
Let me be brief. There were no memorable scenes or kills. The additions to the lore make me think no one involved understood the appeal of the series or the Michael Myers character. Michael should never intentionally spare anyone, for example. There were shockingly large chunks of this film devoted to uninteresting bland side characters where no horror was happening at all. The ending feels like a parody of itself, where they have made certain characters so invincible that they have to go to laughable lengths to ensure the audience knows that certain characters are well and truly dead. It is a common worthless film on every level, riding on the coattails of a known franchise. The music remixes are the only slightly interesting part. Stay away!
The Chosen (2017)
Overtly religious and manipulative
Look, as a Christian, I didn't pay your subscription bill for unoriginal religious content. I wanted to see "real movies" edited of bad content. I hated this series based on episode 1. I am glad that you are able to exploit your obscurity to claim critical acclaim. But, please, improve your streaming quality, or take me off your mailing list.
Jessica Jones (2015)
Substitutes Mood for Personality
"It employs depression as a substitute for personality, and believes that if the characters are bitter and morose enough, we won't notice how dull they are." Roger Ebert was describing Gladiator, but his comments could just as easily have been applied to Jessica Jones.
The story starts off in a quite promising fashion with a film noir aesthetic and style that is swiftly jettisoned after the first episode in favor of an indistinct and inconsistent tone that shifts wildly from episode to episode and from plot point to plot point. Viewers never know quite what kind of show it is they are watching. The horrific violence and sexual frankness depicted clash wildly with the childish and immature plotting. The portions of the show dealing with Jessica's relationships with Luke Cage and Trish are chick-flick grade material (as you'd expect from the writer who brought us the Twilight films), but the moments with Kilgrave are aggressively dark and disturbing.
David Tennant and Krysten Ritter deserve praise for their brilliant performances. The two add nuance to a jolting script that includes gems like: "I don't want to come back to my apartment and find you bludgeoned to death with my vacuum cleaner." "We both know you don't own a vacuum cleaner, Jessica!"). However, their efforts are largely unaided by a weak supporting cast that drags the show down whenever they are given focus.
The plot is extremely disjointed. Major characters disappear for entire episodes in the middle segments without explanation. Subplots including a lesbian divorce serve no purpose to the overall story except to service the producer's agenda. Further, Jessica's backstory is overdone with far too many melodramatic twists and crippling emotional baggage. Her character has tremendous potential, but the characterization is weak across the board in Jessica Jones.
Darkness is the new trend in film and television, but darkness is not enough to sustain an audience's interest. I suspect that Jessica Jones will not garner a huge following, because it fails to engage the soul of its audience going for cheap thrills and shock value over compelling drama and characterization.
Jessica Jones deserved a better show.
The show's unremitting darkness is completely unwarranted and unearned.