Reviews

Bad movies are not all the same, shame on you cinephiles, voting down a near masterpiece. You do not get it? Let me badxplain it to you... easy with a comparison: take "A wrinkle in time", an Oprah vanity project infused with mountains of Disney cash, horrible acting paired with pretentious nonsense script and a "woke" director that is in way over her head. Journalists and sites artificially maintaining the vote high because of spineless conformism. THAT is a 3 or 4 out of 10, only because the technical departments did their job. The viewers pay full price and believe the hype and ultimately are the victim.

Now, only now, let's have a look at JIU JITSU, the cash is bare minimum, camera is terrible, sound is barely decent, the acting is either desperate attempt to save face or straight horrible: the production is cutting so many corners that they end up with a sphere, the perfect solid. It's sooooo bad that it goes straight to the other side. This film is a monster, in the latin original sense: monstrum, itself derived from the verb moneo ("to remind, warn, instruct, or foretell"), and denotes anything "strange or singular, contrary to the usual course of nature". A marvel of nature, you cannot plan for this stuff: is the collective result of C-List actors desperate for cash and an improvised crew, improbable production standards and a weird 3rd rewrite of the script for a grand total of 7 (!) bucks ticket. That would be enough for a 6,5/7 but... it's got (Oscar winner) Nicolas Cage, the myth. It's a straight 8!!! (and if you stiff upper lips fake connoisseurs don't get it, rewatch some of your beloved pretentious crap and stick to that).

PS It's not perfect because nobody died during production as far as we know.

A very decent sci-fi with acceptable writing and a few original and inspired scenes in a good setting with good actors filmed properly, the whole is entertaining and the art department did an outstanding job on a limited budget.

I can only recommend this movie and praise this project especially when compared to Hollywood's super boring and high cost CGI products. This movie will grant you a pleasant and relaxed experience without stressing your patience or ruining your eyesight.

It is not a masterpiece but definitely worth your time. In fact I would not mind to watch a sequel. If Revolt could represent just the average of what sci-fi movies look like we would live in happier times.

Even certain episodes from golden era Simpsons and some Family Guy are so good you would be pleased to watch those again, maybe once. But Rick and Morty is on another level, not only above, but also sideways. It is a more complicated show with a much more layered story line and less easy jokes and twists that makes for a second view a must and a third a still funny and interesting experience. What I find stunning is the overall constant level of quality: every single episode is well written and every line is relevant, there are no 'filler' characters and surplus dialogue. The result is a polished, mature show that will not let you down, not once. Being such a defined and peculiar art piece Rick and Morty maybe not for everyone. Would you like high quality comedy based on Lovecraftian cosmic horror, existentialism and rationalism with a hint of surreal realism? You might not until you see this.

Spy stories set in the 2nd world war are somewhat a genre by themselves, here we have one of the more psychological persuasion rather than an action packed one. It is in fact based on the intimate relationship between the two leads rather than their daring feats. Allied is a very average movie that would not involve you one bit in the fate of this couple. That is a striking achievement given all the talent in front and behind the camera.

Allied should be studied and dissected in film schools as one of the most interesting oddities. Why money plus talent is success only on paper.

Why the public is not compelled to care about these characters? The story in itself, if you had just the script in your hands, is not particularly original or well built but neither it is a dull and boring story. While genre and cultural clichés are constantly applied those do not necessarily undermine the result. There are no particularly strong plot points but sometimes is better safe than sorry. A bit of confusion towards the end if anything wrong. No smoking gun here.

Photography is technically very good, some desert outdoors are even fascinating and French Morocco in the 40s is altogether well depicted, yet some of the cracks in this movie appear instantly: in its very classical and rigid framing you do not get personal with the actors, the camera is mostly going for medium and long shots, very well filmed and yet somehow distant and descriptive rather than immersive. Not what is needed, feels fake. Mind you, masterfully faked but still…

The acting is what really stops this movie from being a classic of its genre. Brad Pitt is a piece of stone sporting one of his worst acting feat. He has a terrible and unbelievable french accent, if you do not speak French I suppose it is endurable. Far worse are his reactions to events and pressure and worst of all his chemistry with Marion Cotillard. She pulls off an adequate performance but nothing more. Since the whole thing should be about what goes on between them the movie sinks. The whole seduction part goes nowhere and it is filmed from as far away as possible. The love scene might even work but is built on choreography alone and in the end does not have much impact. Supporting characters are mostly useless stereotypes without much to do.

Allied is a quietly, pleasantly boring movie that will be soon forgotten for good. No Casablanca here.

I feel compelled to write this review just after US presidential elections because this last month changed dramatically my views on the program. I'm not an American citizen but an avid onlooker and political events happening there have such a great effect worldwide. To fully capture the feelings of the people there, late night shows are quite helpful while entertaining. Letterman's long career on this particular show was characterised by a sometimes cynical but always detached rapport with politics. That was a healthy if a bit too play-it-safe attitude.

I always found informative, funny and interesting Colbert's previous show and I thought he innovated the Late Night formula correctly. It was not as fun as the Report and guest- based shows tend to be boring product placement with exceptions on good nights but I felt Colbert's part was still enjoyable even if CBS restrained his comedy.

Then the election came to the last month run and the show was completely ruined.

The power of the jester is immense as he can freely mock the powerful without reprisal and spell more truth in a joke than a pundit can in long PC-ruled convoluted analysis. Colbert wilfully renounced this almost sacred role and destroyed this precious mask. He completely sided with HRC losing any comedic perspective, his bits became simply a ranting word by word repetition of what the outrageous Trump had said the previous day with some stitched on comedy remarks and nothing but that for weeks. NO JOKES on HRC but just false sounding and pandering praises, adding to the boring disgrace the guests were 99,9% HRC spokespersons or her fans/endorsers (all except Viggo Mortensen).

It ended up being ironical in his failure: Colbert's show has completely ceased to be funny while actually harming his political cause by amplifying Trump's message. Colbert's political attitude should not have been the main concern for the audience in the first place, at least not more important than quality entertainment. No wonder a poll taken few days before the vote shown that 75% of American public perceived the media to heavily favour HRC (that's far more than just Republican voters). Colbert was just part of the chorus and not the worst (Samantha Bee...ugh!) but he should have known better.

I've got nothing against Colbert's political ideas or his openness about those, I never particularly liked HRC and I find Trump quite dangerous, but the lack of comedy is unbearable and unjustifiable. It was a deceptively easy task to make fun of a man who surpasses his worst critics' expectations by almost daily announcements containing racial, gender and generic outlandish charged statements. Trump used the media and the media only wanted more in a circle of desperate addiction. Other hosts went with the flow and writers had a paid holiday. I judged Colbert's and Di Nello's wits to be superior and up to the task, alas they failed miserably.

How will the show fare in Trump-Land now? Will it become even more partisan and boring? Will it adapt to other themes? I'm not going to be there to watch, that's for sure.

Dirk Gently's holistic detective agency is an intriguing comedic detective story set in a magical real world with larger and smaller than life characters tied by a chain of fate that looks like an incredible number of crazy coincidences. It is a very enjoyable series with good storytelling, good actors and a nice budget to go along. It is something different and defined that requires a bit of work on your part as it's not another dumbed down cop show, alas you will be repaid in full. Photography and music are great and effects are decent. Direction is good as well and actions are presented in an interesting editing with good framing.

For the readers: This series is good, it's not the source material.

You can either accept it and have a good show with unusually good acting or hate it for what it is not and ruin this for yourself. BBC took a risk and invested heavily on an Americanised show for a wider public. I love Adams' original work but let's face it: what works on paper might not work on the screen and most of the times faithful representations happen when the source is easy to be broken down into a fast paced storyboard, that is very rarely true. I personally hate the Guide movie, while I think this product captures more the spirit of Adams' writing if not the whole substance.

Even with with the worldwide success enjoyed by the source author, it is amazingly difficult to find investors ready to put money on such a perceived niche product, they would rather invest in CSI Somewhere. Please be kind and enjoy, one day... one day we might even have a truly faithful art piece, after US country wide legalisation that might even go to commercial success. For now welcome this and hope for more.

Is the depiction of Pakistan good? Probably not. Is the biography accurate? Let's say "inspired by real events". Is this the best comedy of the year? Probably not.

But, Nicolas Cage is above his own average, there is a story to tell and supporting cast do a decent job. In a sense the movie captures the spirit of the character if not the facts, the pacing is acceptable and eventually your viewing experience will be pleasant even if uneventful. Photography and editing are decent and the overall result is a slightly better than average comedy.

It's a full six and a third adjusted to seven to counterbalance the over criticism of my exigent fellow reviewers. There's a lot worse around!

Now, I've tried to carefully avoid mentioning Russel Brand (GOD) so far. That's because his acting is really terrible and his small but essential part brings down the whole to an annoyed five at best. What I've done is to imagine Steve Carrel playing God the whole time and trick my brain. No, I did NOT use drugs, it's a natural brain self defence technique.

Much of the HUMINT (that is human intelligence not signal/cyber/military/etc.) nowadays resembles what is actually depicted here. Even if 'boosted' a bit for flair the script seems far more anchored in reality than American agency themed dazzling action pop shows. The story will be fascinating to viewers partly for the stark difference, in many ways the show seems to be looking back at the superb "Tinker, Taylor, Soldier, Spy" of 1979 rather than trying to copy the pyrotechnics of a "Mission Impossible" modern franchise.

The acting is overall competent and delivers professionally scenes that are believable with a good interaction and no low points. Photography is sometimes excessively bleak but is consistent and sometimes inspired. I would desaturate a bit less, but hey... it has a defined taste at least. Editing and directing are up to the tasks at hand.

The series has no technical major flaws and even if the very beginning promised a bit faster plot, in the second year it has found its own pace which is slow and safe while constantly entertaining.

The Romeo Section has only one thing cutting it short of its achievable 8/10: "Rufus" played by Juan Riedinger. Even if he's not a terrible actor his mediocre performance coupled with a boring character and unimpressive, predictable story line is a real disservice to the whole. The need for that part of the story to be good for the total narrative to work is real, so it should have been better written and casted properly.

As this documentary delves into the cult of Scientology with an unclear objective it stumbles into possibly very interesting facets of its organisation without being able to fulfill any narrative purpose. Through good producers some key ex-members are involved and it seems the authors wished to document through the filming of a reenactment the shady practices, the extremely coercive atmosphere and the tyrannical power structure hidden to the public and known only to insiders of the cult.

And then it goes nowhere.

The documentary devolves into a mess of confrontations with the cult, backstage of the reenactment and interviews with ex-cultists. All these elements end up in a disjointed and clunky effort without any of the three main narratives styles (first-person, interview, reenactment) being brought to a satisfactory conclusion or forming a finite part in a complex scope. Each part losing much of the potential utility to create a complete documentation.

From what the final product looks I have to conclude that Mr. Louis Theroux and Mr. John Dower have done an incompetent job and furthermore the former likes a bit too much to be in front of the camera.

Let me add that although the conditions might have been considered somewhat challenging they seem to have completely lost the sense of "what and why and for whom" while being completely owned by Mr. Marty Rathbun (a key witness) losing perspective while fuelling Rathbun's own personal vendetta with BBC money. Even that might have been interesting to watch and a possible narrative path, instead all Mr. Theroux accomplishes is to annoy and alienate even Rathbun with his useless questions without bringing home nothing for the viewer. In substance the aforementioned pair have simply not enough documentary or journalistic instinct to turn the source to their advantage and get under his skin nor to paint a broader picture by using the source skilfully. They are not able to put up a participated observation (a very well known anthropological technique) nor a selfless journalistic report, ending up in the middle of nowhere.

All Mr. Theroux seems to be good at is to put up A-DUMB-BRIT-STONY-FACE that he thinks passes for grand journalism.

I empathise deeply with Paul Carlin, the film editor, for his pains in putting together something watchable as it is must have been many and prolonged. The whole thing deserves a 6 because of him and the amount of potential gold the producers were able to dig in the first place.

PS Can you imagine this, same premises, but done by Herzog? PPS "He knows were the bodies are..."

There should be a sort of action-type story and father-daughter thing... well I dare anyone to spoil the plot of Blood Father in a review. There is nothing to spoil. Characters are put together nearly randomly from tired stereotypes bunched together in non- development story that flows almost irrationally with no consequence worth screen time.

Gibson does what he can but he's tired and clueless as you will be by watching his lead role going nowhere. He is supposed to have a back story but there's really not much there or in front of him. They even paid William H. Macy to help him with a support role only to waste that too.

Eryn Moriarty has an annoyingly useless character and maybe that is the last nail in the coffin for this product. She over acts in the hope of meaning something but the result is dust in the wind and possibly in the eyes of the viewers. Again there is no personal development and the sheer dumbness of her lines and actions is embarrassing.

Direction is mediocre and by the book, below average on actors and tone. Photography is decent, editing unimpressive.

This movie is not evil, it's just tired and grumpy. So yeah... pick it up when it's in that large bin at *,99 at your local superstore, you know there is far worse in there.

Remember is indeed an exceptionally good solid movie, I have to thank IMDb reviewers for pointing it out, I could have easily missed this one, cerebral thrillers are sometimes difficult to watch for me and most often than not satisfaction for the viewer is scarce.

In a society that is constantly becoming older, elder citizens are becoming more and more a part of our social experience and (hopefully) old age will be a much greater part of our own lifetime in the future. Unfortunately memory loss and mental faculties degeneration is a growing threat directly to us or indirectly through our loved ones. Since it's not "cool" this pressing theme is often ignored in movies. Remember makes the best out of it in a surprisingly immersive movie.

The protagonist will fight increasingly daunting external threats and difficulties in his hunt for the enemy/nemesis that has become the unique and last purpose of his life. But that's only half of the story, the hero's physical flaws and internal struggle with his own dysfunctional brain is a whole added yet perfectly merged battleground in which he has to fight his own self.

Depicting such an epic struggle in an immersive storytelling is a massive victory for the script and the actors, no shortcuts taken there, everyone delivers and the protagonist gives a top performance. Photography and music constantly enhance the story but thanks to a superb directing and competent production all the factors involved are smoothly united towards an almost perfect product.

This is what used to be a good movie: good writing, good acting, competent directing, respectable photography. Keep in mind that the Brooklyn Banker does not aim too high and plays on its strengths, it is a worthwhile expenditure of your time and is thoroughly enjoyable. Characters are well defined and the interesting story flows without wandering. The tone is perfectly set and successfully depicts the age in which it takes place. The actions and reactions of the protagonist are believable and logic while all supporting actors are efficient and interesting.

Years ago that would have been a solid 7 if you liked the genre and tone or at least a 6 if you did not particularly relate to those. The reason to vote a 9 is that for all 2016 we've been afflicted by big budget shambles churned out by the studios, that seem to be unable to create a movie that abide to the previously stated basic rules. Throwing money at their woes will never make it better.

If you felt sleepy and confused during Independence Day sequel and Batman vs. Superman or felt dumber after watching Suicide Squad or Star Wars 7 the Brooklyn Banker will help.

If only. If only brilliant adult comics (oops, graphic novels) were presented this well on a regular basis. We would not have to suffer through inferior products like Constatine or Lucifer. The 'expand your base by oversimplification' scheme is finally opposed by a valid product with good acting, good photography and what really matters: good screen writing. Is Preacher good for you? Definitely YES or NO but no MEH. You will be allowed to like or dislike it according to your narrative taste, but you will not be forced to swallow a mainstream soup of dubiously identifiable taste. I personally give an 8 out of sheer goodwill apparent by the first two episodes. Thanks to good executives this show has character and texture, appropriate casting and direction are the byproduct of a fertile environment that allows for these to flourish and with just a bit of hope to get better and better in the future. Worth a look.

2015, a date many sci-fi authors of the past would have defined fit for their fictional work to take place. In the meanwhile much predicted scientific progress has happened, alas space travel has not. And yet, even if we almost never leave low earth orbit with manned craft we can at least still dream of it. Dark Matter is not such a dream. Let's not even consider the relatively low cost of CGI nowadays, nor the art direction and design. It's OK to get what you can on the budget you're given, many have done wonders with very low budgets as they've been able to imagine and build a space ambiance with character, not Dark Matter. Even with poor art a decent storyline and well designed characters can still shape an enjoyable product, Dark Matter has none of that. Lazy writing all over, under average art, uninteresting plot, poor dialogue, under average camera work and photography, stereotyped characters for under average actors. Dark Matter has all these flaws. All considered, ten or fifteen years ago this product would have deserved a 5, in 2015 you get a 3, because this thing should not even have gone to pilot stage let alone series. There are loads of better stories and more imaginative story lines out there and almost all could be produced on the budget spent for Dark Matter. Shame on you SyFool.

Enjoyable, pure and really simple. A very decent space comedy with well written characters, slightly above average actors with affordable dialogue, flowing plot and good enough photography. Office life in space and its routine-based timetable coupled with strained relationships and neurotic co-workers is even too credible. Taken for what it's worth and how much it was spent to make it deserves the viewer attention. It's not stellar nor incredibly funny but it would not hurt to see more movies made with this quality rather than boring and pretentious stuff that eventually costs triple this budget for half the entertaining value Space Milkshake can give.

This movie is a chilled out version of a classic 'retired' spy story plot with some finance and drama thrown in. The delightful acting by Walken and Nighy coupled with a good dialogue and decent photography will bring you a good relaxing evening while pleasing your brain in an atmosphere really similar to what fiscal paradise islands should feel like.

So why 8?

Yeah, well it should be between 6 and 7, nothing really extraordinary here. BUT instead of all the terrible productions going on air all the time, this movie will not let you down and that's enjoyable all along.

A great actor, a greater story, an under average result.

Turing's story was one of the few untapped legends of modern history, potential film greatness all over. And then comes along the perfect actor… But they needed a crowd pleaser, so nothing of this genius had to be 'difficult' to understand. From this production concept onwards the ruinous result is set. Cumberbatch does all he can but the film is doomed.

Blecthley park becomes an American style high school with little characters and their little cliché stories and little comedy scenes to alleviate the masses from ever feeling detached by an introversive complex genius fifty years ahead of his time. In order for us to empathise more with him he's translated into the 'nerd' stereotype more appropriate to sets like 'Big Bang Theory'. Real history is bent beyond ridiculous farce to accommodate a storyline populated by 'jolly good chaps' that US public will like better, the whole thing feels filmed on a couple of generic 40s sets with few extras available. Just have a look on American sit-coms sets and you will feel the same horrible sensation that everything was put up the day before and props are all-plastic replicas (which is OK for sit coms). Keira Knightley had to be there for a little love story (another production must) between nerds. Dialogue is appalling as the script dictates. Photography is good and uneventful, framing is rarely inspiring, WW2 newsreels are there to remember you all that this takes place in that timeframe, just in case you forgot…

This film feels like an over budget History Channel crap documentary with an excellent actor that raises the vote from 4 to 5, but that's all he can do.

While admiring Eastwood directing in general and particularly the two great historical war movies on Ivo Jima, I've had no satisfaction in watching this biography.

Even if the real person was true hero or a troubled killing machine, or both, you're not likely to find out. Cooper delivers a 'piece of stone' two dimensional character with pathetic supporting wife by Miller. Nearly impossible to empathise these two, their interaction never gets deeper than stitched-up dialogue and empty predictable routine. Maybe they are good actors, but script and direction muffled them into stereotypes.

All other characters are just stereotyped scenery, even the little credible antagonist is not given much to go around.

Storyline is bumpy and void of purpose, a sequence of tours of duty with dull character progress, at the end of the ride events described might have taken place in two weeks, no story progress or evolution felt.

Photography, music and all other tech aspects are great as expected, sadly that does not translate into enhanced narration.

Just to be clear: war in Iraq good? Or bad ? Who cares! It should be the story of a sniper, a single man by tactical definition. It would be stupid to judge this on your moral and political scale. And yet all you get is a hollow tale with politically correct tones and dubious patriotic purpose. Do not look for catharsis here just ask for a well told biography, but you will leave empty- handed. My ignorant conclusion is that American society and film culture is not ready to examine the events portrayed. Eastwood might have his own political beliefs but until now that had never stopped him from delivering immersive storytelling. Maybe twenty years from now we will get a great film on subject. Not yet.