Change Your Image
myrddinfyrch
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Upgrade (2018)
Fantastic yet unknown
Definitely a diamond in the rough. Gory and violent as anything *good* I've ever seen, but does not rise to the level of gross-out horror. Plotting is far deeper than most modern American garbage action, and there's enough mystery to keep the audience engaged.
The roughest parts were mostly in acting/delivery, though playing a paraplegic in an action film in what is practically a monodrama would be tough for any actor.
Probably the best Sci-Fi I've seen in the last 5 years aside from big-budget like Dune. Comparable in enjoyment to Edge of Tomorrow, with a noteworthy exception: there's no happy ending, which I appreciate.
Trafficked with Mariana van Zeller: White Supremacy (2022)
Far below the expected norm
This episode caused me to doubt the accuracy of those I've seen previously. Uncritical citations of Southern Poverty Law Center "statistics", deliberate conflation of conservative views with white supremacy, and pretending the 100 or so tiki-torch bearing nerds in Charlottesville "Unite the Right" as being an imminent danger?
Exactly the sort of misinformation & propaganda being peddled by the Democrat Party regarding January 6th - a day on which the ONLY violent casualty was a USAF veteran murdered by DCPD.
Given Disney's ownership of NatGeo this probably should not have surprised me, but it's extremely disappointing to see someone pretending to be impartial shoveling agitprop.
King Arthur (2004)
Does Disney ruin everything it touches?
So I imagine this movie is what happens when Altman's "The Player" happens in real life. Some script peddler had an amazing concept: the REAL King Arthur was not from the French storyline circa 1100 A.D. but rather was contemporary with Rome and had to deal with the Roman Empire's collapse. Let's make him Braveheart for Britain.
One of my preferred authors, Bernard Cornwell, wrote several books on this theme (The Winter King) and I believe there's at least a couple of others. It's not a dry well by any measure.
Soooo, I knew this movie hadn't been a massive box office success, but I still wanted to give it a go. The cast is practically all A-listers, and the director is renowned for churning out cash cow offerings.
However, you won't get 5 minutes in before you realize that this flick stinks on ice. The primary failing is plotting, a secondary is scripting, and a third is cinematography. It speaks quite badly of modern cinema that they can't manage better, but here's a quick synopsis:
1) Plotting - there's a storyline, & it's not utterly ludicrous to start. The heroes are about to be released, but the evil Catholics demand a suicide mission first. Then it starts to fall apart, because the suicide mission turns out to be the rescue of a corrupt Roman who is torturing people. THEN the Knights (Round Table has already been turned into a cheap political gag) all protect the Romans plus slaves who have been existing for years outside of their operational area & responsibility. *THEN* after they make up with their historical enemies simply on random verbal decision, they throw away their lives simply to stop the random maximum badthing (represented by the Saxons).
2) Scripting AKA dialogue. It seems very much like the script was a bunch of one- and two-liners literally thrown together without much thought, in order to try to generate a tagline, Twitter quote, or meme along the lines of "This... Is... SPARTA!". Instead, it turned out as a disjointed, random, unsettling pile of garbage quotes & non sequiturs.
3) Cinematography started out well (you'll remember I was looking for some bleak British fantasy) but it turns to dross quite rapidly. There's a couple of nice out-of-genre tricks, like one of the Knights seeming to mimic Japanese Kendo style, but those few nice bits are overrun by crap-tastic special effects (ice doesn't fall through water like stones, even when viewed from below) and scenes that are drawn out or overemphasized to the point of being ludicrous (Kiera Knightley is utterly unconvincing as a shieldmaiden role, so having her try to bellow a war cry as she charges half-naked against heavy infantry is laughable).
Us (2019)
Indicative of a promising future, but not a win
This is only the second movie by writer/director Jordan Peele. Peele is far better known as the Oliver Hardy half of the comedy duo "Key & Peele"
While Key is off making mainstream car commercials, which doubtless yields a tidy profit, Peele is one of those actors who has both the balls & talent to try getting behind the camera and do his best, rather than just expect congratulations to roll in because he's "him".
That being said, Peele's no M. Knight Shamalamadingdong, and in no way like Eastwood (yet). M. Knight might have 'come out of the gate' with The Sixth Sense (his 3rd movie) but he's made quite a few stinkers on the way... Eastwood did better but he's been in the business forever.
Peele's problem, conversely, is that while he's got amazing style & capability, he really kinda sucks when it comes to putting a script together. This is surprising because he's got at least 15 official credits as a writer. It's too soon to say whether Peele will be a flash in the pan, both because he's not got that much officially under his belt and because so far he's sticking with "BLACK!!" interpretation. My wife believes I saw his first movie, Get Out, but I don't think I did.
US doesn't rely on jump-scares and has a great suspenseful tone, both of which automatically go on my 'favorable' side. The acting is very decent; many of these were probably in Black Panther and do perfectly well performing here, particularly the heroine. There are two child actors, and both do fine with what are actually complex roles. My guess is that Peele's skill as a writer is the source of some amazingly well-executed lines, scenes, & even vignettes/non-verbal moments (if you decide to see this, remember the line: "We're Americans!" and you'll realize what I'm saying).
The problem is that style, scenes, & excellently conveyed creepy mood isn't enough to cover up gigantic plot holes & shoddy story execution. It's possible that because he's the writer he figured he didn't need to go through a better drafting & revision process, but that's simply false. There's some absolutely wonderful concepts, including "Hands Across America" & steam tunnels (part of the intro so it's not really a spoiler) but the problem is there's very little done in an effective fashion with them. Likewise, the performances are better than "just fine", but there's too many loose ends left with the motivation behind them. It would perhaps be as if The Terminator spent screen time showing the theory of how time travel works without showing Arnold or Reese (Biehn) actually showing up (Arnie's flex vs. Reese's vagrant-in-pain). That fails as an analogy but I can't think of a better way to convey it.
So I'm not pretending to have a solution, but I'm hoping that Peele hires some writers and uses someone else's story. Doing an 'ethnic' horror film was novel, he did a great job of it, but it still doesn't work in the final tally. I think he has great potential and it would be an absolute shame for one of the rare out-of-the-box types to get washed up so early in what could be a great career.
Captain Marvel (2019)
So in a nutshell, it doesn't totally suck
So in a nutshell, it doesn't totally suck. It's pedestrian & filled to the brim with plot holes - far more than I expected - but it's just another slightly sub-standard comic book hero origin story. Thor was more enjoyable in that regard, as was Captain America, but Captain Marvel has none of the light touches those did. At best, the movie's humor is worked around Cheese by the other characters, as she is remarkably grim and bellicose. Apparently one of the dust-ups had to do with the "offensive for women to smile" stupidity.
Cheese is supposed to be a great actress, but you wouldn't know it from her performance here. However, it's quite possible that her generally wooden delivery is due to the direction & even the character limitations. Her character is literally the Mary Sue* of Mary Sues, and considering that the character is supposed to be suffering from amnesia of some kind, there's absolutely no reason to warm to her.
Samuel L. Jackson turns in a typically over-the-top performance, though without any snakes on his *(&($%&(#$ plane, but the attempt to add a "buddy" movie dimension falls flat. Cheese is simply too unlikable, even after her personality is discovered &c.
The special effects are decent, but there's only so much explosions & plasma bolts that I can stomach.
*"Mary Sue" (from Wiki):A Mary Sue is an idealized and seemingly perfect fictional character. Often, this character is recognized as an author insert or wish fulfillment. They can usually perform better at tasks than should be possible given the amount of training or experience
Unplanned (2019)
Excellent movie & undeserving of MPAA rating.
I didn't enjoy this as much as 'Gosnell', if one can consider watching movies about infanticide 'enjoyable'. I might review it on IMDB if just to counter the review bombing (funny how IMDB & others only step in when it's Black Panther, Captain Marvel, or the Ghostbusters remake, innit?).
This is a narration of Planned Parenthood director Abby Johnson who "defected" to a church group once she actually assisted in an abortion & saw a 'procedure', despite being a poster child for the organization. It's pretty straightforward; the woman had two abortions & decided to go volunteer for Planned Parenthood, thinking they were what they claimed to be & had the most noble of intentions. There's really not much in the way of "voyage of discovery"; she considers herself an honest, decent women & the Christians arrayed against her to be vile morons, only to find step by step that she's the actual monster. They try to avoid a cheesy courtroom ending but it's not totally possible given what happened in the real life story. They also tried to avoid demonizing some of those involved, but again, some things aren't really possible if you want to stick to the facts behind the story.
No way this deserves the "R" rating that the MPAA slapped it with - there's some blood in a couple of horrible scenes but I've seen more blood in "G" rated movies - but 'powers that be' don't want this movie seen because of potential emotional impact. Unlike 'Gosnell', this movie isn't shy about its agenda; they name the backers of Planned Parenthood & discuss it in no uncertain terms. Terms, of course, which Planned Parenthood lies on a regular basis to pretend aren't accurate.
Gosnell: The Trial of America's Biggest Serial Killer (2018)
In my top 3 "Serial Killer" movies (HBO's Citizen X, Silence of the Lambs)
This is Gosnell's true story, though extremely abbreviated, and it is both astonishing & disgusting. Claims that this is a smear job are simply false; this movie was crafted with almost a light touch regarding the underlying subject matter, in order to produce a worthy picture.
The man himself was lionized by the American New Left in the past as a 'pioneer' of abortion, which seemingly supported and enhanced his psychosis. Try finding anything on the Internet to support the stance of his being a noble visionary now that he has been outed as a bona fide serial killer.
The performances were skilled, though not legitimately stellar, except for that of Earl Billings. I definitely put him on par with Jeffrey DeMunn's portrayal of Andrei Chikatilo; he manages to exude a sense of "not right" from the start (even before the stomach turning 'Chinese food').
Even for those who are essentially pro-infanticide, this movie highlights the very real issues regarding Government corruption. Gosnell ran his "clinic" in a horrifying, dangerous, & patently illegal fashion thanks to complicit Federal & state officials - Gosnell was actually found out because he was a big player in America's painkiller epidemic. Tom Ridge (Republican) is identified in the storyline as having direct responsibility - though the movie is almost too careful in avoiding political overtones.
Simply put, this movie is nothing short of outstanding. I say this in full recognition that many would sneer at it for having Lifetime Channel quality production values &c, but that's obviously because it flies in the face of Progressive Leftist orthodoxy. It couldn't get funding, publicity was deliberately suppressed, & reviews stand in contrast to Progressive-supported movies like the Ghostbusters remake, Black Panther, or Captain Marvel. The hurtles those involved had to overcome are breathtaking (there's plenty of articles if one cares to look), & lend credence to conspiracy theorists if examined too closely!
I understand it's on Netflix. You have no excuse NOT to see it.
Death Wish (2018)
Great reboot! A pity political obsessives will try to murder it.
This is a solid reboot of the original Charles Bronson classic revenge fantasy. It will drown in a sea of Progressive anti-gun propaganda, much like Ender's Game was squelched by Progressives retaliating for Mormon writer Orson Scott Card's "gay hate" beliefs. That's sad, because it doesn't deserve to. In fact, Roth takes a great hard swipe at 'gun culture' types in a couple of the scenes, while at the same time working it into one of the funnier moments in the movie.
In truth, there wasn't much renovation in this, nor much over-the-top innovation. The original book was written in 1972 and the movie was set in 1974-era New York City, so the crime setting wouldn't necessarily translate except that Chicago is currently one of the murder capitals of America responsible for high gun violence statistics.
Roth makes good use of the differences in technology; the vigilante anti-hero is being tracked on cell phones, caught on surveillance cameras, &c. but those are folded in well into the rewritten plot. Particularly useful is the change of the vigilante's profession; he's no longer a lauded architect, but a sought-after trauma surgeon who sees the damage first hand. He is mentally above it all, giving up on saving a cop & then immediately moving on to save the punk who shot the cop in the first place. The turn to vigilante thinking is more poignant than the Bronson version.
Willis is a bit wooden initially, though perhaps some of this is probably deliberate so as to not make the character just a Punisher clone. Willis also manages to capture the non-hardass aspect of the character to a somewhat better degree than Bronson did (who actually was a very decent guy in real life).
Aftermath (2016)
What was SyFy thinking?
I'm pretty much of the same opinion as most of the other posters about the horrible quality, acting, &c. so I thought for a moment it would be worth considering just how this could become a drinking game.
Then I gave up, realizing everyone would be under the table long before the end of the show.
Just 3 samples - - the "Air Force" mom flew helicopters for USAF Special Ops. This seemed considered only in order to make a Leftist crack about serving in combat. Hint to the clueless - the USAF doesn't own helicopters (that's Army & Navy) and their Special Ops force is largely for Search & Rescue.
- the moron/professor dad wanders into numerous dangerous situations, but in one example actually persuades the hostile raiders to drink poisoned liquor, and in another escapes a sneak attack from an axe-wielding female professor who quite clearly is disturbed.
- everyone apparently owns and carries full automatic weapons around Seattle. Who knew?
Even the porn value is zero. The slut daughter (who is abducted by the flying possessed "skinwalker") is dull & unconvincing, she picks up a Mennonite-style boy who is similarly dull & unconvincing - and a complete moron regarding his own faith. The other daughter is a geek who is... you guessed it, dull & unconvincing.
The only episode that had even mildly interesting salacious plus mythological value was an aquatic she-demon hiding from her husband. The dull football-playing son managed to kill the husband but is completely oblivious to supposedly nude Donna Benedicto's charms even when she kisses him.
The Abyss (1989)
Cameron's "Director's cut" is unsurprisingly an anti-American screed
Why the low rating? Same reason it's on the Sundance Channel - because I watched the Director's Cut, rather than the original theater version. This may be called the Special Edition but I have no interest in figuring that out any longer.
I had enjoyed the theater version on DVD since the concept seemed a relatively benign underwater alien encounter. It seemed disjointed, I had seen on TV the filming difficulties, and James Cameron is a preachy anti-Christian scumbag who was miserable to work with, but yeah OK it was watchable and has some decent scenes.
Sundance Channel, of course, is Robert Redford's pet cable channel, and Redford is another notoriously noxious anti-American kinda guy (who earned much of his wealth playing military heroes &c.) So I thought I'd be interested in seeing what wound up on the cutting room floor. I was horribly mistaken, sitting through 4 hours worth of this atrocity (commercials included though, so I have no idea what the real length was; Special Edition is reportedly almost 3 hours).
First, the movie lost nothing by such substantial cutting. The theater version was often turgid, but that was due to bad direction. The portions cut out of the backstory that are NOT directed at the main theme don't account for much; there's some more bits about the failed marriage of the two primary characters but nothing that builds any better empathy. About the only meaningful thing is that Ed Harris is presented slightly more "good ole boy" and Mastrantonio a bit more arrogant bitch.
The bulk of the difference which was cut from theatrical release deserved to be. With Cameron's intent included, the movie turns into a preachy, clumsy anti-American screed that fails on pretty much every level. The American-Soviet antagonism which is not much more than a backdrop in the theatrical version is instead the main plot: the Cold War is about to explode into nuclear confrontation purely on the basis of the sunken US sub and an at-sea collision. The SEAL team are monsters, rather than just having a crazy leader. The aliens conjure a world-wide tsunami with their water magic, only to cause the wave to stop, with subsequent scenes of mindless human rejoicing.
There's additional dialogue from Harris on behalf of the aliens which is more of the same "UFO angels won't destroy you... THIS TIME" Apparently the only reason the aliens didn't wipe out most of humanity was Harris' goodbye message to Mastrantonio? You can find it at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VD3vOduCwu0
THOSE are the grounds for the not-well-explained saucer-city rising to the surface at the end of the film. It seemed pretty meaningless in the theatrical release, but now it's an obvious threat by a superior intelligence that humans are evil and better stop acting like children or we'd be wiped out be the angelic aliens.
Risen (2016)
Excellent Resurrection story with fine acting
This in essence is a re-treatment of the Resurrection Story, but it is told with an emphasis on the political backstory and from the viewpoint of an unbeliever. The protagonist (Joseph Fiennes) is a Roman military Tribune (something similar to Lieutenant Colonel) who is the commander of the military forces in Judea, working for Pontius Pilate.
The movie does a masterful job of incorporating both historical and temporal concerns that would have been involved in the Resurrection, and extrapolates a lot of events in the 'blank spaces' of the Bible. Pilate is completely absorbed in trying to keep the powder keg of his governorship from exploding (with the assertion that Caesar or someone similar will be visiting for inspection). In one witty scene, Mary Magdalene is sought for questioning, so the Tribune simply goes to the barracks and asks who can visually identify her (one hand rises, then another, &c.)
I rated this several marks higher than what is apparently the average, because quite frankly many reviews include quite nasty anti- Christian sentiment as part of the grade. They sneer at the way this movie turns from crime drama into a religious message. That's completely wrong-minded in my view; it's like going to a documentary and sneering at it not having enough action, or humor. This is an openly religious-oriented movie... it's the RESURRECTION STORY, for goodness sake - but in keeping with the Sony niche outlet named Affirm Films it is another in a line of reasonably high quality films with Christian themes. Sony Corp, unlike their openly anti-Christian American rivals (think Paramount's Noah), are no fools - this genre is both remarkably lucrative and under-served.
The Woman in Black (1989)
One of the most terrifying movies I love
A recent "best of" from a sadly neglected genre. The movie is a slow, simmering creep-fest with only one "jumpscare" - but since the hair on the back of your neck was upright already, it might fall out from that scene.
Only reason it's not a full "10" is that presumably being a 'made for TV' movie they had a few corners cut for production - some sloppy framing, clumsy cuts, that sort of thing.
FAR FAR FFAAAARRR superior to the recent remake. Don't bother seeing that one in the theatre; rent this **IF YOU CAN FIND IT** and prepare for bad dreams.
The Babadook (2014)
Quite Excellent, yet sadly understand the negative reviews
I'll agree with the other positive reviewers about this being an absolute gem. There's incredible suspense, it's often subtle, and there's many ways to view it. Very similar to Kubrick's Shining in a number of ways.
Sadly, there are also far too many people who believe the Saw movie series to be the epitome of horror films. That's why there are so many people who gave bad reviews. There are no jump-scares, there's very little gore, and the characters aren't cardboard. Some of the negative reviewers rightfully hate both the primary characters, yet don't grasp that the *reason* they hate them is central to understanding...
SPOILER
The child IS a horrible little monster, who has been over-indulged by his weak, fawning mother, because she is masking her grief and resentment. The audience is MEANT to hate some of their characteristics.
I only found weakness towards the end of the film. Someone explains the ending as symbolism with a very art-house context within the comments section, and it makes sense through that lens. The mother & child essentially have met their psychotic issues and embraced them. However, using that lens means that the entire film really had to have been the mother's insanity - kind of like the movie Jacob's Ladder
The film could have been absolutely devastating if there was a bit more rationale for the Babadook being retained, and the ending scenes not quite so heavenly. There was a sense of being unfinished - if deliberate, it wasn't a good decision. I waited for some sort of capstone or finale, even wondering if the haunted book would show up in the sister's house.
The Helpers (2012)
Extremely poor quality
I'm no fan of torture porn movies in the first place, but there was practically no suspense provided here, which would have helped. The "jump-scares" were trite and the deadly scenarios all but laughable. I've only walked out of one movie in my life (The Barbarian Brothers) but I would have been tempted with this one.
As another reviewer had pointed out, better writing would have at least made it tolerable. I would add to that some more alert editing and direction: - The sand at the roadside where the car is immobilized has tire tracks from the previous take. - At one point, a villain-babe actually reaches into the supposedly electrified bathwater and accidentally splashes, while a few scenes later she falls in to the tub and dies. - The "Marine" (ugh) has a voice-activated shock collar, yet towards the end of one scene shouts with it on - all the while having been grimacing and twitching when it supposedly activated. Even Marines aren't as stupid as these characters are... >:-D
Trite and unlikely concepts abound. The first victim is a film geek who is so offensive that there is no possible way a gaggle of "cool" types are driving with him to Las Vegas. The character even has an emotional attachment to his backpack.
I, too, signed up for IMDb just to rate this movie. What should have been a redeeming feature - the casting of the stunning & talented Rachel Sterling - was very disappointing. Her character is undeveloped, her nude scene (the only nudity in the movie) is completely throwaway - as if they could cut it and achieve a better MPAA rating? Or worse, be able to show it on TV?
Most of all, Sterling's character is literally ripped in half as the first female victim. I'm assuming this decision was so she can fix her boyfriend the Marine with her smoky gaze as she expires. What a waste.
Kind of like deciding to sell Monet prints as toilet paper. She would have been better utilized as one of the villains.