Change Your Image
LilCProductions-CA
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Leverage: Redemption (2021)
Disappointing follow-up to a great original
Wanted to love it, but the writing just isn't there, kind of like Happy Days after Fonzie jumped the shark. The cons are full of stereotyped characters and it's just not as much fun. Cast is still likable, and the first two eps were enjoyable, but then it just felt like the writers were phoning it in. Although I miss Nate, but I'm a Noah Wylie fan, and he can more than hold his own, so that isn't the issue. Try it, just don't expect a lot.
Midtown (2015)
Well Worth Your Time
This show is hilarious. Each episode is about 10 minutes. There are two characters. They are partners in the NYPD. They debate gluten-free food, Caribbean vacations, cake etiquette, zoo animals and more, all while being hilariously but endearingly politically incorrect (well, Baker anyway). It's too bad this little gem wasn't picked up by Comedy Central or Adult Swim or something. With a little investment in production values, I could see this being a hit. Anyway, give it a try. You'll laugh out load at least once per episode. If you don't like it, you won't have lost too much time.
The Perils of Pauline (1967)
Don't believe your childhood memories: the only thing in peril is the 2 hours of your life you won't get back.
As I recall I saw this on TV on the late, late show with my mom when I was about 7 or 8. All I really remembered was the scene where the heroine was frozen in a block of ice to keep her from aging until her betrothed (a little boy) could grow up to marry her. I remember her true love rescuing her from that fate. I could never find the movie because I misremembered the star as Doris Day.
Anyway, a couple years ago, I found this movie and tried to watch it. It was painful. Bad acting (especially by the two romantic leads), bad writing, silly premise, all adding up to one boring, unwatchable film. Not sure how it got made. As another reviewer noted, it contains offensive racial stereotypes that were probably even offensive by 1967 standards. I tried to watch the whole thing, but as I said, it truly is unwatchable. I'd rather watch an episode of Family Ties. And I hated Family Ties. Hated.
In sum, it isn't funny, fun or clever. It is just bad. If you have fond memories of seeing it once at as a child, don't waste your time watching it as an adult or you're liable to find out how really, truly awful your childhood taste was. Watch Follow Me Boys or Charley and the Angel instead.
Atlas Shrugged: Part I (2011)
3 Points for cinematography & Jon Politi--the rest is laughably bad
Not sure where to start. The ridiculously bad dialogue that sounds like it was written by a middle schooler? The ridiculously absurd legislative proposals (like the anti "Dog Eat Dog" bill and the "Equalization of Opportunity" bill)? The fact that characters just say "Who is John Galt?" randomly in conversations without the other characters saying "WTF was that non-sequitur?"? The least realistic exit interview ever committed to film? When Dagny says "Where is the man that I used to love?"? James Taggart claiming he is in business for good PR or "to help people," rather than to make money?
Really the only reason to keep watching it is to see how bad it can get. Each scene reaches new, more ridiculous lows than the last. And don't get me started on the chemistry-free love story...
Much of the acting is sub-par. There are a few decent performances (e.g., Jon Politi, Grant Bowler) -- but even the talented folks are horribly misused or under used. I can only assume they are either blind devotees of Ayn Rand or else they were on the verge of laughing the whole time they were filming. The dialogue was really laugh out loud funny.
The music is another low-point. Although fine in quality, the way it swelled to emphasize the splendor of entrepreneurship and industry (like when they showed the new Rearden rails and bridge) was cringe-inducing. Straight out of a 40s propaganda film.
The film has the "look" of a better film than it is. The makeup and cinematography, including the diverse locales, would indicate higher quality film than the hilariously bad dialogue, painfully bad directing, and the spotty acting betray.
As a side note: whoever wrote the script clearly does not understand how businesses work or how the government works or how unions work. Assistants don't schedule Board meetings and then inform the CEO. Nor do CEOs have to go along with business decisions made by their sisters. Union leaders don't "forbid" workers from working -- the members of the union vote to strike or not to strike as the case may be, and objecting to working in unsafe conditions is a legitimate concern.
Nor does the U.S. government put out propaganda against new products that aren't even on the market yet. The U.S. used a "risk-based" approach to new products (except for drugs, which for good reason undergo testing prior to being approved), which means new products go to market and stay on the market until proved dangerous (e.g., thalidomide, CFCs), and even then they usually stay on the market even once the danger is proved (e.g., asbestos, PCBs, diacetyl). If Readen's steel actually was dangerous, either it would fail DOT tests during construction, which would delay construction until stress tests were passed, or, more likely, Americans wouldn't find out until there was a terrible safety incident years later. What would NOT happen is the U.S. government bad-mouthing a product, but allowing it to go onto the market. Nor, under the Constitution, could the federal government single out a single state for a tax. All these ideas are ludicrous.
I think if someone wanted to make a watchable market fundamentalist movie, they could have done a much better job, starting with the writing. They should do some research, critique government as it actually functions, not as an anti-government propagandist imagines it functions. There is plenty to critique about the U.S. government, but when the filmmaker starts by misunderstanding it, his or her critiques are going to be laughable and non-convincing. They are going to sound like the propaganda they are, It all starts with a good script.
In sum, it looks pretty good, but don't turn the sound on. 3/10.
The Thin Red Line (1998)
I kept not walking out because I kept wrongly thinking it was about to end anyway...
This movie was such a disappointment. I heard how great it was. I loved many of the actors. I like war movies. So I went. But this movie was just a terrible mish-mash that was too hard to follow.
First of all, it was too hard keep the characters straight--too many of the actors resembled each other. Except for the very recognizable actors such as Clooney and Nolte, what you got was a bunch of reasonably good-looking white men with brown hair--all dressed as soldiers, sometimes in dimly lit scenes, such as in the rain or the forest or on a cloudy day or in a fuzzy flashback. Thus it was hard to know whose flashback was whose and which battle was which. Filmmaking 101: enable the audience to tell the difference between your characters. It's totally doable: Stone did it in Platoon, Kubrick did it in Full Metal Jacket, and Jewison did it in a Soldier's Story despite all of the characters basically wearing the same uniform.
Second, it was way too long. The two friends I went with (and convinced to see it given so many positive critic's reviews) soon enough wanted to walk out, and I said, "wait this must be the climax, the final battle scene," so I convinced them to stay. A short time later, they said to me, "it wasn't the final and it hasn't gotten better, so let's go." I again said, "wait, it's the final battle scene, let's just wait." After convincing them to stay a second time, the film still refused to end. Finally, they said, "we're leaving with or without you because this film sucks." I couldn't disagree that it sucked, so I walked out with them. The plotting was confused there was no end in sight. Yet, not five minutes later, after we had all made stops in the bathrooms and were in the theatre lobby discussing what to do next that evening, the film finally ended as the crowd poured into the lobby. Frankly, my telling of watching the movie was more interesting than the movie. To this day, I can't figure out why someone would put so many apparently climactic battle scenes in one movie, but I refuse to watch it again to find out.
In sum: it was hard to tell the actors apart, which made it hard to follow the plot; pointless flashbacks; went on way too long. A film that was in love with itself, and the critics refused to admit the emperor had no clothes.
See it only if you like form over substance, visuals over storytelling.
Barry Lyndon (1975)
Scenes interminably long
I think I just don't get the genius of Kubrick. This movie reminds me a lot of the previous film I have seen of his, Eyes Wide Shut. In both, the music was too loud and overused, often in long shots where very little to nothing happened. As another reviewer said, it's like the music was a substitute for real action. Surely, an interesting film could be made with this plot, but this film wasn't it.
Each scene could have been cut by 1/3 to 1/2, with profitable results. Even establishing shots (such as "here we are at a castle") were simply too long. It's like we were watching a cinematographer's CV reel, rather than a story. Anyway, I watched the entire thing and the pace never quickened.
Unlike others, I won't blame Ryan O'Neal. I think Kubrick must have directed him to be wooden and stoic, since everyone was basically wooden and stoic, save for attempted suicide and stepson's outburst scenes. O'Neal can be more of an outgoing swashbuckler (see The Main Event), so we have to assume he was told not be (see also Samuel L. Jackson in the Star Wars prequels). Anyway, I did not enjoy watching the film any more than I enjoyed the overrated Eyes Wide Shut. I just don't get it.
On the other hand, if you watch movies solely for set decoration, costumes, and establishing shots rather than storytelling, you might enjoy this.