I tried sitting through this movie but got so bored after 40 mins that I decided watching the grass in my yard grow would be more insightful and entertaining. And you know what? I was right.
Reviews
11 Reviews
Hamilton
(2020)
Unlistenable
20 November 2020
I am a musician (40+ years in the trade), and yet I will never get the appeal of rap/hip hop. As far as I can tell, it's just high-rate lyrics recited in a monotone voice, with no attention given to melody, chord progression, structure, thematic development, etc. Musically, nothing could be more boring for me.
I refuse to hang on every word uttered in rapid (often gutteral) succession, trying to glean some sort of meaning out of hours of monotone chanting.
I tried twice to watch this drivel, but couldn't make it past ten minutes without getting so bored that I found something else to do.
I refuse to hang on every word uttered in rapid (often gutteral) succession, trying to glean some sort of meaning out of hours of monotone chanting.
I tried twice to watch this drivel, but couldn't make it past ten minutes without getting so bored that I found something else to do.
Vikings meets Chitty Chitty Bang Bang
9 April 2020
Warning: Spoilers
1. Oleg was a pagan.
2. Kievan Rus soldiers were most often Vikings, and -never- Mongols (the Mongols didn't show up until 400 years later).
3. Oleg was focused on invading lands to the warm and fertile south - never to the north. Why would someone living along the rich banks of the Dnieper River risk invading lands that were not worth fighting for in the first place? The reason the Vikings were so aggressive is because -any- place was better than where they came from!
5. BTW, where -is- the Dnieper river on which Kiev was founded?
6. A BALLOON? The only thing missing is Dick Van Dyke.
Coffee Kart
(2019)
A triple half-caf one-and-a-quarter-pump hazelnut breve-latte no-foam upside-down with a dusting of cinnamon
3 March 2020
This is a great movie. I chuckled all the way through it, even laughing out loud at certain times (something I don't often do for movies). I was also touched at times.
Coffee Kart is obviously an "indie" movie, but quite frankly, in my opinion indies are often much better than "fancy" movies (to coin an adjective used by "Clare," the movie's main character), because indies are usually so much more sincere. Coffee Kart certainly falls in this category. These are real people playing real people, portraying real problems - and handing out some real humor along the way.
I particularly laughed at the well-aimed jabs at the "fancy" coffee industry. I often find myself frustrated when I visit a coffee shop wanting just a cup of coffee, only to be inundated with twenty different choices, NONE of which even resemble a "real" cup of coffee (e.g., the title for this review).
Rachel Magana and Robin Bjerke both deliver convincing performances in their portrayals of "Clare" and "Kate." The supporting cast is also good in their roles. The short scene featuring Jim Kocher as an out-of-work older man ("Bill"), baring his heart to Clare, was played quite touchingly I thought.
No, there are no explosions or CGI in this movie - which may be off-putting to some these days - but I found Coffee Kart to be an entertaining movie that stands on its own, and delivers a decent story that most can relate to.
Coffee Kart is obviously an "indie" movie, but quite frankly, in my opinion indies are often much better than "fancy" movies (to coin an adjective used by "Clare," the movie's main character), because indies are usually so much more sincere. Coffee Kart certainly falls in this category. These are real people playing real people, portraying real problems - and handing out some real humor along the way.
I particularly laughed at the well-aimed jabs at the "fancy" coffee industry. I often find myself frustrated when I visit a coffee shop wanting just a cup of coffee, only to be inundated with twenty different choices, NONE of which even resemble a "real" cup of coffee (e.g., the title for this review).
Rachel Magana and Robin Bjerke both deliver convincing performances in their portrayals of "Clare" and "Kate." The supporting cast is also good in their roles. The short scene featuring Jim Kocher as an out-of-work older man ("Bill"), baring his heart to Clare, was played quite touchingly I thought.
No, there are no explosions or CGI in this movie - which may be off-putting to some these days - but I found Coffee Kart to be an entertaining movie that stands on its own, and delivers a decent story that most can relate to.
Phantom Thread
(2017)
A girl dates her jerk of a grandfather
6 July 2019
Warning: Spoilers
This movie lost considerable believability for me early in the story when a pretty waitress (age: 23) falls immediately for a man (age: 60) whom she only knows to be a customer and nothing more. From what I've seen, old farts have to buy pretty girlfriends, especially ones that are one-third their age. Geezers looking for "trophies" have to lavish their girls with money, gifts, and treat them like queens. Otherwise, what's the point? A pretty young woman can easily find a strapping, handsome, and interesting young man, many of whom also have money as well. In the real world, in the first scene, Alma would've most likely not even paid as much attention to Reynolds as she would have paid to the silverware.
The movie continues to trundle down its road of dubious credibility, like when the dressmaker literally strips the expensive dress off of a wealthy patroness that he had previously sold to the same patroness.
Daniel Day-Lewis displays his usual genius, this time portraying a narcissistic jerk with perfection.
But at a certain point in the movie, Alma asks herself in front of Reynolds, "What am I doing here?" I had the same question throughout the movie. Unfortunately, the writers never answer this question.
The movie continues to trundle down its road of dubious credibility, like when the dressmaker literally strips the expensive dress off of a wealthy patroness that he had previously sold to the same patroness.
Daniel Day-Lewis displays his usual genius, this time portraying a narcissistic jerk with perfection.
But at a certain point in the movie, Alma asks herself in front of Reynolds, "What am I doing here?" I had the same question throughout the movie. Unfortunately, the writers never answer this question.
Animal Kingdom
(2010)
Riveting story of crime and police vigilantism
25 January 2010
The backdrop to this movie is Melbourne, Australia in the mid-1980's, which (according to the director) had one of the highest per-capita murder rates in the world. At the time, there were several deaths in Melbourne in which wanted and suspected criminals were killed by the police under suspicious circumstances. These killings in turn supposedly ignited a slew of retaliatory murders perpetrated on police officers (cf. the "Walsh Street" police shootings).
This is a movie about a young man (Josh or "J," played by James Frecheville) whose extended family are all criminals. Using the character of seventeen-year-old J as a sort of catalyst, the movie explores a variety of crime-related issues, from the effects of growing up in a world where criminal activity is the norm, to the escalation of crime that is a natural consequence of vigilantism (especially when the vigilantes are police).
The characters are all played very well, with exceptionally good performances given by Ben Mendelsohn, Jackie Weaver, Sullivan Stapleton and young James Frecheville in his debut as J.
While "Animal Kingdom" starts slowly (perhaps -too- slowly for some), it continually builds in intensity throughout the entire movie, culminating with an ending that is both shocking and yet inevitable. In particular, the movie has a very compelling scene played perfectly by Mendelsohn, with an awesome supporting role played by Luke Ford - I'm sure this scene repulsed many in the audience (it certainly repulsed me). At first, I feared that the scene was added by the director merely as a gratuitous exploitation of the audience's emotions. However, as the movie progresses, the scene's outcome becomes an integral part of the plot development, and is therefore necessary for the completion of the main story.
This movie will not be for everybody - the subject matter and the honest way in which the movie portrays it made the movie somewhat taxing at times to sit through. However, I think those willing to consider the necessity of telling the story of "Animal Kingdom" will find the movie entertaining and thought-provoking - I certainly did.
This is a movie about a young man (Josh or "J," played by James Frecheville) whose extended family are all criminals. Using the character of seventeen-year-old J as a sort of catalyst, the movie explores a variety of crime-related issues, from the effects of growing up in a world where criminal activity is the norm, to the escalation of crime that is a natural consequence of vigilantism (especially when the vigilantes are police).
The characters are all played very well, with exceptionally good performances given by Ben Mendelsohn, Jackie Weaver, Sullivan Stapleton and young James Frecheville in his debut as J.
While "Animal Kingdom" starts slowly (perhaps -too- slowly for some), it continually builds in intensity throughout the entire movie, culminating with an ending that is both shocking and yet inevitable. In particular, the movie has a very compelling scene played perfectly by Mendelsohn, with an awesome supporting role played by Luke Ford - I'm sure this scene repulsed many in the audience (it certainly repulsed me). At first, I feared that the scene was added by the director merely as a gratuitous exploitation of the audience's emotions. However, as the movie progresses, the scene's outcome becomes an integral part of the plot development, and is therefore necessary for the completion of the main story.
This movie will not be for everybody - the subject matter and the honest way in which the movie portrays it made the movie somewhat taxing at times to sit through. However, I think those willing to consider the necessity of telling the story of "Animal Kingdom" will find the movie entertaining and thought-provoking - I certainly did.
Batman Begins
(2005)
Throw away the others - THIS is the REAL Batman!
17 October 2005
Warning: Spoilers
This is by far the best Batman movie yet. I think the director must've been a true Batman fan as a kid, because the version of Batman portrayed in THIS movie comes closest to what I felt as I read the Batman comics of my childhood (40 years ago - sigh). THIS Batman is one bad-ass dude. One thing that made Batman so dear to my brother and me was that, unlike his fellow cohorts of the Justice League of America, Batman had no "special" powers other than those of human genius and strength (along with a seemingly infinite supply of money), and yet was second only to Superman in abilities (and he even topped Superman in problems of logic and shear "sleuthdom"). We always figured that Batman had to be more than just some angry super-rich guy, because that wouldn't have held up in the company of people like Superman and the Green Lantern. Batman was a very unique human - the type that comes along only once-in-a-billion times (or less). This movie gives a believable story as to how such a rare individual could come to be.
Christian Bale is excellent as Batman/Bruce Wayne. Finally, not some fop in a mask, but a truly complex character who can be genuinely frightening at times - the only way some guy jumping off of rooftops in tights would be able to maintain any sort of street cred! Also, Michael Caine is THE perfect Alfred - of course.
I really liked the creation of Lucius Fox (expertly handled by Morgan Freeman) - Batman needs a scientist/engineer as part of his "support team." I don't know why DC Comics never figured this out (at least they hadn't 40 years ago...).
The actors (esp. Liam Neeson and Cillian Murphy) portraying villains are just as good at being bad guys as the actors playing heroes are at playing good guys.
This is a movie based on a child fantasy, and so some willing suspension of disbelief on the part of an adult audience is needed. However, never before has a Batman movie made this so easy to do.
Christian Bale is excellent as Batman/Bruce Wayne. Finally, not some fop in a mask, but a truly complex character who can be genuinely frightening at times - the only way some guy jumping off of rooftops in tights would be able to maintain any sort of street cred! Also, Michael Caine is THE perfect Alfred - of course.
I really liked the creation of Lucius Fox (expertly handled by Morgan Freeman) - Batman needs a scientist/engineer as part of his "support team." I don't know why DC Comics never figured this out (at least they hadn't 40 years ago...).
The actors (esp. Liam Neeson and Cillian Murphy) portraying villains are just as good at being bad guys as the actors playing heroes are at playing good guys.
This is a movie based on a child fantasy, and so some willing suspension of disbelief on the part of an adult audience is needed. However, never before has a Batman movie made this so easy to do.
Alexander
(2004)
What a yawner
26 September 2005
** Since I didn't finish watching this movie, there aren't any spoilers in this review! ** It's a rare thing for me to not finish watching a movie, even a bad one. However, this movie was so boring that, after an hour of enduring this talk fest, I just couldn't see waisting another precious minute of my life on watching it. Being historically accurate doesn't mean you have to be so stilted in your acting and directing that the movie becomes a painful drudgery just to sit through to the bloody end. Besides, the movie wasn't THAT accurate, anyway.
Half way into this movie, I realized that I had absolutely NO empathy for Alexander, or for any other character for that matter. The scenes, while rich in costumes and trappings, were devoid of anything that would've made me want to care what happened to Alexander. Even the battle scenes, which have been inexplicably lauded by many here, were actually quite ineffective, as well as inaccurate.
For example, the defeat of Darius was the climax of Alexander's life. The Greek defeat of the Persian forces in the mountains above the Plain of Issus stands as one of history's greatest victories by a vastly outnumbered army. It did NOT play out at all in the manner that was portrayed in the movie. For one, it took place in a mountain valley, after both armies had realized that they had actually marched PAST each other. Alexander had the great luck to discover this fact before Darius did, and managed to trap Darius's army in just the right place (a narrow mountain valley). Thus, the size of Darius' army, which would've been a huge advantage in the sort of battle depicted in the movie, actually turned into a major disadvantage that Alexander used very effectively.
This battle should've been the movie's climax, and should've taken a good two-thirds (or more) of the movie to set up. As it was, the crowning point in Alexander's life was relegated to a footnote, and was over in the first thirty minutes of the movie. After that, it was all downhill for this horrible movie.
For an example of the CORRECT way to tell the story of a General-King, try Kenneth Branagh's rendition of Shakespeare's Henry V. Henry V revolves around one of history's other unlikely victories, that of the defeat of the French by the vastly outnumbered British in the Battle of Agincourt.
Half way into this movie, I realized that I had absolutely NO empathy for Alexander, or for any other character for that matter. The scenes, while rich in costumes and trappings, were devoid of anything that would've made me want to care what happened to Alexander. Even the battle scenes, which have been inexplicably lauded by many here, were actually quite ineffective, as well as inaccurate.
For example, the defeat of Darius was the climax of Alexander's life. The Greek defeat of the Persian forces in the mountains above the Plain of Issus stands as one of history's greatest victories by a vastly outnumbered army. It did NOT play out at all in the manner that was portrayed in the movie. For one, it took place in a mountain valley, after both armies had realized that they had actually marched PAST each other. Alexander had the great luck to discover this fact before Darius did, and managed to trap Darius's army in just the right place (a narrow mountain valley). Thus, the size of Darius' army, which would've been a huge advantage in the sort of battle depicted in the movie, actually turned into a major disadvantage that Alexander used very effectively.
This battle should've been the movie's climax, and should've taken a good two-thirds (or more) of the movie to set up. As it was, the crowning point in Alexander's life was relegated to a footnote, and was over in the first thirty minutes of the movie. After that, it was all downhill for this horrible movie.
For an example of the CORRECT way to tell the story of a General-King, try Kenneth Branagh's rendition of Shakespeare's Henry V. Henry V revolves around one of history's other unlikely victories, that of the defeat of the French by the vastly outnumbered British in the Battle of Agincourt.
Pi
(1998)
THIS won an award?!?!
2 May 2005
This movie SUCKED! It took 90 minutes of my life that I'll never get back, and for what? Some really bad acting, and zero plot. As a physicist, I expected at least a modicum of insight about mathematics to be discussed in this movie. Instead, it was all fluff and psychobabble. There was no real point to this movie. The guy didn't even portray a schizophrenic very well.
The protagonist kept talking about looking for structure in the stock market, which is a chaotic system. This is hardly an original idea. People have tried to apply structural models to the market, but the market responds to such stimuli by changing in unpredictable ways, so that the rules upon which models are built are no longer valid. Any decent mathematician (and our protagonist is supposed to be a genius) would've already known this. Oh well, no one expects movie makers to have any real brains, anyway, right?
But this movie didn't compensate its lack of mathematical intrigue with ANYTHING else - it was just a bunch of meaningless dialog between characters too shallow to be even worth caring about - that is, when the viewer wasn't being subjected to miles of footage of the protagonist picking his nose (literally!), or some equally idiotic and boring behavior.
As far as movies concerning math, a MUCH BETTER movie is "A Beautiful Mind." If you're looking for a movie about crazy mathematicians, save your time and money and go to see "A Beautiful Mind" instead.
The protagonist kept talking about looking for structure in the stock market, which is a chaotic system. This is hardly an original idea. People have tried to apply structural models to the market, but the market responds to such stimuli by changing in unpredictable ways, so that the rules upon which models are built are no longer valid. Any decent mathematician (and our protagonist is supposed to be a genius) would've already known this. Oh well, no one expects movie makers to have any real brains, anyway, right?
But this movie didn't compensate its lack of mathematical intrigue with ANYTHING else - it was just a bunch of meaningless dialog between characters too shallow to be even worth caring about - that is, when the viewer wasn't being subjected to miles of footage of the protagonist picking his nose (literally!), or some equally idiotic and boring behavior.
As far as movies concerning math, a MUCH BETTER movie is "A Beautiful Mind." If you're looking for a movie about crazy mathematicians, save your time and money and go to see "A Beautiful Mind" instead.
OK - Great visuals, but disappointing (spoiler)
31 December 2003
Warning: Spoilers
I actually enjoyed much of ROTK, but I found it lacking in some major ways, especially compared to the first two installments of the LOTR trilogy.
1) I found the whole scene in which Eowyn and Merry defeat the Lord of the Nazgul to be rather flat, which is in stark contrast to the portrayal of this scene in the book - it just lacked the high drama found in the book's depiction.
2) Omitting the Houses of the Healing left unanswered the question as to what happened to Eowyn's passion for Aragorn - my wife, who has never read the books, would've been really confused had I not been there as a second source to explain how Eowyn fell in love with Faramir.
3) Leaving out the Scouring of the Shire made for a complete letdown at the end of the movie. This for me is the gravest mistake of the entire movie trilogy. The Scouring of the Shire in the book summarizes the whole moral of the story, and shows that The Travelers (i.e., Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin) had learned to stand on their own two Hobbit-feet, and weren't just coat-tail riders.
I hope it's Jackson's intent to include (2) and (3) from above in the extended video when it gets released. Otherwise, I will believe that, in the very end of the story, Jackson failed to deliver the whole goods as promised.
1) I found the whole scene in which Eowyn and Merry defeat the Lord of the Nazgul to be rather flat, which is in stark contrast to the portrayal of this scene in the book - it just lacked the high drama found in the book's depiction.
2) Omitting the Houses of the Healing left unanswered the question as to what happened to Eowyn's passion for Aragorn - my wife, who has never read the books, would've been really confused had I not been there as a second source to explain how Eowyn fell in love with Faramir.
3) Leaving out the Scouring of the Shire made for a complete letdown at the end of the movie. This for me is the gravest mistake of the entire movie trilogy. The Scouring of the Shire in the book summarizes the whole moral of the story, and shows that The Travelers (i.e., Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin) had learned to stand on their own two Hobbit-feet, and weren't just coat-tail riders.
I hope it's Jackson's intent to include (2) and (3) from above in the extended video when it gets released. Otherwise, I will believe that, in the very end of the story, Jackson failed to deliver the whole goods as promised.
The Last Valley
(1971)
Should be required for High School
19 November 2001
Just an amazing movie. It does an incredible job of presenting how complex issues affected the daily lives of simple Europeans during the Thirty Years War. The best "period flick" ever made. I give it an 11 out of 10.
Tell Your Friends