kdlprod75018 Reviews

Reminiscence (2021)

Missed the mark... Trapped between ghosts of 2046 and Westworld...

[5/10 · 4 September 2021]

Throughout watching this movie, I was constantly reminded of two ghosts of feature for very different reasons... The first ghost is the 'Westworld' TV series obviously because of the director and her partnering producer, but also most importantly the second ghost is the movie '2046' by Hong-Kong art-house filmmaker Wong Kar Wai. I won't dwell on 'Westworld' as 'Reminiscence' is a very different movie from the aforementioned TV series, though it uses similar concepts of being in the future getting into someone's mind/brain and playing tricks within it, in this case, reliving someone's past memories in a post-apocalyptic climate changed world as opposed to living a journey in an amusement park in an AI dominated world for 'Westworld'. While I love 'Westworld' and how it works so effectively thanks to its episodic format which allows for multiple intrigues and real character development, 'Reminiscence' misses the mark as it is just too short of a fomat to really be able to blend action sequences with real character development and well Proustian reminiscences of time past. The nods to 2046 are a lot more subtle but none the less very much present throughout the movie. The miami neon signs and hotel roof settings are similar to those used in 2046 where Hong-Kong neon signs and Shanghai's 60s hotel rooftops are prominently featured, so was the casting of Daniel Wu & his deliberate dialect talk in Chinese & English which reminds you of the language format in 2046 somewhere lost between cantonese, chinese and japanese. Centrally, 2046 dealt with reminiscences of the past and the future from a central character avoiding his present life and missing the mark because of it, a character lost in a past love and longing for a dreamed fantasized love... In 'Reminiscence', we're dealing with the past only for Hugh Jackman's character but also in a way, the character is also longing for a future that will never happen, and we get a glimpse of it at the very end of the movie where Hugh Jackman's character muses about him and Rebecca Ferguson's character becoming Orpheus and Eurydice except living life right where they chose it to be, somewhere between past and future... in the middle.

Alas, the middle road in arts never really gets you anywhere... or it leads you to a 5/10 movie rating overall as seems to be the case for this movie... While Westworld's darkly robotic/AI/big data world centered around many lead characters all playing a part in the grander story, 'Reminiscence' relies solely on Hugh Jackman's character and performance... which was fine but never really awesome... Rebecca Ferguson & Thandiwe Newton are just second fiddle to it all... You never really experience much of any kind of action thriller suspense either... as the plot just lacks any kind of real stakes... yeah, he longs for a woman who has disappeared and wants to find out where she is and what happened to her... but it's so short of a movie and really in the end, the whole reason why was just not engaging enough because we just never really got exposed to the supporting characters... While 2046 was a highly sensual and emotional experience of the mind with exquisite filmmaking, 'Reminiscence' feels just very blend and forced... There is just little time and talk allowed as the plot needs to move along if the movie is to be a 2-hour experience.

The one redeeming dimension of the movie is the set design, where we are engulfed in lush tapestry of post-apocalyptic Miami city and ocean mixed together.

Unfortunately, whether it was deliberate or not, probably not for lack of desire from the director/producers but because of pressures from the studios, this movie ended up being a muddled feature trapped between genres... part love story, part sci-fi intrigue, part art house movie... never really touching, or entrancing, or thrilling enough... muddled in the muddy waters of the urban oceanic world it's supposed to be set in... a pity really... Had they really pushed the 2046 angle, they probably could have ended up with a really good movie albeit very different but at least, it would have not been half-boring, half-interesting as it is... Had they pushed the waterworld angle and intrigue, it could have been something on par with Westworld in a short format... Alas, the producers just stayed right in the middle and well missed the mark.. Too bad...

Portrait of a Lady on Fire (2019)

Nice Beginning & Great Ending... Middle part is boring... Overrated

[5/10 · 21 May 2020]

As many have pointed out, the cinematography although pretty static is very nice in 'The Portrait of a Lady on Fire', almost every shot is carefully framed with a specific intent to create illusion, tension, mystery, magic or confrontation. So in terms of cinematography, I would give it a 3.5-4 star out of 5 given its limited budget. It is a period piece although it could have been any ancient period as there are very few scenes outside of the confines of a house/mansion and by the seashore/cliffs on an isolated island somewhere in the West coast of France in Brittany. The main things that make it a period piece are the rather subdued but colorful dresses and the rather dated way the main characters speak to each other in French, using the 'vous' tense for 'you' and sometimes awkward old-dated phrasing in their dialogue with one another. I believe that this movie was mainly celebrated and generously awarded because it is a lesbian movie that is great for identity politics in our time and age. Don't get me wrong, I do love some great LGBTQ+ movies such as 'Blue is the warmest color' or 'Call me by your name'. Alas, 'Le portrait de la jeune fille en feu' bears little of the qualities that these aforementioned recently celebrated movies have. The acting by Noemie Merlant is very fine nevertheless and well, I'm not totally convinced by actress Adele Haenel's performance. Script wise, it is a rather non-eventful movie for the most of its 120-min runtime... The reward is in the last 15-min or so of the movie where there is a sense of time having past, and the overwhelming weight of it. The ending is very beautiful and powerful and makes the movie watching rewarding. It is quite baffling as to why this movie won the Best Screenplay at Cannes in 2019... politics probably. So in short, you can watch the first 5-mins and pretty much go on and off for 1h30 without missing much of the plot, and then enjoy the last 15-min. It took me three watchings to actually finish the movie... yet I'm a film buff who loves a great art-house film... I love the criterion collection movies and don't mind slow moving movies whatsoever... But there's a tendency these days to conflate good movies with good looking movies that ultimately fall short and rather blend... The Portrait of a Lady on Fire falls in the latter category... It is a well acted, well shot, well intentioned movie with decent acting from the main actress (the painter) with a nice reference to a well known mythological story (Orpheus & Eurydice) that lacks much of any kind of emotional or eventful pulse except for the beginning and the end... Precious but Intellectually and emotionally blend without the rewarding ending... a shame really, all the ingredients were there... However, I can understand though that it is a good introduction for younger audiences to what art-house films can be... don't just stop there... go watch much better movies than this one if you've enjoyed it... There are so many of them out there... a shame this one is being highlighted much more than others though... Still it's a decent movie and good effort, yet totally overrated, so 5 out 10 for me.

The Fall of the American Empire (2018)

Excellent parody taking down the moneyed system among the haves with a moral ending for the have nots

[8/10 · 30 April 2020]

I can't believe I did not hear about Denys Arcand's 'The Fall of the American Empire' back in 2018 when it was released, and thanks to the lockdown stay at home in 2020, I got a free subscription to a movie channel that had this movie! If you haven't seen his other great movies such as 'The Barbarian Invasions' or 'The Decline of the American Empire' or 'Jesus de Montreal', you may want to watch them as well before or after this one... there's no order. Let's start with the bad first, as this movie is not perfect but still very enjoyable and so different from the usual fares you typically find on Netflix or Amazon Prime or Hulu. If you're looking for great cinematography, you won't find it here. It's pretty straightforwardly filmed, almost like a cheap TV series you can find on the BBC, France Televisions, CBC or NBC - very old school. You won't find beautiful shots like in Hollywood movies, elaborate tracking shots and beautifully lit shallow depth of field sceneries in the dark or at dawn under a beautiful sky... There are also some glaring plot holes that are hard to understand as you find the main protagonist of the film (Pierre Paul) getting hooked up, falling in love and scheming with a gorgeous call girl (Aspasie) very implausible, their chance encounter with a reformed convict very far fetched, and many other poorly executed plot devices meant to drive the story farther along. But let's put the above all aside as you will no doubt be smitten by the clever and caustic means by which the filmmaker is able to draw you into his expose on the power of money and the many ways our current system favors the moneyed interests. It starts with an amazing intro scene dialogue with Pierre Paul (played by Alexandre Landry) talking with his soon to be ex-girlfriend... on the merits of being intelligent in our current society... So nicely put... Then the movie disguises as a hold-up turned bad drama to really lay out what the filmmaker really wanted to expose... the ways with which powerful moneyed interests are able to cleanse their money and evade our globalized tax system. It's very well put together and clever, with a tinge of morality that will make you feel good in the end. Not as satisfying as 'the Barbarian Invasions' which was such a well made movie and well acted and so well put together which won the director an oscar... but this is a very good film nevertheless, and so different from what you can see nowadays... no such thing as identity politics and PC placeholders either which is refreshing... A must watch really even though it's not perfect, not is it beautifully shot...

The Irishman (2019)

Most overrated movie of 2019... This year's Roma all over again

[4/10 · 5 January 2020]

I don't know what's going on with movie ratings, critics and reviews these days but something is very fishy. Just like the movie 'Roma' last year also from Netflix, this year we get 'The Irishman' as the most overrated and polarizing movie of the year. Just like for Alfonso Cuaron who is a good director but made a boring so so film with 'Roma' albeit with beautiful cinematography, the 'Irishman' is a repetitive opus and mostly boring redux of Scorcese's past materpieces like 'Goodfellas' with a legendary cast of actors who are but an old shell of themselves. De Niro is not believable as a mobster given his age - no matter how much CGI you put on his face, his body just doesn't act/look the part. Joe Pesci just looks old even when he's supposed to look young. Al Pacino just doesn't fit the Hoffa character no matter how good an actor he is. Anna Paquin doesn't have much of a part in this movie as she barely speaks or emotes in the movie. Harvey Keitel just plays an insignificant part. Ray Romano & Bobby Cannavle were the only redeeming memorable supporting characters in this film. Scorcese is just making the same movie as Goodfellas/Casino with less mastery, and less energy, desire for tight editing/cinematography, nicely choreographed fighting/crime sequences, character development and good acting direction. Despite being a 3.5h movie, it just feels like you never get much into the psychology of the main protagonists or any kind of interesting plot... a mess of a film... even the soundtrack feels repetitive using the same tricks as his past movies... The Irishman is definitely not what the ratings would want to make you believe it is... which tells me that the fix is in... The oscars might give this movie a shot at best picture just like they did for Roma last year for best foreign film, except this time, it's the crown jewel for Netflix... So overrated by bot ratings and at best dubious reviews... In short, 'The Irishman' is the most overrated film I've seen since 'Roma'.

Carnivàle (2003–2005)

Even more relevant in 2019 than back when it first came out...

[9/10 · 4 September 2019]

The battle between good and evil as presented in 'Carnivale' is a profoundly great show that is ever more so relevant today than when it was first released back in 2003-2005. Set in the 1930s during the great depression, I can't help but think of the parallels with today's current socio-economico-political mood... Yes, the 2010s aren't the 1930s as it was probably a lot more overtly savage as a society back then... However the same lines can be drawn between good and evil today. The same dynamics are prevalent... the greed of bankers and complicity of elected officials at the root of the misery and suffering of the 30s after the crash of 1929 still relevant today after the great financial crisis of 2008. Also, since I just saw this series, I can't help but think of the music theme used during the political speeches in Carnival being reused by 'House of Cards' how enlightening! It makes a lot of sense because you will hear some of the greatest political speeches ever in 'Carnival' professed by the evil preacher. As for Michael j Anderson, his performance in this series is simply masterful. I used to love him in David Lynch's movies but in lieu of being the creepy guy, he exhibits a much wider range for his acting in this series. Clancy Brown is amazing too as the preacher in this series. The supporting cast is excellent except for maybe Nick Stahl who is a little underwhelming as the main protagonist, displaying a very narrow range of talent, still passable enough. If you haven't seen this series yet and are hesitating, don't and just give it a go... you will binge watch it for sure! It is a masterfully crafted show, one of the best in terms of storytelling.

The Widow (I) (2019)

Should have been a 3-part mini-series

[5/10 · 8 March 2019]

'The Widow' deals with a very little known yet important topic - The profiteering business behind corrupt non-for-profit organizations entangled with natural resource mining in Africa. It is a very worthwhile important subject matter for a thriller and lends itself well to shine a light on the sad reality and cost of owning things we use everyday that come at a very detrimental cost to the countries and people who are exploited for it. In the case of 'The Widow', it has to do with a mineral that is used in everyday smartphones. So with that in mind, it could have really been an enlightning series to the general population. Set in modern DRC congo and Rwanda, the premise lends itself very well with the tales of endless warrying tribes civil wars, and fight for control of these countries natural resources by the powers that be and those who benefit from it - militias, generals, politicians, non for profits disguised as aid agencies, gun merchants and corporations. It is reminiscent of Netflix 'Beast of no nation' with an even better premise as laid out above. However, the principal flaws of this mini-series are too manyfolds to bring it to a level of greatness and ultimately the whole thing falls flat and feels like it's dragging forever. Here are the reasons why. First, as many reviewers have said the casting of Kate Beckinsale is a very poor choice. Not that she can't be a good actress but whatever has been done to her face (plastic surgery, botox or just elaborate skin care) is simply too disburbing to overlook at every single frame shots with often big close ups of her face and in 4K! Her face looks so puffed up, with fake tan, she often can't really show the breadth of her emotions an actor should be able to convey. She looks like a meg ryan or nicole kidman post-plastic enhancements (surgery or not). So it's just simply highly distracting. Secondly, there are simply too many flashbacks that are useless and poorly timed. It shows the plot's flaws and the fact that the writers used them so much just shows that they wanted to drag it into an 8-part 50-min long show. They should have made it as a 3-part mini-series and it would have felt a lot tighter, more suspensful and engaging. Too many side stories, too many unnecessary and inconsistent escape scenes, too many plot holes that are resolved with cheap tricks. Which leads me to this last point, the way Kate always seem to escape some of the most dire situations are just totally implausible. I can't believe how many times she escapes death by just running from a scene when you feel like there was no way she could have done what she did. Most of the time, it's because the other side, the bad guy is just simply the slowest or clumsiest badass out there. When you show professional killers with a gun pointed at you shooting another guy next to you, you just don't let Kate run away in front of you as if it took you 1-min to figure it out... Really a shame... there are some really good supporting cast members, the movie setting and the subject matter is really compelling, the cinematography is pretty good, and overall production feels polished. What a pity for such a deserving tale.

Velvet Buzzsaw (2019)

Great portrayal of the art market but flawed plot and cheap effects

[7/10 · 8 February 2019]

Velvet buzzsaw is worth the watch despite my initial reservations looking at the trailer which had too many cheesy gory undertones. I wished the director had stuck to something more subtle, with less reliance on cheezy scary special effects for the more somber underpinnings of his message about the meaninglessness and vapidity of the art market. Too bad it tried to convey such a neat message about the true value of an artwork by relying on cheap special effects in lieu of utilizing optical or psychological tricks to convey the affect those artworks/paintings have on its audience and especially those who took advantage of it. Still this film is a great portrayal of the art market and the various incestuous relationships between gallery owners, art critics, curators, museums, artists and collectors who all work together to increase the value of artworks and their own status within the market. A gem in that respect as you see the museum curators being blackmailed by gallery owners to exhibit recently privately acquired artworks in order to up the value of the artist and his/her works. You also get a peek into the satire that is the high art world. I won't say too much but needless to say that it is accurate and even more underwhelming than in real life, but still kudos for the filmmaker's courage in tackling such a tough subject matter that will no doubt concern critics who will not be able to acknowledge the existence of it all as it gives a bad rep to the art market and rightly so. The plot makes reference to situations that occurred in real life like the death of Henry Darger and how the discovery of his artworks gave way to a craze about his paintings, while akso paying hommage to artitsts like Banksy who sold his artworks to rich collectors but also people from the street for very cheap. The actors are all pretty good in the movie and it is a great cast which unfortunately couldn't really go beyond portraying caricatures of their characters due to the principal flaw of the film that is relying on cheap gory tricks and murder scenes to convey a much deeper meaning to the story.... sigh... the movie could have been a masterpiece had it been directed by say David Lynch... Still it is a very worthwhile watch for its spot albeit caricatural on depiction of the art world and its marketplace.

Disobedience (2017)

Why did I wait this long to watch this beautiful drama?

[8/10 · 15 January 2019]

Again the ratings on imdb have deceived me and I waited a while before taking a chance on this nicely crafted drama about unrequited love and second chance. Critics and imdb ratings these days are so unreliable that I am baffled that I still rely so heavily on it, often times feeling baffled by the high ratings of some undeserving flicks vs the low ratings on other very deserving ones. Disobedience is one of those movies that deserve very high marks for succeeding in weaving tension, eroticism, drama and questions of morality and choice or lack thereof within the context of the lives of orthodox jews in modern northern london. The Rachel's (Weisz ans McAdams) are outstanding in their respective roles as angel and beast of desire as they can't help themselves at being who they are, lesbian lovers, in a community that doesn't allow for wayward behaviors. Dovid the husband is very credible and in the end shows that he would be a great 'rav'. Like 'Blue is the warmest color', Disobedience really works as a lesbian drama. There is a lot of sexual tension and emotions conveyed between the two actresses. I never would have thought it'd work but it does. Quite a feat! The camera works is simple yet effective focusing on the 3 main protagonists are they go thru their own dilema and story arc. In any case, if you hesitated about watching this film, don't, just watch it! It's so worth it and so much better than many of the movies rated 8+ on imdb these days. A solid 8/10 if I were to be honest in comparison to all the other landmark movies that are rated around 8/10, and 10/10 compared to many of the contemporaneous movies hailed as masterpieces that are not... A must see, unusual and unique film in a rather bland, homogenous and mundane selection of films on netflix and amazon prime these days.

Roma (2018)

The unbearable mundanity of bad universal critical acclaim

[4/10 · 14 January 2019]

As a film buff enjoying a good landmark film, I was intrigued by Cuaron's attempt into creating an art-house film which is unusual for this director used to blockbuster films. Given the high imdb rating for Roma and its supposed universal critical acclaim from professional film critics, I decided to give this movie a try... By the end of the film, I just felt numb and swindled by the people who gave this movie such high marks. ROMA in many ways reflect our changing and decaying times, not in terms of the content of the movie itself which does portray a decaying Mexico city in the 70s, but with regards to the polarization of our society and in this case, the strange disparity of the ratings and reviews on the movie and its even more confounding universal acclaim among movie critics from the media - Note that most reviews are either 9-10 out of 10 or 1 to 5 out of 10 on imdb. Cinematographically, it is well shot with many long tracking or gimbal shots, framed with a masterful intent and the B&W works well to a certain extent, though nothing out of the ordinary in terms of cinematography that we haven't before: Slices of an upper-middle class Mexican family life in the 70s and the mundanity of the trials and tribulations going thru their lives and that of their servants interspersed with the larger societal upheavals of Mexico city at the time. Storytelling wise, it is really one of the dullest and most pointless slices of life ever portrayed with such great cinematography disguised as some sort of hommage to the director's childhood. Chantal Ackerman's Jeanne Dielman - a movie about a lonely widow doing her daily chores - strikes me as a similar film with a very low budget and yet very little camera moves that is way more powerful and effective in conveying drama. Bela Tarr's powerful movies with long tracking shots such as Satantango also convey so much more than this dull exercise by Cuaron yet feel similar in style. Don't get me wrong, I do like quite a few of Cuaron's movies such as Y Tu Mama Tambien, Harry Potter and the prisoner of Azkaban or Children of Men for what they are, as varied in style and form as they are. But here, I am baffled as to why ROMA gets such high praise. In the end, I feel that ROMA reflects the times we live in, the unbearably mundane ways with which movies are released and reviewed by the media professionals and reviewers online whereby creating universal acclaim out of some of the worst movies while ignoring worthwhile great shows/films. ROMA as an exercise of style and form over content is decent, however as a film, it is one that is unbearably hard to praise. The main reason I feel it is worth watching is because decades from now, I think we will look back and use this movie as one of the finest examples of our decadent culture and the decaying influence of our media. ROMA's universal critical acclaim is the perfect reflection with how empty our society has become, whereby social media influencers are the most sought after workforce in society, whereby futile movies such as ROMA represent the finest of our independent filmmaker's spirit... as other reviewers said, our hollywood emperors no longer have clothes anymore...

Jessica Jones (2015–2019)

The worst marvel comics show - season 2 is no better - What a waste...

[3/10 · 31 March 2018]

I really wanted to like Jessica Jones because I have enjoyed all the other MCU shows on Netflix (Daredevil & The Punisher being outstanding shows, while Luke Cage, Iron Fist & The defenders were OK) so I gave it the benefit of a doubt by painstakingly watching both seasons over many weeks as I just could not not binge watch it no matter how hard I tried to. I know I feel like I'm having Stockholm Syndrome watching this show feeling sorry for how much of a let down this show is, and yet wanting to finish it because I just wanted to find some sort of redeeming qualities to it...

Let's rate the show in terms of screenplay, characters, acting, direction, and production.

• Screenplay / Dialogues: 1/10. I was excited to read that this show had a team of female writers/directors, and while I can understand and sympathize with the themes laid out in the show as well as the desire to have female leads and supporting cast, I just couldn't understand how this whole botched screenplay and horrendous dialogue came about. It's as though some spoiled milenial kids gathered together and told themselves, let's write the worst dialogues and action sequences possible and stretch it over the length of 13 episodes each season just so that we can tell ourselves how cool we are amongst ourselves - audience be damned, they will be cool if they like it and uncool if they don't. Each season could have lasted just 3-to-5 episodes tops without the superfluous/meaningless dialogues and dull moments where Jessica Jones drinks, sits on chair or looks at her ceiling while talking her mindless drivel in the most monotonous tone possible with the most annoying pitch possible. I'm not even referring to the many plot holes that this show has, yes, it's a fantasy fiction but at least make it feel plausible here and there... At some point, you just don't care anymore about how things connect with each other because you just want to know the end and that's it... fast forwarding the scenes that really get you nowhere but show whatever random thoughts the writers wanted to convey about Jessica Jones state of mind and her cliched insights on the meaning of life, relationships and humanity.
• Characters: 3/10. Honestly I can't understand how Jessica Jones was adapted into this spoiled self-centered autistic millenial that she is in this show. It's hard to empathize with such a poorly developed character no matter how long she appears on screen which is pretty much 1/2 or 2/3rd of the show. She is as antipathic as one can be, mourning about her lot (being a superhero with superpowers who doesn't realize her fortune because it came out of a misfortune - the loss of her family). Trish Walker, Jessica's best friend and adopted sister, is another terrible character who like so many others in this show just makes dramatic life decisions based on herself and the spur of the moment - others and her own self-survival be damned.

The only redeeming characters are Jessica's mom (Alisa Jones) and Jeri Hogarth the ruthless yet human lawyer - both characters showing some complexity and depth in their portrayal with refined layers. The other characters (Jessica's associate, her love interest, Trish's mom, the cops) are just pure caricatures with little to no emotional or intellectual depth, and only serve as cheap pawns to the storyline.

• Acting: 1/10 for Jessica Jones played by Kristen Ritter is probably the worse casting ever for a MCU super hero. Apart from her a-propos looks for Jessica Jones, though I could have thought of many other more talented young actresses playing her part, her annoying voice and irritating demeanor throughout the entire show make it hard to empathize with her horrific situation, that of a victim of abuse and experimentation struggling with her superpowers and conflicted past. What a waste of screen space & time to have such a bad actress play such a complex character. Her dialogue & monologue deliveries are so monotonous that I want to kill myself everytime one of her solo sequences appear, so I tend to fast forward these scenes after the first few episodes because I know nothing interesting will be uttered - the dialogues and inner thoughts just fall flat - think of watching paint dry and it is going to be more interesting. Apart from Jessica Jones, the other cast members do a better job but alas their characters are so antipathic that you just don't care about most of them and no amount of screen time will redeem for that flaw. However, special props and kudos to Janet McTeer (Alisa Jones) and Carrie-Ann Moss (Jeri Hogarth) who deliver strong powerful female performances with depth and complexity despite the terrible writing team. You will enjoy the little screen time both these characters have every time they show up, and this somewhat makes up for having to endure Jessica or Trish's stories.
• Direction: 2/10. Again, what a poor choice in direction... a team of interchangeable directors who all homogenously deliver the same dull tasteless product, one episode after another... The slowest building in-action movie ever... Even the action scenes often feel dull apart from a few nicely choreographed sequences which is unlike all the other MCU shows you see on Netflix (even the Defenders where Jessica Jones also appears).

For the most part, it's like watching a soap opera in slow motion embedded in a marvel comics action series... A really strange cocktail that's going to give you headaches after trying to binge watch it over the course of weeks since it's really impossible to wanna watch it like the other MCU shows... It's like waking up in Jessica Jones' body and head after she gorges liters of bad whiskey so I guess the creators of this show at least succeeded in that - making us feel miserable watching a miserable human being struggling with her superpowers... It's sort of the opposite of watching The Punisher I would say - another story about a human experiment gone wrong but this time done so powerfully well. Whereas the Punisher feels like you can't stop watching it with its gritty, gutsy, action packed sequences interspersed with believable emotional sequences and great dialogues, Jessica Jones is this turtle paced poorly acted and directed show antithesis to The Punisher. Whereas Iron Fist is at least entertaining with a good looking cast despite its lead character being a talentless boy, Jessica Jones just doesn't have any pacing that makes it enjoyable and entertaining... What a waste of money and people's time!

• Production: 6/10 This one is hard to criticize since it's a big budget production so there's definitely good cinematography, good production design that is similar to the other MCU shows, except there aren't many interesting effects or designs, nor much super power exhibited apart from the usual jumps and strong kicks the heroin exhibits, which is fine by me... but come on, at least try to show it with originality. Don't waste your money in dull monologue scenes inside Jessica Jones' Alias apartment for 1/3rd or 1/4th of the show with such uninteresting stream of consciousness or thoughts. Honestly anyone who thinks has more interesting thoughts than Jessica, it's really that pathetic.

Overall this is as bad a Marvel Comics show as can be as many have already reviewed so. I just wanted to add my rant to it.. because I really can't comprehend the 8.1/10 rating - probably a lot of good ratings stuffing from Netflix user bots. The lead actress was the worse casting decision, she is simply a terrible actress who doesn't play the part well or she was just given such bad monologues that she just can't get out of the mess that this show is. The screenplay & dialogues just make you feel like there really must be a dearth in talent these days among the hollywood pool of writers who get these kind of jobs (I'm sure there are many talented writers who for some reason can't get the attention of the decision makers - a shame).

My advice: Only watch the show if you're curious about how a multi-million dollar series can be so poorly executed... Or if you're a fan of Cary-Ann Moss (Trinity in the Matrix series), just fast forward to her sequences... She is really good in Jessica Jones and finds a lot more screen time than in the other MCU series on Netflix.

First They Killed My Father (2017)

A disappointing film adaptation with a few moving moments...

[5/10 · 16 September 2017]

As a survivor of the Khmer Rouge regime who has lost many family members during those terrible years (my father included), I was really looking forward to watching Jolie's adaptation of Loung Ung's harrowing book.

Nearly four decades have past since the events occurred between 1975 and 1979, and only two major Hollywood films have been scripted out of this genocide which cost the lives of 2 to 3 millions Cambodians (we will never know the true numbers): 'The Killing Fields' and now this Netflix movie.

Both movies are complimentary and only provide a very imperfect picture of these dark times (imagine the Holocaust being resumed to 2 movies vs the thousands that currently exist...). Yet, if you don't know much about that part of history, I would advise watching "The Killing Fields" first (despite all its flaws - mostly the 80s soundtrack which hasn't aged well), and also Rithy Panh's amazing documentaries such as 'S-21' and 'The Missing Picture'. These movies are far better than 'First they killed my father..." which is very confounding given that Rithy Panh is also the main producer for this movie, and Loung Ung being the main screenwriter, one would have thought that it could have been a masterpiece.

Yet what's really lacking in 'First they killed..." is the direction and overall storytelling of the piece. It is too produced & polished cinematographically with too many crane/drone shots, too many pretty shots which don't really add to the tragedy and sense of urgency and despair but rather drown it down to a pretty Hollywood/Netflix production.

I didn't mind Jolie's previous directorial works, but this one is truly underwhelming and doesn't do justice to the book, nor the torturous experience of the Killing Fields or the excruciating exodus journey that many Cambodians encountered during these 4 infamous years. Don't get me wrong, there are some very emotional scenes in the movie, such as the death of Loung Ung's oldest sister or the scene where her other sister gets scolded by a Khmer Rouge for eating a raw bean she just picked in the fields.

No doubt that the challenge of telling the story from the vantage point of a child (the book's inspiration was I believe, Harper Lee's "To Kill a Mockingbird" and contained many more thoughts that gave it such as singular voice) was a hurdle. And I'm sad to say that the lack of voice-over or inner thoughts or even dates & location titling in the movie didn't do the final product any favors, especially for a movie being a POV piece. My guess is that the book was rightfully criticized for being a patchwork of many accounts of the Khmer Rouge years as opposed to just being one single account by a 5-year old girl, and so the movie took on the artistic choice to avoid some of the book's flaws regarding the adult language used by the heroin girl.

This ultimately created a movie with very little dialogue, nor context as if the audience is just viewing it from a distant observer's vantage point. Reducing the experience of the Pol Pot regime to just images, sound effects, a few words from the parents and a few repeated phrases uttered by the KR soldiers... and yes some archival footage at the start of the film about the US involvement in the conflict... The multiple dream sequences were particularly cheesy to me and unnecessary showcased the way it was done... It really was detrimental to the storytelling and instead of giving a poetic dimension to the film, gave it a rather Disney kids movie feel.

The choice of the main young actress is confounding too... She is very one-dimensional throughout the whole movie, showing the same facial expression from beginning to the end with a few tears here and there. Her accompanying brother and sisters were far better actors, especially her only sister who survives - she was outstanding.

As a survivor of the regime, I'm probably too attached to the subject matter. Yet, I feel that this movie had such an important role to play for the Cambodian cause and will play such a role due to it being prominently showcased right now, and I know that the director, producer and writer wanted to do their best given how connected they are to that cause.

Ultimately this film is still a valuable watch, especially for those who don't know much about these grim years of terror. It will serve its purpose albeit being a very flawed movie in terms of screenplay, direction and conventional production. Here's hope for more movies about this dark period of history as more people become aware of it.

It is technically pristine with nice cinematography, costume and art/set design/production, but lacks urgency, grit, guts, context, direction and purpose by being too attached to wanting to make it look like a movie a la "Schindler's List"... even the end is reminiscent of some of Spielberg's productions where the real Loung Ung and her surviving family pray in front of Buddhist monks on the grounds of an Angkor Temple... I'm really surprised that Rithy Panh would have used such a cliché to end the movie with... which makes me think that it was probably the director or writer's bad call.

For those who want to learn more about the history, watch the other films I mentioned earlier which are far better movies than this Netflix production... Or just read Loung Ung's book if you liked the movie.. or better yet read "Cambodia Year Zero" by Francois Ponchaud, or "When the war was Over" by Elizabeth Becker as well as Rithy Panh's books.