What an amazing effort! This is not a film about aliens. It's about human behavior. And it's an art film. Every poor review I've read here--of which there are many--is from someone who didn't get the message. Very few rave amateur reviews even got it. I didn't appreciate the film much myself until reading professional reviews containing *intelligent* spoilers. The people writing reviews here with spoilers didn't get it. Now I want to see the film again! Many things I was disappointed about actually fit perfectly with Peele's message, and some amazing touches weren't mentioned in any reviews I've seen. For instance, the protagonist OJ frequently has his head down, eyes shielded by his hat, and doesn't look when spoken to. I thought this was a surprisingly poor way to portray a main character, but it's fully intentional and fitting with Peele's message. I recommend not reading intelligent spoilers until you've seen the film. (I've not seen any spoilers in IMDB user reviews that reveal anything of importance.) See what you can discover on your own without being told. Nope is nowhere close to being as transparent in its message as Get Out. Once you figure it out, you'll see Nope is thick with symbolism. If you recognize what motivates Otis, Sr., and understand why he died (which is intimately related to the precise mechanism of his death, not just what killed him), you're on your way.
Reviews
20 Reviews
The Gray Man
(2022)
Deadly dialog
31 July 2022
Impressive cast and production values but way too often (like every 15 seconds!) the spell is broken with too cute or too dumb dialog. (Case in point, Six as an afterthought says he feels he's better off with a bullseye on his back than if he'd stayed in prison. Not only does this line seem in-artfully added by the writers to make sure we know Six is cool with his situation, but if I'm not mistaken Six would've been a free man 8 years earlier if he'd not taken the deal that now pits him against the machine.) I couldn't stomach continued watching.
4 stars for raising awareness (only)
24 August 2020
The first few minutes start out well, but the series quickly devolves into a sludgy mess that is tedious and sparse with information. I'm also not a fan of crowd funding vaccine development or the pandering to the audience for donations that the director allowed into the film. The general public knows next to nothing about vaccines and vaccine development and would have basically no oversight authority over how their money would be used in such a case. The naive might think that because the Gates Foundation bought into the effort that that should be enough, but the Gates will only look at how its funds are spent. Glanville states, "From an outsider, it's not always obvious that we've achieved a victory." IMHO the data seem clear that "3 (shots) + high dose boost" of his candidate vaccine is at best on par with the effectiveness of a *single* shot of the established, fully vetted commercial vaccine that is known to be safe and protective. While this validates Glanville's method to a small degree by showing in vitro binding activity, it's far from showing the sort of success that was promoted to the audience: a single shot that would be safe and broadly protective against infection by a wide variety of influenza serotypes. As Glanville's vaccine was never tested for safety and effectiveness in actual infected pigs, for all we know his candidate vaccine could produce worse outcomes and more fatalities. We don't have a vaccine to the original SARS coronavirus because vaccinated animals suffered worse outcomes (including more fatalities) than those that were unvaccinated. (Candidate SARS2 vaccines from a myriad of companies and using many approaches are still being evaluated for safety and effectiveness upon actual infection in phase III human trials.) Glanville's hope of finding a broad spectrum vaccine might even be extremely dangerous if a flu strain would arise that doesn't fit in the model. We might one day wind up with a greatly enhanced fatality rate in those who were vaccinated. The safest and sanest approach might well be to continue development of targeted vaccines but with a majorly accelerated, yet safe, development schedule.
Ready Player One
(2018)
Soulless, and dominated by typical "eye candy"
7 April 2018
Especially during the first 30 minutes, I was feeling this movie has no soul... it's lifeless and looking awful. Then it engaged. But at 1 hr. 20 min., two-thirds of the plot was resolved. I dreaded the thought of having to sit another hour to resolve the last third of the plot. If you like action films, the last hour will perhaps satisfy, but IMHO the meager plot became just the usual excuse to show what computers can do. For me, it was tedious and pointless. The characters weren't further developed. One could surmise the outcome. The conflict between reality and virtual reality really wasn't explored. The '80s memorabilia and shout-outs to a vast number of sci-fi stories may delight, but it's all pointless really. The best part was when the movie was over. And I can't get over Mark Rylance in his role as Halliday, after his Oscar-winning performance in Bridge of Spies... bad casting choice IMHO.
Blade Runner 2049
(2017)
Every scene a winner!
10 October 2017
It's a masterpiece, an updated treatment over the original Blade Runner of human kind's future relationship with AI. Some people criticize the pacing for being slow. Although some scenes do play out slowly, halfway through the film I recognized the pattern that *every* scene has a major payoff--no wasted time. A more artful film would have included more character development. But this movie wants to intrigue at every turn and-- especially if you're a fan of the original--it does so in spades. The hooks to the original Blade Runner are great, yet this movie would stand on its own. The story and acting are great--even Gosling's ;-) The female characters are great. The sets and effects are great. I take off one star for the soundtrack: too boomy, not enough quiet moments listening to rainfall and street chatter, the flying cars ("spinners") are noisy, and the music isn't musical enough. For people coming to the Blade Runner movies for the first time, many current generations have no idea what a nuclear winter is either--all we've heard about for a couple decades now is global warming.
Steve Jobs
(2015)
Sorkin's attempt to rewrite history
1 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
The scenes and dialog in Steve Jobs are well-written and reasonably well-acted but stunningly, they contain rapid-fire misinformation--often here and gone before the largely ignorant audience even knows it--that is purely of Aaron Sorkin's invention concerning the early life and times of Steve Jobs the human being. Yes, Jobs renounced his daughter Lisa early on, which is the largest element of the movie's storyline, but she was living with her father before she began high school, not estranged from him well into college.
Jobs and Apple did not steal the graphical user interface from Xerox/PARC, they bought it fair and square--before Bill Gates found out about the opportunity--then turned it into a rich, mature product that mere mortals could afford. The Xerox/PARC version required a $100K computer and used an unwieldy mouse. The Apple version ran on a $2500 computer using a $15 mouse, and the graphical interface included folders and drop-down menus which the world has taken for granted for 3 decades but that the Xerox/PARC version lacked.
Time magazine had indeed originally planned to appoint Steve Jobs as its Man of the Year--which is why Jobs gave Time reporters such open access to Apple; the cheap papier-mache sculpture that appeared instead of Jobs on the magazine cover supports--not undermines--Jobs' claim that Time changed its mind.
Steve Wozniak was not around during the time periods covered in the movie. He crashed a private plane and suffered a severe concussion in about 1981 that forced him into immediate retirement, years before this movie's storyline even began.
No way in h*ll did Jobs launch his NeXT computer company and risk his entire fortune with the expectation it would fail or be acquired by Apple.
As a software developer, I lived in the SF Bay Area through and beyond the early Apple and NeXT eras. Avie Tevanian was an operating systems guru hired out of graduate school by Jobs to work at NeXT and to bring with him the Mach OS kernel he invented at Carnegie Mellon University. Long before the NeXT Cube was introduced, the computer would have been running the Mach OS. The demos would not have run without an OS, despite Sorkin's claim to the contrary which (among other fabricated events) seems aimed squarely at disparaging Jobs' ethics. Apps simply don't run on hardware without an OS. They don't now and they didn't then. Sorkin attempts to portray Jobs as unethical for demonstrating a computer "without an OS", which I've indicated is patently erroneous. But notice that the computer wasn't yet for sale, because the computer wasn't yet ready, and this was proper and ethical of Jobs. There is nothing illegal or even unethical about demonstrating a product before its release. But that doesn't stop Sorkin from trying to convince the audience otherwise.
In "artistic" fashion, Sorkin has Jobs speaking repeatedly with John Scully over the infamous boardroom decision that ousted Jobs from Apple. In reality, the two men never spoke again. While the memory of that incident would have been painful for Jobs, I sincerely doubt it had any bearing on his psyche in the intense lead-up to product announcements.
Sorkin contrasts the hooting and stomping of Apple fans waiting in the audience at each product announcement to the pettiness and vitriol he imagines spewing from Jobs behind the curtain. But all real-world accounts of Apple product announcements from employees who were there under Jobs' leadership indicate that they were hectic, highly rehearsed and focused events. Do you think Sorkin was obsessing over his divorce in the lead-up to his promotional gigs for this movie? I don't think so.
Little of Jobs' charismatic drive comes through in the movie. Instead it's all about Jobs' personal failures--planned, imagined and otherwise--as choreographed by the screenplay writer.
The studio paid Walter Isaacson millions of dollars for the rights to his authorized biography of Steve Jobs, but that money was wasted, the plot is so diverged from reality. I would challenge Sorkin to indicate what elements of the book he used. My take on the movie is that Sorkin is a technology numbskull who could not grasp the real Steve Jobs story, so he focused on human emotions, which he does understand, and invented a plot in another universe for his own amusement and that of an ignorant public.
Jobs and Apple did not steal the graphical user interface from Xerox/PARC, they bought it fair and square--before Bill Gates found out about the opportunity--then turned it into a rich, mature product that mere mortals could afford. The Xerox/PARC version required a $100K computer and used an unwieldy mouse. The Apple version ran on a $2500 computer using a $15 mouse, and the graphical interface included folders and drop-down menus which the world has taken for granted for 3 decades but that the Xerox/PARC version lacked.
Time magazine had indeed originally planned to appoint Steve Jobs as its Man of the Year--which is why Jobs gave Time reporters such open access to Apple; the cheap papier-mache sculpture that appeared instead of Jobs on the magazine cover supports--not undermines--Jobs' claim that Time changed its mind.
Steve Wozniak was not around during the time periods covered in the movie. He crashed a private plane and suffered a severe concussion in about 1981 that forced him into immediate retirement, years before this movie's storyline even began.
No way in h*ll did Jobs launch his NeXT computer company and risk his entire fortune with the expectation it would fail or be acquired by Apple.
As a software developer, I lived in the SF Bay Area through and beyond the early Apple and NeXT eras. Avie Tevanian was an operating systems guru hired out of graduate school by Jobs to work at NeXT and to bring with him the Mach OS kernel he invented at Carnegie Mellon University. Long before the NeXT Cube was introduced, the computer would have been running the Mach OS. The demos would not have run without an OS, despite Sorkin's claim to the contrary which (among other fabricated events) seems aimed squarely at disparaging Jobs' ethics. Apps simply don't run on hardware without an OS. They don't now and they didn't then. Sorkin attempts to portray Jobs as unethical for demonstrating a computer "without an OS", which I've indicated is patently erroneous. But notice that the computer wasn't yet for sale, because the computer wasn't yet ready, and this was proper and ethical of Jobs. There is nothing illegal or even unethical about demonstrating a product before its release. But that doesn't stop Sorkin from trying to convince the audience otherwise.
In "artistic" fashion, Sorkin has Jobs speaking repeatedly with John Scully over the infamous boardroom decision that ousted Jobs from Apple. In reality, the two men never spoke again. While the memory of that incident would have been painful for Jobs, I sincerely doubt it had any bearing on his psyche in the intense lead-up to product announcements.
Sorkin contrasts the hooting and stomping of Apple fans waiting in the audience at each product announcement to the pettiness and vitriol he imagines spewing from Jobs behind the curtain. But all real-world accounts of Apple product announcements from employees who were there under Jobs' leadership indicate that they were hectic, highly rehearsed and focused events. Do you think Sorkin was obsessing over his divorce in the lead-up to his promotional gigs for this movie? I don't think so.
Little of Jobs' charismatic drive comes through in the movie. Instead it's all about Jobs' personal failures--planned, imagined and otherwise--as choreographed by the screenplay writer.
The studio paid Walter Isaacson millions of dollars for the rights to his authorized biography of Steve Jobs, but that money was wasted, the plot is so diverged from reality. I would challenge Sorkin to indicate what elements of the book he used. My take on the movie is that Sorkin is a technology numbskull who could not grasp the real Steve Jobs story, so he focused on human emotions, which he does understand, and invented a plot in another universe for his own amusement and that of an ignorant public.
Chef
(2014)
Slow, poorly motivated
15 February 2015
Warning: Spoilers
The real chef behind Chef was outstanding, producing food that was amazingly scrumptious to look at. Too bad the script didn't match it! The movie began quite well, but soon ran off a cliff when Casper went on his rant. Until then, I felt compassion for him, but completely lost it at that point. No longer could I see myself in his position, because he behaved like no rational person would. Every plot point from then on seemed unnatural, purely manipulative and largely predictable. Faced with insurmountable adversity at the restaurant, a rational person might have invited the food critic to dine in his home or sought a job elsewhere, instead of burning all his bridges.
Unlike the tasty, wholesome foods displayed, Chef the movie is chock full of fillers, such as unnecessarily lengthy musical interludes and other scenes that just go on way too long. The film could have been improved a couple stars just by cutting 30 minutes. Clearly Favreau has many talented friends, but that's not an excuse to go overboard with their promotion. The dialog is dreadful and the cornstarch in the crotch scene was a real head slapper. Emjay Anthony was the one bright star, only hampered by the script.
Unlike the tasty, wholesome foods displayed, Chef the movie is chock full of fillers, such as unnecessarily lengthy musical interludes and other scenes that just go on way too long. The film could have been improved a couple stars just by cutting 30 minutes. Clearly Favreau has many talented friends, but that's not an excuse to go overboard with their promotion. The dialog is dreadful and the cornstarch in the crotch scene was a real head slapper. Emjay Anthony was the one bright star, only hampered by the script.
Wild
(I) (2014)
Incredible!
14 January 2015
Warning: Spoilers
That would be "incredible," as in "not credible". Toting a 70 pound pack for a few days is a major chore for an experienced, fit, male hiker. Doing it as an inexperienced, unfit, recovering heroine addict wearing duct tape sandals is ridiculous. In the book, Strayed uses duct tape only (no sandals), but I guess that was considered just TOO incredible for the movie. In my opinion the book is most likely concocted from tales told by people Strayed encountered on a much shorter journey along the PCT and from reading others' accounts, not wholly or maybe even mostly from personal experience. Even in 1995, more people traveled the PCT than is depicted. Instead of the Queen of the PCT, Strayed seems more like the Ghost of the PCT. Witherspoon's acting is good, although the pack she carries never seems more than about 35 lbs. and Strayed is not a likable character. My takeaway is that taking heroine is a good thing. Just look at the incredible times we're all missing! Too bad almost none of the movie was shot on the PCT.
Fed Up
(2014)
Get out the word!
31 May 2014
Fed Up highlights sleazy lobbying efforts of the food industry and describes simple actions our government could take to alleviate the obesity epidemic. Even Michelle Obama was distracted by the industry. Perhaps with the prodding of this movie production, Michelle O. has more recently started to get back on track with making dietary changes in our schools.
Will our government move in the right direction? Only with a strong grass roots effort to counteract the industry. Fed Up gives us the tools. The People enacted change upon the tobacco industry. We can do it again for food!
Warning: Don't see this movie if you're happy with the status quo, a shorter, lower quality of life, and don't mind paying even more for health care.
Will our government move in the right direction? Only with a strong grass roots effort to counteract the industry. Fed Up gives us the tools. The People enacted change upon the tobacco industry. We can do it again for food!
Warning: Don't see this movie if you're happy with the status quo, a shorter, lower quality of life, and don't mind paying even more for health care.
The Cove
(2009)
Excellent effort marred by unrelated, incompetent DVD extra
24 November 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I enjoyed this film as a fun, informative thriller, until near the end when the callous, mass killing of dolphins was revealed, which was absolutely nauseating. The film does a good job (as good as may be expected) of exposing conflicts of interest that keep the dolphin and whaling industries alive. The public needs to be aware of this. (More information about how dolphins are maintained in captivity needs to be brought to light, though.) The movie helps educate viewers about how harmful eating tuna and other large fish can be, as well.
I would have awarded 9 out of 10 except for one of the Extras on the DVD that dwelled far too long--and without scientific evidence--on the effects of mercury on autism. Contrary to what Bobby Kennedy, Jr., says, a link between mercury in vaccines and autism has not been shown. The research and unsubstantiated statements on the subject by Dr. Andrew Wakefield, which began in 1998, has since been retracted and deemed to be fraudulent. (The Wikipedia entry for Wakefield provides a fine summary of the tragic situation.) The damage has been done, however, by planting powerful images in parents' minds. If there is a conspiracy, it is among vaccine fear-mongers who stand to make money and political "hay" from the supposed controversy--Jenny Craig and ABC's The View are just the latest, most prominent beneficiaries. Mercury was removed from all infant vaccines and nearly all childhood vaccines several years ago in response to the Wakefield scare, yet the autism rate remains high. This Extra should not even have been included on the DVD, as its presence undermines the credibility of the main feature and the motivations of the film makers.
I would have awarded 9 out of 10 except for one of the Extras on the DVD that dwelled far too long--and without scientific evidence--on the effects of mercury on autism. Contrary to what Bobby Kennedy, Jr., says, a link between mercury in vaccines and autism has not been shown. The research and unsubstantiated statements on the subject by Dr. Andrew Wakefield, which began in 1998, has since been retracted and deemed to be fraudulent. (The Wikipedia entry for Wakefield provides a fine summary of the tragic situation.) The damage has been done, however, by planting powerful images in parents' minds. If there is a conspiracy, it is among vaccine fear-mongers who stand to make money and political "hay" from the supposed controversy--Jenny Craig and ABC's The View are just the latest, most prominent beneficiaries. Mercury was removed from all infant vaccines and nearly all childhood vaccines several years ago in response to the Wakefield scare, yet the autism rate remains high. This Extra should not even have been included on the DVD, as its presence undermines the credibility of the main feature and the motivations of the film makers.
Gravity
(2013)
Super special effects, weak story and dialog
6 October 2013
Warning: Spoilers
In segments, Gravity has marvelous special effects--truly a remarkable achievement. The weak parts of the movie are the contrivances that link these segments together, along with unbelievably bad dialog. (Maybe someone will be brave enough to register the contrivances formally as "goofs" here on IMDb?)
No way could astronauts from the shuttle ever reach the International Space Station, but Gravity asks us to believe both this could happen and that an astronaut could then go on to reach a Chinese space station, too. These objects just don't orbit anywhere--ANYWHERE!!!!--near close enough to each other to make these events even remotely possible. Not only are their orbits vastly different in altitude and trajectory, it would be highly unlikely for them all to be near each other in the same orbit. Oh, I almost forgot to mention that Gravity also asks us to believe that the orbit of the space debris intersected with that of the shuttle and was synchronized with it.
No way could Ryan Stone figure out how to operate a Soyuz capsule in a few seconds of reading the manuals. No way could Ryan Stone figure out how to operate the Chinese capsule just by poking around.
Of lesser failures: Space debris traveling 20,000 miles an hour relative to an observer is not going to be visible except *possibly* as an indistinct cloud that passes by so fast the "observer" won't know what hit them.
For all of the CGI effort, I had hoped the Earth would look more realistic and (naturally) beautiful.
In closing, the special effects were great but the weak story relied on too many absurd contrivances and the script contained no redeeming dialog (sorry, George). On balance: 7 stars.
No way could astronauts from the shuttle ever reach the International Space Station, but Gravity asks us to believe both this could happen and that an astronaut could then go on to reach a Chinese space station, too. These objects just don't orbit anywhere--ANYWHERE!!!!--near close enough to each other to make these events even remotely possible. Not only are their orbits vastly different in altitude and trajectory, it would be highly unlikely for them all to be near each other in the same orbit. Oh, I almost forgot to mention that Gravity also asks us to believe that the orbit of the space debris intersected with that of the shuttle and was synchronized with it.
No way could Ryan Stone figure out how to operate a Soyuz capsule in a few seconds of reading the manuals. No way could Ryan Stone figure out how to operate the Chinese capsule just by poking around.
Of lesser failures: Space debris traveling 20,000 miles an hour relative to an observer is not going to be visible except *possibly* as an indistinct cloud that passes by so fast the "observer" won't know what hit them.
For all of the CGI effort, I had hoped the Earth would look more realistic and (naturally) beautiful.
In closing, the special effects were great but the weak story relied on too many absurd contrivances and the script contained no redeeming dialog (sorry, George). On balance: 7 stars.
Jobs
(2013)
A good effort
21 August 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I think we've got a lot of snotty know-it-all reviewers, as well as "reviewers" who haven't even bothered to see the film before rating it poorly. I've read several books about Jobs and Apple, seen tons of prior video productions, etc. (I also lived through these times. ;-) This film is actually a solid effort to portray Jobs' character, the general atmosphere of the '70s through the '90s, and the roles and feelings of several key players in the development and evolution of Apple. A lot of territory is covered in 2 hours, which means not much depth most of the time, but good depth is provided often enough. Over all, Jobs is an enjoyable, entertaining and enlightening film. There is something to be said for seeing and hearing people act out events (even if partly fictionalized for the screen), rather than just reading about them or hearing recounts of events. The acting overall is good, as is the casting. People should not be put off by the naysayers. (btw: The actor playing Rod Holt stole the show in every scene he appears, whether he had lines or not.)
A frequent criticism of the film is the abrupt ending, but I found the ending to be appropriately timed. The movie focuses primarily on the conflicts in Jobs' life, and by the time the iPod is introduced the worst conflicts are behind him.
My main criticism is that the final scene, in which Kutcher gives a tearful rendition of "Here's to the Crazy Ones," is sad rather than inspiring. The tears suggest the movie is about to end, but I believe the film would have ended far more powerfully with a spirited rendition (as heard in the TV commercials*) that echoed the personal drive of Steven Paul Jobs. I left with a smarmy feeling instead. Maybe if Kutcher was a better actor, he could have pulled it off, but my sense is this was primarily a bad directorial decision, as I've never gotten the impression that Jobs was so tearful about his return to Apple. Jobs was driven and his return was structured to given him the creative power he craved.
On the matter of Kutcher's performance, he clearly practiced Jobs' speaking, mannerisms and walk, but the walk seemed exaggerated much of the time, with overly slumped shoulders perhaps used to disguise the fact that he is much taller than Jobs was. It's also difficult to disguise the fact that Kutcher's mouth naturally wants to open wider than Jobs'. Consequently Kutcher's mimicry often feels tenser (less cool) than it should because he has to work at keeping his mouth small. However, when Kutcher is merely posing, it's easy to forget he's not Steve Jobs. And it's impossible to fault Kutcher for being a much taller guy than Jobs (and anyone else on the cast), considering how good a performance he otherwise does.
*Of course every aficionado knows that Jobs recorded "Here's to the Crazy Ones" before deciding an actor (Richard Dreyfuss) should do it for the actual commercials, because otherwise listeners would focus on the fact that it was Jobs talking rather than listening to the message.
A frequent criticism of the film is the abrupt ending, but I found the ending to be appropriately timed. The movie focuses primarily on the conflicts in Jobs' life, and by the time the iPod is introduced the worst conflicts are behind him.
My main criticism is that the final scene, in which Kutcher gives a tearful rendition of "Here's to the Crazy Ones," is sad rather than inspiring. The tears suggest the movie is about to end, but I believe the film would have ended far more powerfully with a spirited rendition (as heard in the TV commercials*) that echoed the personal drive of Steven Paul Jobs. I left with a smarmy feeling instead. Maybe if Kutcher was a better actor, he could have pulled it off, but my sense is this was primarily a bad directorial decision, as I've never gotten the impression that Jobs was so tearful about his return to Apple. Jobs was driven and his return was structured to given him the creative power he craved.
On the matter of Kutcher's performance, he clearly practiced Jobs' speaking, mannerisms and walk, but the walk seemed exaggerated much of the time, with overly slumped shoulders perhaps used to disguise the fact that he is much taller than Jobs was. It's also difficult to disguise the fact that Kutcher's mouth naturally wants to open wider than Jobs'. Consequently Kutcher's mimicry often feels tenser (less cool) than it should because he has to work at keeping his mouth small. However, when Kutcher is merely posing, it's easy to forget he's not Steve Jobs. And it's impossible to fault Kutcher for being a much taller guy than Jobs (and anyone else on the cast), considering how good a performance he otherwise does.
*Of course every aficionado knows that Jobs recorded "Here's to the Crazy Ones" before deciding an actor (Richard Dreyfuss) should do it for the actual commercials, because otherwise listeners would focus on the fact that it was Jobs talking rather than listening to the message.
Butter
(I) (2011)
Worse than expected
24 March 2013
I didn't have high hopes for this film but what I saw was a terrible film. From the reviews, I expected some nastiness but this script quickly entered the realm of utterly distasteful and nonsensical/absurd. The first 10 minutes or so were good. The film seemed to hold promise for actually being good. But then the plot line became sick, with numerous non sequiturs. Four-letter words are flung without a proper context having been laid. It's like the writers had an inkling of a good idea but were not creative enough to carry it off. Who is so stupid as to sign off on a project like this? And Jennifer Garner was that desperate for money?
For writers who lack the imagination, the story of the REAL butter lady from the Iowa State Fair would have made for a good movie without even trying.
For writers who lack the imagination, the story of the REAL butter lady from the Iowa State Fair would have made for a good movie without even trying.
Argo
(2012)
Well crafted movie, highly fabricated story
30 January 2013
Warning: Spoilers
***Update***
It seems even NPR can't resist the pressure of potential Oscar-dom and money. In their latest Argo story, CIA agent Mendez himself is interviewed and claims most of the story is "spot on". Naturally, I would trust the word of Mendez, since he can not tell a lie and likely has no conflict of interest in the success of the film.(/sarcasm) Practically everyone knows the Big Lie theory. Unfortunately, few people seem able to recognize its application.
*************
8 stars for craftsmanship averaged with 2 stars for historical accuracy equals 5 stars. The intro to this movie is most engaging and tends to convince viewers unswervingly from the start that this is a great film. If one investigates the history, however, almost every subsequent plot point is fabricated, apparently to maintain audience interest (for as many reviewers have commented, besides the plot and editing, this movie has little to offer in the way of writing, characters, acting, costumes, makeup, cinematography, etc.) During the credits, contrasting images of real characters and actors are presented that would lead one to believe great effort was made to tell the story faithfully. Don't be fooled. Contrary to what Mr. Afflect has said, the plot was more than tweaked a bit*. Good on NPR for calling him out on it. The salient facts in this case aren't classified, so what's the excuse for baldfaced lying to the audience?
*Examples of diversion from the truth: No excursion took place into the bazaar by the Americans. No secret photographs taken of the Americans. No shredded embassy photographs of the Americans. No sweatshop assembling shredded photographs of the Americans. The mission was never canceled, but President Carter did delay authorization for 30 minutes *before agent Mendez had even left for Iran*. Agent Mendez was in Iran for less than 36 hours and left the country separately, before the stranded Americans left. No phone call by Iranian guards to the studio. No problem with airline tickets. No confrontation at the airport. No (absurd) plane chase. Many people on the plane besides the American embassy workers cheered when the plane took off. Others have commented that the rescue effort was the brainchild of--and directed by--a Canadian, not agent Mendez.
It seems even NPR can't resist the pressure of potential Oscar-dom and money. In their latest Argo story, CIA agent Mendez himself is interviewed and claims most of the story is "spot on". Naturally, I would trust the word of Mendez, since he can not tell a lie and likely has no conflict of interest in the success of the film.(/sarcasm) Practically everyone knows the Big Lie theory. Unfortunately, few people seem able to recognize its application.
*************
8 stars for craftsmanship averaged with 2 stars for historical accuracy equals 5 stars. The intro to this movie is most engaging and tends to convince viewers unswervingly from the start that this is a great film. If one investigates the history, however, almost every subsequent plot point is fabricated, apparently to maintain audience interest (for as many reviewers have commented, besides the plot and editing, this movie has little to offer in the way of writing, characters, acting, costumes, makeup, cinematography, etc.) During the credits, contrasting images of real characters and actors are presented that would lead one to believe great effort was made to tell the story faithfully. Don't be fooled. Contrary to what Mr. Afflect has said, the plot was more than tweaked a bit*. Good on NPR for calling him out on it. The salient facts in this case aren't classified, so what's the excuse for baldfaced lying to the audience?
*Examples of diversion from the truth: No excursion took place into the bazaar by the Americans. No secret photographs taken of the Americans. No shredded embassy photographs of the Americans. No sweatshop assembling shredded photographs of the Americans. The mission was never canceled, but President Carter did delay authorization for 30 minutes *before agent Mendez had even left for Iran*. Agent Mendez was in Iran for less than 36 hours and left the country separately, before the stranded Americans left. No phone call by Iranian guards to the studio. No problem with airline tickets. No confrontation at the airport. No (absurd) plane chase. Many people on the plane besides the American embassy workers cheered when the plane took off. Others have commented that the rescue effort was the brainchild of--and directed by--a Canadian, not agent Mendez.
Thank you, Cringley
29 November 2011
That was a very interesting interview. Jobs relates some good stories. This covers a good-sized slice of computer history, snapped at a turning point in time. Thanks for making it available. Thanks to Landmark Theatres, too. Hopefully we'll see it on DVD/BD soon, too.
I can't believe anyone who paid to see it would give this movie a low rating. Not a stunning film, but what do people expect from an unedited interview? Yes, much of the material is covered in Isaacson's book. But it's great to see and hear the stories delivered by the man himself.
By the way, I agree with you about APL! :-) Great reaction from Jobs on that. :-)))
I can't believe anyone who paid to see it would give this movie a low rating. Not a stunning film, but what do people expect from an unedited interview? Yes, much of the material is covered in Isaacson's book. But it's great to see and hear the stories delivered by the man himself.
By the way, I agree with you about APL! :-) Great reaction from Jobs on that. :-)))
Plodding, droll
20 August 2011
The pace of ROTPOTA is terribly slow, particularly given that the audience pretty much knows where the storyline is going the whole time. I was checking my watch after less than a half hour. The story line is rather silly and stupid. The moral issues are not well presented or consistently adhered to through the movie. One of the most memorable lines from the original POTA ("... damned dirty ape ...") is delivered forgettably this time, by an utterly despicable character played by an unknown actor. Heston is rolling in his grave. I give the movie 5 stars for the CGI *acting*. However, much of the CGI *action* is lame. I especially did not appreciate the ape climbing action, which was way too fast and smooth. Not uncanny, just not realistic. I'm sorry, but just because a computer can generate footage that can't be completely processed by the human viewer's brain doesn't make it good. Apes climbing a building were too synchronized. Then there are the product placements. Several of them stood out like sore thumbs, but none more than the guy stuck in traffic who turns his smart phone toward the camera just so we can see it's a BLACKBERRY! Woo-hoo!!
The Hangover
(2009)
Slow, uninspired, not funny
15 August 2010
Warning: Spoilers
We got a single half-chuckle out of this movie at the 32 minute mark. That was it for the entire movie. We stuck it out to the bitter end only because so many people at the rental store said this was a very funny movie. Thanks to a couple of beers on hand, I didn't die of complete boredom, but we should have listened to the minority who said they turned it off after a few minutes.
This movie contains trivial, unfunny "humor", including lame butt jokes. The acting is ponderous and uninspired, largely because the content is completely lame and due to the need to drag this movie out to feature-length. I could write funnier material than this if it was my job.
Casting was also terrible. For instance, the "Fat Jesus" character just wasn't crazy or ugly enough.
The sleeping with the bartender joke was lame the first time. We didn't need it repeated 10 more times. Same with the Dr. Dentist joke.
The portrayal of police officers and the physician as unprofessional was too uninspired to be funny.
The movie is chock-a-block full of 4-letter words and unimaginative insults, yet every so often it throws in a kiddie swear word for no reason at all. Stupid on all counts!
Why did Dr. Dentist ever think he'd get away with staying in Las Vegas, when his girlfriend checks his credit card statements and he was billing the hotel room to his credit card? It wouldn't matter if the bill was for $100 or $10,000, she would still see it was in Las Vegas, not Napa.
Never answered: how/why did these deadbeats meet Mike Tyson and how did Mike Tyson's tiger ever get to the hotel?
Even the makeup was bad: Doug should have much redder and his color was inconsistent between scenes at the end.
This movie contains trivial, unfunny "humor", including lame butt jokes. The acting is ponderous and uninspired, largely because the content is completely lame and due to the need to drag this movie out to feature-length. I could write funnier material than this if it was my job.
Casting was also terrible. For instance, the "Fat Jesus" character just wasn't crazy or ugly enough.
The sleeping with the bartender joke was lame the first time. We didn't need it repeated 10 more times. Same with the Dr. Dentist joke.
The portrayal of police officers and the physician as unprofessional was too uninspired to be funny.
The movie is chock-a-block full of 4-letter words and unimaginative insults, yet every so often it throws in a kiddie swear word for no reason at all. Stupid on all counts!
Why did Dr. Dentist ever think he'd get away with staying in Las Vegas, when his girlfriend checks his credit card statements and he was billing the hotel room to his credit card? It wouldn't matter if the bill was for $100 or $10,000, she would still see it was in Las Vegas, not Napa.
Never answered: how/why did these deadbeats meet Mike Tyson and how did Mike Tyson's tiger ever get to the hotel?
Even the makeup was bad: Doug should have much redder and his color was inconsistent between scenes at the end.
Avatar
(2009)
Smoking 150 years from now? I don't think so!
22 December 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Lead Ph.D. scientists will be smoking 150 years from now? No way, Jose! How much was Cameron pad to include smoking in his "epic" film? The references to "jarheads" were also insulting to the audience. Needless to say, I was turned off by the film after just the first few minutes. After about 45 minutes I finally felt wooed back, but by about the halfway to two-thirds mark, I was already wondering when the movie would end. I couldn't wait for someone (or some avatar) to toss rocks into those honking big propellers on the copters. Did Grace die because she was too weakened from smoking? If navigation gear can't function near Hometree, why does anything electronic function there? Why the reliance on New Zealand for the production... isn't CGI advanced enough now to create completely realistic foliage, 11 years after A Bugs Life did such a great job?
Tropic Thunder
(2008)
Way Better than that OTHER summer flick!
13 August 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I have to say it. "Tropic Thunder" has so much more of a message for the real world than that big blockbuster film this summer (you know, the "dark" one). Fakery, self-righteousness, egotism, you name it--they all take a whooping in this film. The script is smart and consistent. It has a few surprises that come out of nowhere, hit you out of rhythm and, consequently, lend a sense of authenticity. The acting is good. Downey and Cruise are marvelous. A few times, though, I felt the acting+script were going to explode (figuratively speaking), but they quickly resumed a more normal height of inspiration. The level of criticism aimed at this film over retard ("never go full retard") is unwarranted. IMHO the movie makes a valid point, in that people don't go to the movies to see complete incompetence--there has to be redemption or no one cares. In acting, just as in "real life," it's possible to try too hard. And if you're not genuine, it's perfectly fair for people to call you on it--and then you move on. Over all, "Tropic Thunder" was great fun.
The Dark Knight
(2008)
Over-hyped, over-long, and stupid
3 August 2008
The film is fun and possibly the best comic-book adaptation ever (who am I to know?), but it's still way over- hyped and about 40 minutes too long. Many things just don't work and the plot, dialog and story line are poor. For instance: the creation of Two Face is not believable, comes too late, and the events leading to his death are stupid; Batman's angst is barely expressed.
The fragmented bullet reconstruction with fingerprint is an impossibly silly stunt that's also a complete waste of time because the impossibly reconstructed fingerprint is... wait for it... USELESS! Bruce Wayne accomplishes the impossible--and for nothing! Can you say stupid writing? Movies always require suspension of belief, but when that bullet sequence was over, I felt TOTALLY BETRAYED. I wanted that time back.
Sonar in all our cell phones? yeah right. The ferry boat dilemma is not a believable dilemma, because the Joker would certainly have killed them all anyway. Maggie Gyllenhaal is sweet but unimpressive, dare I say homely? Batman can barely talk with his jaw shoved through that rigid plastic hood. Good thing he's not the star or he'd have had to endure speaking more lines and we'd have had to further endure watching his discomfort!
Ledger's acting is Oscar-nomination-worthy but not a winner). His character has simply been written too dark. In the comics, the Joker's raison d'etre was not just to cause trouble. In the comic books, a kid could rightfully imagine being the Joker. In this movie, no sane person would imagine being the Joker. That's not to say the Nolans don't have the right to be creative, but they do deviate significantly from "comicbookdom" and sanity here. Just wunnerful. Let's blow the whole world up while we're at it, because we didn't have anything to do with creating it and it's fun to watch! All the people rating this movie above 8 stars should audition for the remake of "Being There".
The fragmented bullet reconstruction with fingerprint is an impossibly silly stunt that's also a complete waste of time because the impossibly reconstructed fingerprint is... wait for it... USELESS! Bruce Wayne accomplishes the impossible--and for nothing! Can you say stupid writing? Movies always require suspension of belief, but when that bullet sequence was over, I felt TOTALLY BETRAYED. I wanted that time back.
Sonar in all our cell phones? yeah right. The ferry boat dilemma is not a believable dilemma, because the Joker would certainly have killed them all anyway. Maggie Gyllenhaal is sweet but unimpressive, dare I say homely? Batman can barely talk with his jaw shoved through that rigid plastic hood. Good thing he's not the star or he'd have had to endure speaking more lines and we'd have had to further endure watching his discomfort!
Ledger's acting is Oscar-nomination-worthy but not a winner). His character has simply been written too dark. In the comics, the Joker's raison d'etre was not just to cause trouble. In the comic books, a kid could rightfully imagine being the Joker. In this movie, no sane person would imagine being the Joker. That's not to say the Nolans don't have the right to be creative, but they do deviate significantly from "comicbookdom" and sanity here. Just wunnerful. Let's blow the whole world up while we're at it, because we didn't have anything to do with creating it and it's fun to watch! All the people rating this movie above 8 stars should audition for the remake of "Being There".
Tell Your Friends