vs23 Reviews

Wil (2023)

Ignore the ignorant reviews: This is an excellent movie.

[10/10 · 28 April 2024]

This is an extremely well crafted movie that deals with the moral conundrums that arise under enemy occupation, specifically in the actual context of WWII and the brutal Nazi take over of Belgium. The characters are believable, the acting affecting, and the narrative consonant with the historical accounts that are now so familiar, at least to those of us who care to know about and respect history.

I'm submitting this review, which I hardly ever do, because others have left here some really ignorant comments and low ratings that this film doesn't deserve. Rest assured that the film isn't anything like those negative reviews would have it. It's about moral ambiguity and the difficulties faced by those who find themselves having to choose between survival and the right thing under conditions in which there is no right answer.

The film is excellent.

Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (2023)

Don't listen to the negative posts here...

[9/10 · 10 December 2023]

This is a typical, perfectly entertaining Indiana Jones movie, full of impossible chases and fantasy plots. It might not seem up to the original three because we're all by now used to the FX and the structures. But it is certainly better than the previous one, which has remained the real clunker of the series.

Those here who are bothered by an older guy taking on an adventure movie are just being ageist, especially since the movie actually uses Ford's age as a plot point and doesn't pretend that he's anything but a tired and retired professor who's having problems in his private life. Some outside reviewers complain about the cgi de-aging, but beyond it being a bit obvious and interfering slightly with the acting, it seems to be about as effective as makeup.

The Indiana Jones movies were never meant to be Citizen Kane or 400 Blows. The Saturday matinee fare that it aims to mimic were B fare at best. Just sit back without any pretentious expectations and enjoy the absurd adventure this movie depicts to take your mind off all the troubles we're going through. Ranting at a movie that was modeled after cheap, mass produced entertainment is a waste of time in this instance.

The Pale Blue Eye (2022)

Great movie, well acted, gorgeous cinematography

[10/10 · 8 January 2023]

Don't pay attention to the naysayers. The movie pays homage to the two major aspects of Poe's artistry by melding poetry with detection and adding a touch of the occult.

Reading the reviews here, one wonders what people expect of a period movie that delves into the subject of loss and sorrowful revenge, which is this movie's real theme. It's not meant to be a thriller nor a detective story as such but an imagined, made up narrative to consider what and how a young Poe begins to develop his work and launch his considerable contributions to such distinct genres.

And, to boot, the movie is beautifully acted and visually, with breathtaking cinematography that gives you a sense of both time and place.

Unfortunately, audiences' attention spans, corrupted by new media, have deteriorated to the point that people no longer have any appreciation for story telling that takes its time. They confuse slow pacing with boredom without registering that they're supposed to linger over images and nuances of the process of visual storytelling that good cinema is.

My So-Called Life (1994–1995)

Disappointing after all the hype

[1/10 · 20 August 2022]

For years now, I'd been looking forward to watching this series because of all the hoopla surrounding it. Thanks to a Hulu subscription I finally did and, boy, am I disappointed.

Except for having given Clare Danes a start in acting, there's not much else to recommend it. This is just your usual self-Indulgent gringo teenage angst stuff showcasing a family of relatively ample means and their child alternatively whining and obsessing over such irrelevant stuff as high school popularity and sentimental troubles with an obviously inappropriate romantic relationship. I should note that there is a younger child in the family whose attention grabbing efforts, triggered by her parents' obvious preference for her older sister, are consistently ignored and very explicitly swatted down. That would, perhaps, make for a better series: the neglected younger child who has to suffer through an older sibling's adolescence.

The worst episodes are intolerably schmaltzy and suck royally. The better are at roll your eyes level for their tempests in teapots that are the product of the self-involved actions of uninteresting people. Of course, there's a "bad girl" stereotype to contrast with the good little girl main character equipped as well with a sluttish, careless mother, so that the good little girl's mother can show herself intolerant-thus proving her daughter's suspicions about her total inadequacy as a mother-then redeem herself by showing tolerance-and to fit the times, a gay teenager, of course.

I'm not sure whether this is just dated or the unfortunate ur-series that spawned a progeny of absolutely yucky fare. But I'm certainly not unhappy that I didn't waste much time on it and that I can now take it off my bucket list.

Kimi (2022)

Don't pay attention to the naysayers: this is a very good film

[10/10 · 10 July 2022]

This is a very good film that is tightly scripted, shot, and edited. I suspect that brilliant filmmaking like this is lost on many viewers since the usual mediocre movie and tv fare has socialized them into mindless watching, thus the negative whining among the complainers. The script and camera work are typical for Soderbergh whose style involves eschewing boring viewers with expository dialogue as he opts for conveying information visually.

I guess, as others here have pointed out, that movies with women in the main role, particularly minoritized ones, trigger negativity among viewers. It's amusing to read comments suggesting that people skip this and go watch James Stewart in Rear Window since this movie is itself a homage to it and to De Palma's Blowout, especially as both these classic directors would recognize and greatly appreciate this movie's craftsmanship.

Chad (2021–2024)

I just have to write this: You idiots, you're supposed to cringe!

[10/10 · 24 June 2022]

I'm rating this a ten to counter the naysayers who obviously don't get that it's a satire.

And that you're supposed to cringe because being a teenage boy in our times is complex and often embarrassing. Admittedly, it can be heavy handed, but satire often is.

BTW, I had no idea about the gender switch and had never heard of the person playing the character. I don't think this has anything to do with "wokeness" or whatnot, which has become the whipping post for all the conservative trolls who have taken to posting reviews here despite being completely illiterate as far as movies and tv are concerned. Women have long been known to take over male roles in theater and film. Nothing new about that and if a actress wants to try her hand at it, she is simply joining a long standing tradition.

Horror Noire (2021)

Really, really bad...

[1/10 · 5 February 2022]

Poor scripts, bad plots, simplistic direction, mediocre acting. And so on.

As my husband pointed out when I said that I felt like I was watching a bad NYU MFA student's class first year class project, "You're being too generous!"

'Nuff said.

Good Sam (2022)

Jason Isaac deserves much, much better...

[1/10 · 20 January 2022]

I tried very hard to get through a second episode of this series just as a sign of support for Isaac, whose acting is superb. Never made it. Even he can't overcome a preposterous and far fetched premise, a poor script, uninteresting characters, and all around mediocre to poor acting from the rest of the cast. He does the only real quality acting in every scene he's in, but that's simply not enough, especially in view of the particularly bad job done by the actress who plays the title character. She's downright lousy.

Please liberate this great actor from this abominable series and give him a decent project worthy of his talent..

The Devil All the Time (2020)

Just one nit to pick.

[9/10 · 11 July 2021]

This is a great movie and my only criticism is that the narration was mostly unnecessary and did not always make sense. The acting is spectacular, the irony of the intertwined lives believable, the editing impeccable, the tone and ambience well established. It's a worthy example of Americana in its Southern Gothic modality, despite its Midwestern location. And it's a great critique of the religious-and so hypocritical-fundamentalism that has so hegemonized US society.

In sum, I'm docking it only for the narration and only for its excess at that. A little of it would have gone a long way precisely because the movie is so well done that we didn't need a narrator to guide us through it.

30 Coins (2020–2023)

Too many morons inflicting their opinion on the world here

[10/10 · 24 January 2021]

Don't pay attention to the low raters. I've yet to see a coherent critique among them. There's the ignorant bunch that decries having to read subtitles, and just prove once again how linguistically retrograde UStatesians are in their parochial assumption that everything must absolutely be in English or else they won't bother applying their scant brain cells to it.

Then there's the bunch of so-called "critics" who don't grasp the theological dimensions of the story and how fascinating they are. Along with some classic scares, very effectively done, the writer and director probes some interesting problems of theodicy that have bedeviled, not just Christianity, but all religions.

Don't listen to them. This series is awesome.

Mom (2013–2021)

Ever improving

[10/10 · 14 December 2019]

I've been watching this show from its very beginning. And its evolution is astonishing. It has added new characters and new story arcs, allowed its characters to change along with their circumstances, and shifted its focus from a two character relationship to those of an ensemble cast of extremely skilled performers who very effectively play characters that complement each other despite their very different biographies. The bottom line is that plots and characters convey a message of tolerance and of the importance to consider others and appreciate one another no matter ones's past mistakes.

As have others here, I find it incredible that some viewers find its very humane, often touching, treatment of a variety of very human issues objectionable. Frankly, the naysayers show their ignorance and lack of understanding. Don't pay any attention to them and if you haven't tried watching this, do so, and do aim to catch it from the very beginning because it's developmental arc is awesome.

Florida Girls (2019– )

Funny and parodic.

[10/10 · 25 July 2019]

Since the only reviews here are split, I'm weighing in to side with the positive one. The show is very funny and aptly plays on Florida stereotypes to the point of absurdity. And in spite of playing on stereotypes, it avoids offense, precisely through its humor and the very skillful acting of its four female leads with solid support from other cast members.

Bonusfamiljen (2017–2021)

Great series.

[10/10 · 20 July 2019]

Just a couple of things: The negative or lukewarm reviews here seem to do mostly with people claiming offense at the living arrangements. But this sort of mixed and complex family configuration, which can be found in many contemporary societies, is precisely what the positive term "bonus family" indicates. If you're priggish about contemporary family practices, then don't watch a series whose very title gives you advance warning of what it deals with.

Second, this is absolutely not a Scandinavian version of Modern Family. Except for the general framing of contemporary cross families that have become common with the availability of divorce, there are no similarities between the two series. Indeed, to think that there are is reductionistic and even carries a whiff of ethnocentrism as Bonus Family is much better than Modern Family and not just a rip off but a highly original work that stands on its own merits.

Third, while I share the exasperation with the Eddie character and agree that he is a horrible spoiled brat, he really doesn't take up that much screen time and his presence simply injects a very realistic dimension to the intertwined family lives. No one should not watch the series just for a single character.

The Last Czars (2019)

Since IMDB didn't post my first review...

[1/10 · 6 July 2019]

I submitted a review on 4 July, and although IMDB acknowledged receipt and assured me that it would post it, it hasn't done so. I'm not going to speculate why, but I hope it hasn't to do with the fact that I took a very dim view of this series, which is, frankly, blatantly bad. This is what I wrote:

"When I heard about the series, I had great expectations about but a glance at today's New York Times, in which a short blurb notes that events are dramatized, made me hesitate. I just watched the first episode and it's worse than I expected.

Despite the talking heads presumed credentials, the dramatizations poorly serve history since they are extremely soap opera-ish. Some of the historical details are debatable. The actors don't quite look like the real people they're enacting, although it may not make too much of a difference since they do so quite poorly. There is no depth to the historical narrative. The acting is subpar. The characterizations and dramatization are very black and white, dishonoring the historical complexities that characterize the period, the place, and the specifics of this benighted family. Even opening with the fake Anastasia story, which has by now been totally debunked through the dna testing of the Ekaterinburg remains, does a disservice to the audience and the historical account. Indeed, the real history is so much more interesting than this reductionistic rendering and it's a pity that all here involved didn't put in more efforts at generating a well documented and properly historicized account.

Only thing of note are the real photos and film clips of the period, which are, unfortunately, too few-at least in the single episode I watched. These are, of course, easily found in YouTube and other websites, especially the many specializing in Russian imperial history. The advantage here is that one can now see them in one's HD, big screen tv rather than in the more modest circumstances of one's computer screen, and surrounded by high quality color footage of places in Russia, especially several closely associated with the Romanovs.

I'm not dropping the series from my Netflix watchlist, but I've no hopes for it. I'm conscious that I might be jumping the gun with this review., having only watched the first episode. But it was so fundamentally flawed that I doubt the rest of them will make any difference in my assessment. And, yes, to reassert: I'll go on watching, but just because I believe one needs to confirm first impressions, especially when they are so critically poor.

If further viewing persuades me that I should reconsider my initial negative reaction, I'll submit another review accordingly."

I've now suffered through the whole thing, and it shouldn't surprise anyone that I've confirmed my initial negative impression. The ultimate insult and injury involve the historical inaccuracies about the family's execution as the re-enactment omits the servants who were massacred with them. And this is a historical event that has been amply documented down to who was sitting where, who was standing, and who was first shot. One of history's most egregious acts is thus dishonored through its unnecessary misrepresentation for no discernible artistic reason.

NOT RECOMMENDED.

(Now let's see if IMDB will post this one...)

War & Peace (2016)

Unsure who watched what and how...

[10/10 · 4 July 2019]

The negative comments here, which I read after watching the miniseries, led me to two things: First, re-read the book, which I hadn't done in ages. Second, I re-watched the Bondarchuk version, which I'd seen way back then when it was first theatrically released. I have to say that all I remembered was simply its length and the scope of the war scenes as it had been widely impressed on viewers at the time that the Soviet army had actually re-enacted them with the blessing of the Soviet state, a propaganda coup in those Cold War times. Yet I seem to remember it as a bit of a bore.

Frankly, people, those who are so negative about this miniseries seem to have watched something else altogether different or need go back and reread the book (if they ever did) and rewatch the Bondarchuk version (ditto). Unlike their claims, it's so happens that the miniseries is actually quite close to the book and a very honorable rendition of Tolstoy's work. Certainly, it doesn't portray Tolstoy's lengthy disquisitions on history and so on, obviously because they are not cinematographic. As to casting, people seem to forget that Bondarchuk, then in his forties, cast himself in the role of Pierre-and he didn't happen to be a very good actor, to boot! Fonda was clearly badly cast, but so was Bondarchuk with the aggravating circumstances that in his case it comes across as a vanity thing. This round goes to Dano, who is an excellent actor and way closer in age to the character.

The other role that seems to have particularly grated on people is Natasha. But in Bondarchuk's film, the role went to a ballet dancer, with no acting experience except for the artificial miming required in the 19th century classic ballets. And this shows bigly, as she plays Natasha as though she were dancing the role! As a former dancer who has also been trained in acting, I can vouch for the differences between the two performance genres and how an unpondered transfer of techniques used in one don't necessarily transfer well to the other. Watching her enact Natasha is excruciating as her gesturing, posturing, and body movement, very obviously coming from ballet miming conventions, are quite artificial and stilted. She simply looks like she strayed into the series from a performance of Swan Lake. Lily James is a perfectly good actress and this round goes to her as well.

All in all, while I can't speak of all the versions out there since I've only seen Hepburn's, Bondarchuk's, and this miniseries, I think this the best of what I know. And I appreciate it greatly for its cohesiveness, faithfulness to the original, excellent production values, acting, and overall quality.

The Last Czars (2019)

Simplistic and the rote "Let's all just blame Nicholas for everything"...

[1/10 · 3 July 2019]

When I heard about the series, I had great expectations about but a glance at today's New York Times,in which a short blurb notes that events are dramatized, made me hesitate. I just watched the first episode and it's worse than I expected.

Despite the talking heads presumed credentials, the dramatizations poorly serve history since they are extremely soap opera-ish. Some of the historical details are debatable. The actors don't quite look like the real people they're enacting, although it may not make too much of a difference since they do so quite poorly. There is no depth to the historical narrative. The acting is subpar. The characterizations and dramatization are very black and white, dishonoring the historical complexities that characterize the period, the place, and the specifics of this benighted family. Even opening with the fake Anastasia story, which has by now been totally debunked through the dna testing of the Ekaterinburg remains, does a disservice to the audience and the historical account. Indeed, the real history is so much more interesting than this reductionistic rendering and it's a pity that all here involved didn't put in more efforts at generating a well documented and properly historicized account.

Only thing of note are the real photos and film clips of the period, which are, unfortunately, too few-at least in the single episode I watched. These are, of course, easily found in YouTube and other websites, especially the many specializing in Russian imperial history. The advantage here is that one can now see them in one's HD, big screen tv rather than in the more modest circumstances of one's computer screen, and surrounded by high quality color footage of places in Russia, especially several closely associated with the Romanovs.

I'm not dropping the series from my Netflix watchlist, but I've no hopes for it. I'm conscious that I might be jumping the gun with this review., having only watched the first episode. But it was so fundamentally flawed that I doubt the rest of them will make any difference in my assessment. And, yes, to reassert: I'll go on watching, but just because I believe one needs to confirm first impressions, especially when they are so critically poor.

If further viewing persuades me that I should reconsider my initial negative reaction, I'll submit another review accordingly.

Roma (2018)

Forget the trolls who don't know films and are panning the movie out of ignorance...

[10/10 · 14 April 2019]

Roma is a great movie that speaks to the power of memory and childhood experiences. It brilliantly manages to place extremely intimate details of family life within the context of contemporary historical events and thus addresses issues of gender, ethnicity, and class that, although specific to Mexican society are also evident in other complex societies, including the U.S.

Those who claim to be bored by it are simply too socialized into the fast and cheap movie making that is much too common nowadays. Please be more careful about your watching habits and what you select to view. Read the fine print and don't unfairly inflict your uninformed ratings and commentaries on the rest of us. It's particularly unfair to the filmmaker as you drag the ratings down and misinform potential viewers. This is a masterpiece and should be treated as such.

The World Wars (2014)

Really awful! I regret the time I spent on it, teeth firmly gritted, just to see what crap passes for history in US media.

[1/10 · 30 May 2014]

Both inaccurate and ethnocentric as it skews multiple historical facts out of sheer laziness and to make it seem as though the US singlehandedly won both wars. It was offensive to see European allies reduced to bystanders and their suffering minimized to a side effect. It also wrongly represented complex historical processes as the outcome of personal grudges rather than as the product of long standing ideological and sociocultural factors.

As have others, I wish I could give it a 0. This so-called series is a colossal waste of resources. One wonders what participants were thinking, especially the poor actors and the academics who invested their talents and prestige in this crap. And to have talking heads like Cheney, who has never fought and who cynically lied the nation into an unnecessary and illegal war, spouting forth praise for soldiers is obscene.