Netflix recommended this to me, but I don't know why. If you're going to eat junk food it should at least have a bit of flavor. This was just garbage. The story was just stupid. Yes, I know most people don't watch these types of movies for the story, but c'mon man. It would have been more entertaining if they had just removed the so-called plot and simply had 90 minutes of people shooting each other.
Reviews
12 Reviews
Wine Country
(2019)
Did no't seem funny/interesting enough to hold one's attention
24 June 2020
Admittedly, I'm not a huge fan of this genre. I usually don't like these middle-age road-trip flix, but even so this one tends toward the lower end of the spectrum. That's really surprising considering the cast, most of which I've seen in much much better performances. The problem is that it just isn't funny. It's predictable, which was predictable (lol) and that alone wasn't the issue. It was the writing and, surprisingly, the chemistry between the actors seemed not to be there. It's not that the film wasn't relatable. I am middle aged and could relate to a lot in the movie. It just lacked the ability to make me laugh, and the more the movie progressed the more I wished it was over already. Although Tina Fey's role in the movie was minor, she had the funniest performances. That says a lot.
Kinda makes me want to go back and watch Sideways. That's a much better performance.
Kinda makes me want to go back and watch Sideways. That's a much better performance.
The Visit
(I) (2015)
People seem to either really like or really hate this
16 December 2015
This is an M. Night Shyamalan movie. I am of the opinion that he's basically a one-trick pony. I was really hoping for something different in this move, but it was not to be.
Basically if you've already seen any other movie of this genre you're not going to see anything new. This has been done many many times before, especially by Mr. Shyamalan. And it cries out "oh my gosh I've already seen this movie a thousand times". I'm not a big fan of movies where the camera is a protagonist, but when done well I find it very pleasant. This movie is an example of it not having been done well. If the camera is a character, then there are numerous character flaws throughout. It's disappointing because when done right it's really good, but when it's not done right it's absolutely dreadful.
The acting is so-so. I have a particular peeve about white boys trying to do hip-hop. It's cliché and very very annoying, again, unless done right. And this movie doesn't do it right. Putting that aside, most of the acting is so-so. Oddly enough, I thought some of the best scenes were done by Kathryn Hahn who has a relatively minor role in the movie. The "main" characters don't really do much to draw you in to the story. They're basically one-dimensional.
I really wasn't entertained and I probably won't remember this movie after a few days. The only reason that I gave it a 2 instead of a 1 is because I reserve 1's for movies that I'll at least remember how terrible it was. This movie rates as bad but not so bad that I'd remember how bad it was.
Basically if you've already seen any other movie of this genre you're not going to see anything new. This has been done many many times before, especially by Mr. Shyamalan. And it cries out "oh my gosh I've already seen this movie a thousand times". I'm not a big fan of movies where the camera is a protagonist, but when done well I find it very pleasant. This movie is an example of it not having been done well. If the camera is a character, then there are numerous character flaws throughout. It's disappointing because when done right it's really good, but when it's not done right it's absolutely dreadful.
The acting is so-so. I have a particular peeve about white boys trying to do hip-hop. It's cliché and very very annoying, again, unless done right. And this movie doesn't do it right. Putting that aside, most of the acting is so-so. Oddly enough, I thought some of the best scenes were done by Kathryn Hahn who has a relatively minor role in the movie. The "main" characters don't really do much to draw you in to the story. They're basically one-dimensional.
I really wasn't entertained and I probably won't remember this movie after a few days. The only reason that I gave it a 2 instead of a 1 is because I reserve 1's for movies that I'll at least remember how terrible it was. This movie rates as bad but not so bad that I'd remember how bad it was.
Leviathan
(I) (2012)
What was this all about?
26 October 2013
The first thing I want to say is don't watch this movie. If you must watch this movie, then please empty your bladder first. I should get some kind of commendation for having watched the entire movie in one sitting. Yes, it was *that* bad.
I should start off by saying I initially knew nothing about this movie, not even that it was a "documentary". The only thing I knew about it was the title. Based on the title and the first "scene" (can it really be called a scene?) I had a feeling it was going to be a kind of Blair Witch of the sea. It seemed to be very slowly leading up to some disaster. There is darkness at sea. Some fishermen are working on a boat. It's dark. There's no dialog. Nothing but the sounds of the boat and the sea. You just know something is going to happen. Then 15 minutes goes by. Then 20. Then you start to wonder.
It took me a while to realize this is a "documentary". Except, there's no dialog. There's no narration. There are lots of sounds. Lots of water lots of fish. Lots of sea birds. Lots of out-of-focus shots. Lots of meaningless extreme close-ups. Lots and lots of water. There is very little "human" element. Most of what there is are extreme close-ups of pot-bellied, tattooed, chain-smoking white guys... who apparently don't talk much.
I learned nothing from this movie. Working on a fishing boat is lonely, dirty, wet, and hard work. I think I already knew that. The only thing I thought was good about the film is that the sea scallops looked really really good. I may just get some tomorrow. The only thing I could relate to in the film was the scene where the guy is falling asleep while watching television. That should be the movie trailer because it pretty much sums it all up.
Trust me: skip this one.
I should start off by saying I initially knew nothing about this movie, not even that it was a "documentary". The only thing I knew about it was the title. Based on the title and the first "scene" (can it really be called a scene?) I had a feeling it was going to be a kind of Blair Witch of the sea. It seemed to be very slowly leading up to some disaster. There is darkness at sea. Some fishermen are working on a boat. It's dark. There's no dialog. Nothing but the sounds of the boat and the sea. You just know something is going to happen. Then 15 minutes goes by. Then 20. Then you start to wonder.
It took me a while to realize this is a "documentary". Except, there's no dialog. There's no narration. There are lots of sounds. Lots of water lots of fish. Lots of sea birds. Lots of out-of-focus shots. Lots of meaningless extreme close-ups. Lots and lots of water. There is very little "human" element. Most of what there is are extreme close-ups of pot-bellied, tattooed, chain-smoking white guys... who apparently don't talk much.
I learned nothing from this movie. Working on a fishing boat is lonely, dirty, wet, and hard work. I think I already knew that. The only thing I thought was good about the film is that the sea scallops looked really really good. I may just get some tomorrow. The only thing I could relate to in the film was the scene where the guy is falling asleep while watching television. That should be the movie trailer because it pretty much sums it all up.
Trust me: skip this one.
The Sunchaser
(1996)
I kept praying it would end
15 August 2008
I read some of the other reviews and I guess this movie has an emotional element to it, but I'm not wired that way. The thing that ruined the movie for me was the logic. In it, the main characters make one illogical choice after enough. One must suspend logic and believe that these characters would actually make the choices that they made and that was the painful part for me that ruined it. That and the tiring tiring stereotypes portrayed about minorities, urban life, small desert towns, (non-)religious folk, etc., etc.
In the end it's a 2-hour movie, and the conclusion is so predictable and disappointing as to serve no justification for having labored through its poor plot/writing. **
In the end it's a 2-hour movie, and the conclusion is so predictable and disappointing as to serve no justification for having labored through its poor plot/writing. **
Elephant
(2003)
I came. I saw. I slept.
25 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
So there is a school shooting in the end. I'm sorry, did I give that away?
In between that time there is worthless dialog by seemingly one-dimensional characters in a series of half-baked subplots about... nothing really significant. So basically you are forced to wait an hour for a school shooting scene that contributes nothing more to the REAL school shootings that we have no doubt already seen. Thanks for wasting my time. Please come again when you actually have a story to tell. I can't think of one character in the story that I would think twice about after the credits have rolled. If you find school shootings entertaining then just fast forward to the end. Else you probably won't find anything of value in this film.
In between that time there is worthless dialog by seemingly one-dimensional characters in a series of half-baked subplots about... nothing really significant. So basically you are forced to wait an hour for a school shooting scene that contributes nothing more to the REAL school shootings that we have no doubt already seen. Thanks for wasting my time. Please come again when you actually have a story to tell. I can't think of one character in the story that I would think twice about after the credits have rolled. If you find school shootings entertaining then just fast forward to the end. Else you probably won't find anything of value in this film.
Before Sunset
(2004)
Blah Blah Blah
29 May 2007
In the beginning this movie seemed to have had some promise, but all is lost within the first 45 minutes or so of the film. The basic premise is two past lovers chance to encounter each other again years later, but their lives, of course, are different now.
The movie is all dialog, save one musical performance. While this itself is not a turn-off for me it may be for some. I've enjoyed other movies of the format, but this wasn't one of them. The dialog is mainly between the two main characters. And the conversations, while many of us have experienced these dialogs with friends and lovers, past and present, and have probably enjoyed them and have fond memories of them, it's a completely different issue when one is not the participant and instead an involuntary voyeur. There's none of the same satisfaction or heightened emotion and instead I mostly wished I was somewhere else. After a while I'd pretty much heard all I want to hear and I'm thinking, "Why don't they just sleep with each other already and be done with it?" But instead the viewer is forced to witness, not though action but through talk, 80 minutes of the past and present lives of two individuals who still haven't given us reason to afford them any empathy.
The writing does nothing to save it. It's not particularly humorous, witty, or interesting and so basically comes of as if the camera picked a random couple in Paris and decided to follow them for a day, giving us the full unedited account. I understand that this is a sequel and I did not see the first in the series, so understand that my lack of empathy might be thrown off because of it. I can only hope the first one is not as painful to watch.
But if you play the movie with the sound muted you get a nice videography of Paris. Maybe then you could make up your own interesting dialog.
The movie is all dialog, save one musical performance. While this itself is not a turn-off for me it may be for some. I've enjoyed other movies of the format, but this wasn't one of them. The dialog is mainly between the two main characters. And the conversations, while many of us have experienced these dialogs with friends and lovers, past and present, and have probably enjoyed them and have fond memories of them, it's a completely different issue when one is not the participant and instead an involuntary voyeur. There's none of the same satisfaction or heightened emotion and instead I mostly wished I was somewhere else. After a while I'd pretty much heard all I want to hear and I'm thinking, "Why don't they just sleep with each other already and be done with it?" But instead the viewer is forced to witness, not though action but through talk, 80 minutes of the past and present lives of two individuals who still haven't given us reason to afford them any empathy.
The writing does nothing to save it. It's not particularly humorous, witty, or interesting and so basically comes of as if the camera picked a random couple in Paris and decided to follow them for a day, giving us the full unedited account. I understand that this is a sequel and I did not see the first in the series, so understand that my lack of empathy might be thrown off because of it. I can only hope the first one is not as painful to watch.
But if you play the movie with the sound muted you get a nice videography of Paris. Maybe then you could make up your own interesting dialog.
Be My Baby
(2007)
Too painful to watch
6 May 2007
I tried hard to watch this movie. After about 15 minutes I wanted to give up but struggled to watch on. Then 30 minutes into the film I threw in the towel. It just wasn't worth it.
As if the poor acting and editing weren't enough, the whole premise of the film leaves much to be desired. We find that the protagonist kidnaps babies in order to fool the man that she had a fling with a year earlier that he had fathered her child so she can swindle money out of him. We're supposed to empathize with her, but the whole premise makes it virtually impossible. Add to this comedic elements that are just not funny, dialog that is just unbelievable, and the aforementioned poor acting and you pretty much have a film that you can't wait to end. But after a half hour I could only see it getting worse, so I didn't even bother to finish the film.
As if the poor acting and editing weren't enough, the whole premise of the film leaves much to be desired. We find that the protagonist kidnaps babies in order to fool the man that she had a fling with a year earlier that he had fathered her child so she can swindle money out of him. We're supposed to empathize with her, but the whole premise makes it virtually impossible. Add to this comedic elements that are just not funny, dialog that is just unbelievable, and the aforementioned poor acting and you pretty much have a film that you can't wait to end. But after a half hour I could only see it getting worse, so I didn't even bother to finish the film.
88 Minutes
(2007)
Save your money and watch the 88-second trailer instead
15 April 2007
This film was pretty much a yawner. I'm not a big Pacino fan (I think he's been in great films and he's been in horrible films). Nor am I a great fan of crime thrillers. But this film got decent ratings on IMDb so I decided to check it out.
The film is pretty much a cookie-cutter crime thriller. Nothing new or interesting is brought to the table. The characters are flat. They make dumb decisions that normal people probably wouldn't take, but it needed to contribute to the end result. I won't go into details as not to spoil it for those who will actually watch it. the acting was pretty much hit-or-miss. Pacino's character is realized in a manner I've seen in most of his performances. It's OK I guess the first half dozen or so times but then you start to wonder if he has the capacity to leave his range of comfort. Other performances are average to poor. Since many of the characters are played by attractive females, I don't think acting ability was of utmost importance.
The movie itself is forgettable. As I said earlier it brings nothing new to its genre. You're likely to forget about it 88 minutes after having watched it. To me it had made-for-TV or direct-to-video written all over it. My recommendation is to save your hard-earned money and wait to see it on USA Network.
The film is pretty much a cookie-cutter crime thriller. Nothing new or interesting is brought to the table. The characters are flat. They make dumb decisions that normal people probably wouldn't take, but it needed to contribute to the end result. I won't go into details as not to spoil it for those who will actually watch it. the acting was pretty much hit-or-miss. Pacino's character is realized in a manner I've seen in most of his performances. It's OK I guess the first half dozen or so times but then you start to wonder if he has the capacity to leave his range of comfort. Other performances are average to poor. Since many of the characters are played by attractive females, I don't think acting ability was of utmost importance.
The movie itself is forgettable. As I said earlier it brings nothing new to its genre. You're likely to forget about it 88 minutes after having watched it. To me it had made-for-TV or direct-to-video written all over it. My recommendation is to save your hard-earned money and wait to see it on USA Network.
The Descent
(2005)
A Bore of a Gore
27 March 2007
I must admit that I'm not a big fan of modern horror flicks, but this one got pretty good IMDb ratings and appeared, at first, to be different from the rest. Boy was I wrong. There was nothing original about this film other than the all-female cast of main characters. Ironically this makes the film even worse. You the un-original sequences aren't scary. I think the movie makers try to compensate for this by making the scenes *very* dark. But they're too dark. Half the time I cannot see what's going on, and the fact that most of the characters look and sound the same it's hard to tell what is happening to whom.
You don't really expect great acting or character development in a horror, so I won't even comment about that. But you do expect it to be scary. This movie was not. It's basically a series of overly dark scenes with various women screaming in them.
You don't really expect great acting or character development in a horror, so I won't even comment about that. But you do expect it to be scary. This movie was not. It's basically a series of overly dark scenes with various women screaming in them.
The Pursuit of Happyness
(2006)
You'll like it a lot better the first time you see it
15 March 2007
The first 30-45 minutes of this movie really reminded me of The Assassination of Richard Nixon in that both protagonists are struggling salesmen with poor judgement and even worse luck.
But for the most part the film becomes predictable. You know what's going to happen, so the question is does the rest of the movie carry you along and do you enjoy the ride. For me I started to lose interest. You really only see one side. We're supposed to feel for the protagonist and his son. Okay, I got that from the first few moments of the film, but it just continues on with a one-sided story as if the audience is supposed to believe there is a great conspiracy and the world it out to get him. I can maybe watch 30-minute show of car accidents but after that I start thinking "is there anything else?" In some ways I could relate to this movie. I had been raised by a poor single parent, and as a young adult I was the poor boy surrounded by rich people so in those ways the movie kept my interest.
It was good movie, but in the end I have to ask myself if it's one that I'm likely to watch again. The answer is I'd probably rather watch The Assassination... again. So I give it a 6/10.
But for the most part the film becomes predictable. You know what's going to happen, so the question is does the rest of the movie carry you along and do you enjoy the ride. For me I started to lose interest. You really only see one side. We're supposed to feel for the protagonist and his son. Okay, I got that from the first few moments of the film, but it just continues on with a one-sided story as if the audience is supposed to believe there is a great conspiracy and the world it out to get him. I can maybe watch 30-minute show of car accidents but after that I start thinking "is there anything else?" In some ways I could relate to this movie. I had been raised by a poor single parent, and as a young adult I was the poor boy surrounded by rich people so in those ways the movie kept my interest.
It was good movie, but in the end I have to ask myself if it's one that I'm likely to watch again. The answer is I'd probably rather watch The Assassination... again. So I give it a 6/10.
Fast Food Nation
(2006)
Too preachy
10 March 2007
Having watched A Scanner Darkly just previous to this film, I had high expectations. However, I was let down.
Although I agree with some, but not all, of the issues presented in the film, I think the film fails to come across to it's audience for couple of reasons. Probably the most obvious is that it's just too preachy. The "preachiness" of the film is at a level where it gets in the way of the story and therefore it comes across more of a sermon than entertainment. The second reason is I think they really tried to cram too much into the film. There are simply too many issues in the span of the movie and, even worse, I don't think either story makes it's point in the end. It's almost like seeing only the first half of 5 or six movies. Some of the characters could have been totally disregarded as they seem to contribute so little to the film.
It was a worthy attempt. So I give it 5/10.
Although I agree with some, but not all, of the issues presented in the film, I think the film fails to come across to it's audience for couple of reasons. Probably the most obvious is that it's just too preachy. The "preachiness" of the film is at a level where it gets in the way of the story and therefore it comes across more of a sermon than entertainment. The second reason is I think they really tried to cram too much into the film. There are simply too many issues in the span of the movie and, even worse, I don't think either story makes it's point in the end. It's almost like seeing only the first half of 5 or six movies. Some of the characters could have been totally disregarded as they seem to contribute so little to the film.
It was a worthy attempt. So I give it 5/10.
Tell Your Friends