garcianc2003 Reviews

Devs (2020)

Interesting premise, weak execution

[9/10 · 7 August 2020]

Rating: 5/10 (edit: I updated my rating to 9/10 upon second viewing)

I finally decided to watch Devs because of Alex Garland's stellar track record thus far. The concept did not disappoint. Like with Anihilation, Garland found a way to convey on the screen some very complex ideas, and he deserves credit for that.

However, the execution of the film/series could have been better.

Story: I won't go into detail regarding the story. Everyone who talks about this movie seems to be incredibly mindful of spoilers but, within the first 20 minutes of episode 1, it should be easy to guess where things are going. In a way, the story follows turns similar to Ex Machina. Ironically, and perhaps unintentionally humorous is that "Devs" completes the phrase (you will see what I mean if you get to the end). There are some huge plot-holes in this story, and I am not even talking about the scientific ones. For instance, the character of Jen simply disappears without explanation, and without Kenton's involvement, even though she was involved in a deception along with Lily. Nobody seems to care or ask what happened to Jen. The ending is, there is no other way to say this, terrible. The moral dilemma of the characters is not even touched upon during a final episode that is mostly filler.

Acting: There is some great acting, but mostly (at times) on the part of Nick Offerman and Zach Grenier. Also, I love some of the dialog given to Stephen McKinley Henderson's character.

Directing: Some of the episodes seem to have been directed by someone else. The style is not consistent throughout. For example, there are some episodes where the emotion of the story is palpably heavy (i.e. the first 2 episodes), while during the middle episodes, much more terrible things happen without much of a pause - and that is saying something in a story that moves so slowly.

Other nit-picky stuff: The choice of music was at times very good but I did not get the connection between 60s songs and religious chants. They did not seem to be associated with anything, though they sounded good. if you are an audio fanatic you will also hate how some of the microphones appeared to have distortion when the actors' voiceovers were recorded. There were many lens artifacts on some of the shots - I am not just talking about artistic lens-flare here and there; I mean even dirt on he lenses. During one of the scenes in episode 7, you can even see movement reflected behind two characters sitting at a table when only two characters are supposed to be in the room. These production mistakes gave the impression that the project was rushed.

I think us sci-fi fans are tougher on this movie because these concepts are seldom put in the hands of such a capable director, and we expected more "wow". I do recommend that people watch this series for the though-provoking concepts, both technological and philosophical, that it presents.

Flora (II) (2017)

As one of the characters says, "this is not good. Run!"

[1/10 · 10 March 2019]

During one of the early scenes in Flora, the characters are huddled around a campfire taking turns exchanging banter (as a lazy-writer's way of exposition) and getting drunk. One of the characters holds up a patch that says "Victorin University - 1929" and the camera focuses on the patch for a few seconds as if it were some form of product placement or a home shopping network sales pitch. An so it goes on throughout the movie. it seems like the writers were trying to explain every aspect of the movie to the audience and the actors themselves. However, the actors did not seem to get it either. The patch was a "surprise" design by the character showcasing it, but later in the film we see that everyone is wearing one already...

Nothing in this movie works. The acting and writing are so bad that it made the movie entertaining as an unintentional comedy. It was like an SNL parody sketch of Annihilation or The Happening.

Whoever was in charge of costume looks like they searched the internet for "1929 fashions" and made enough sets to hold the movie until all the characters were in jumpers. The 1929 period seems to have been chosen as a convenient way to remove technology from the plot as a potential plot hole, yet the little technology in the film was poorly researched. For example, a character holding a record player on his lap while rocking to the music should cause the player to skip; the breathing masks the characters used (and that are still used today) would prevent characters from speaking normally and also use oxygen canisters that only produce oxygen for an hour or less - the Navy uses a version of these masks called OBA (oxygen breathing apparatus) that I have worn too many times to care.

The ending is nothing short of pretentious. There was nothing the director or the writers did to support any conclusion, implicit or explicit.

There are so many more plot holes and inaccuracies in this movie that they are not even worth mentioning.

Infinity Chamber (2016)

Pure science fiction, as it used to be

[5/10 · 19 June 2018]

(5/10) Recently, I had been complaining that the science fiction genre was getting murky. Movies like Gravity and Salyut-7 are not science fiction, they are simply fiction or drama in my opinion (so why are they cluttering my feed?). Also, superhero movies are not science fiction. I feared that the genre as I had come to love in the tradition of Phillip K. Dick was being watered-down into a never ending stream of sequels that amounted to infomercials for merchandise.

So it was indeed refreshing to find Infinity Chamber among my streaming recommendations. I jumped at the chance and was delighted by the film, despite my 5/10 star rating.

The plot of a futuristic totalitarian regime trampling on people's liberties has that Phillip K. Dick tone, though there was not much of a social commentary made by the movie as a whole. I don't know if they just missed the mark or if the movie intentionally avoided those subjects. What was left was mildly entertaining, and mostly as an intellectual exercise in trying to unravel the plot.

Except for an adequate effort by Christopher Soren Kelly (Frank), the acting was horrible and not believable whatsoever. There are only four named characters in the film, and Christopher is in every scene, so the bulk of the acting load is thankfully on his shoulders.

The movie does a pretty good job at keeping us guessing, but the ending is pretty clear (in my opinion) and, therefore, unsatisfying. Although I have heard of different possible interpretations for the ending, there is only one possibility unless the viewer is willing to overlook one gigantic gaping plot hole posed by a key and a coffee shop owner with a selective memory.

I still recommend watching this film to anyone who wants to see "real" science fiction, as it used to be.

The Frame (2014)

Incredibly original and though-provoking

[8/10 · 21 April 2018]

8/10

What a find this gem of a movie was! The originality of the film is amazing. David Carranza's acting is incredibly captivating. The movie is thought-provoking in so many levels.

There is a fairy-tale quality to the stories of Alex and Sam, but in darker tones and with the substance of a thriller. The movie is a blending of stories and genres, all interweaving and working with each other in a thrilling and strangely beautiful ballet of movie-making magic.

Alex, played by Mike Carranza playing Mike Carranza, meets Sam, played by Tiffany Mualem playing Tiffany Mualem through the television in his living room... That must have sounded so confusing on paper, yet Director Jamin Winans never lets the viewer have to carry the weight of the plot in order to appreciate the movie. The complexity of the plot device is more Memento than Primer or Inception, if you need a point of reference. In other words, the viewer is never more confused than the characters themselves are.

The final act is the most brilliant, in my opinion, but where some viewers might mentally disconnect because the movie demands more of the viewer. I won't spoil it by going into details.

Do yourself a favor and watch this movie, and keep an eye on both Jamin Winans and Mike Carranza.

The Zohar Secret (2016)

A simple premise done very artfully

[7/10 · 17 April 2018]

7/10

I recently saw The Zohar Secret in Amazon Prime and decided to give it a shot.

The story begins with Max, a Roman soldier, being charged with the return of one of the recently discovered scrolls of Zohar to Jerusalem. Why this is so vitally important to anyone else but Max is not fully explained by the film and is arguably not critically important to the movie. Neither is the significance of Zohar, and whether this is the same Zohar of Jewish literature, explained.

It feels strange to say that this is not a spoiler, but Max dies in the first few minutes of the film, but only to come back in another time and place (always in the future) - a cycle that continues as long as the scroll is not returned to its rightful place. Following along in these episodes is Max's doppleganger, sometimes as a character of the time or other times as an alter ego, who acts as the antagonist and the only one who seems to know everything, including all that has happened to Max to that point. We are never sure if the doppleganger is real or imaginary. Was he cursed along with Max when they are both killed in the catacomb? or is Max imagining him? These leaps of time and space from Max's point of view are the most effective part of the film. After each leap, we share in Max's disorientation as we discover our new existence and share in his apprehension not knowing if he will die within minutes or live a full life only to learn at the end that the quest must still be fulfilled.

The cinematography and design of period pieces and wardrobe are excellent, particularly for a film with such a modest budget. As I was watching this film, I was wondering if this would be the best film I would see this year or if I would be disappointed at the end. Yes, early parts of this film are that brilliant.

The story wraps up with a seed of doubt in the viewer as to the reliability of our protagonist as the point of view of the story. Fine, I thought, and allowed myself to play along expecting this would be a perfect setup for some amazing reveal. However, in my opinion, the ending is disappointing and lacking in the artistry of the rest of the film. It gives the impression of a hurried production and a patchwork of different directions, anyone of which could have been the ending only to be all conveniently tidied up as the credits roll. Too bad. I was rooting to be swept away at the end of the quest.

Icarus (2017)

A deliciously brilliant sucker punch

[9/10 · 7 August 2017]

Icarus starts naively enough, like most documentaries with a desire to learn something. A "what if" that could make a good story; perhaps an episode-long piece on "60 Minutes" or "20/20".

Bryan Fogel, who directed it, is like a man wanting to learn what is like to be a tiger and, in wanting to get closer to the truth, inadvertently locks himself in the tiger's cage.

Icarus is like two stories. The silly, and somewhat egotistical quest of Bryan Fogel to prove that doping is rampant and easy to get away with (duh!) while helping himself win the amateur race that has eluded him for years. It is difficult to find a way to sympathize for any person during this part of the story. Then Bryan meets a very amusing and very cynical Russian scientist named Grigory Rodchenkov, who is going to help him. They talk via Skype frequently, and even their dogs participate. We then go into the obligatory montage of training, preparation, and failures that seems all too familiar. That is, until something changes.

There is a marked and brilliant turning point in the movie when Grigory, a smiling and joking class clown up until that point, faces directly at the camera in a Skype conversation with Bryan and asks "have you seen a movie about me?" From that point on, the story's point of view changes from Bryan to Grigory and we learn something that we cannot unlearn, and realize that there is no going back. We learn that Grigory is the real protagonist and we are heading in a very dark and dangerous direction for Grigory, for Bryan, and for those around them.

One cannot blame those viewers who, prior to that point, were bored and wondered if this would be yet another expose on how privileged guys like Bryan were cheating the system for a moment of temporary glory and how doping had permeated into the weekend warriors scene. One cannot blame those viewers for walking away (I almost did), if they thought that's where we were going. I am sure that's where Bryan thought he was going too. That is, until the cage locked behind us...

What I call the second story in Icarus is based on terror; a terror of the light, not the dark, to borrow a line from Grigory. Real people get killed (allegedly) - this is a documentary, so death is very real. The ride is frantic, claustrophobic, and bitter-sweet. There is an ending but, then again, there isn't one. At the end of the story, we care deeply for Grigory, Bryan, and even Max the dog, and continue to wonder "what if".

Icarus is one of the most brilliant documentaries that I have ever seen.

Finding Altamira (2016)

Beautiful and captivating

[8/10 · 26 March 2017]

Beyond some controversy in the history behind the story, Finding Altamira is, in its own right, a find worthy of celebration.

The cinematography of Jose Luis Alcaine is amazing. One could take almost any frame in this film and hang it on a wall as a work of art. I could have watched this film in mute and enjoyed just the visual majesty of every scene.

After doing work in films like the Spy Kids franchise, Antonio Banderas is developing a reputation, in my mind, as a recognizable actor who brings attention to otherwise obscure movies, not to drive up the budget, but to elevate attention to the art. I would have never watched Automata, had I not been wondering what Antonio Banderas was doing in that movie; only to be wonderfully surprised again. In this movie, I would say that his acting was adequate, but once again, after the Automata experience, I decided to give the movie a chance. I am so glad I did.

My favorite scenes were those involving Rupert Everett (Monsinor) and Golshifteh Farahani (Conchita). The cinematography was almost like watching an oil painting, with barely any movement, yet the tension and intensity of every scene was incredible. Was it sexual? Was it a power struggle? Was is a tug-of-war of morality? I could have watched them all day.

The little girl in the film, Allegra Allen (Maria), as most child actors tend to be, is just too precocious in this movie and the character almost did not work for me. In my opinion, the point of view of the story shifted too much from the child in the beginning, the father in the middle, and the mother at the end. I believe the story would have been better served if the arc of Conchita's story would have remained the focus throughout.

There was an "affair of the heart" storyline which was totally unnecessary, in my opinion, and only included to generate more scenes and conflict for secondary actors. I believe the movie would have been just fine without diving into that part of the story and leaving it as wistful glances between two characters.

The story, whether parts are true or fictionalized, is simple enough and I would suggest, secondary to this film.

You should watch this movie if only for watching how beautiful the craft of movie making can be.

Collateral Beauty (2016)

Much better than the critics say

[7/10 · 24 March 2017]

I finally decided to watch this movie and I am glad I did.

There are many things that work well for this movie. The ensemble cast is a producer's dream. Too bad the script and some of the plot failed to take full advantage of them.

It is a very tricky proposition when a movie's plot begins by asking the audience to feel complicit in a deception. We saw this play badly in Passengers. Collateral Beauty's plot is predictable enough that most people will play along, guessing correctly that a double deception is at play. The script and plot choices leave many of the characters just hanging. Ed Norton (Whit), Will Smith (Howard), and Helen Mirren (Brigitte) get some of the best scenes.

Whit's storyline fades away with just a hint of a possible resolution. The teased love story with Amy (Keira Knightely) never happens. I was expecting a Meet Joe Black type re-introduction at the end with Whit and his daughter sitting on a park bench and them meeting the real Amy for the first time.

The movie is meant to be an emotional/spiritual drama with all the formulaic pieces one would expect. The story is framed around 3 "why's" (Love, Time, Death) that, according to Howard, drive us all. But the movie is not about any of those, per se. It is about grief. It is about a grief so profound that extinguishes any other reason (any other why) and, in portraying this, Will Smith delivers astoundingly. His character, Howard, is trying to cope with the loss of his 6 year old daughter and, two years later, is failing miserably and his world is crumbling around him. His business partners, after numerous failed attempts and desperate to save Howard's company, try a more creative mode of intervention in order to reach Howard where his emotional state has taken him.

I am shocked at what I am about to write but, in a movie that includes Ed Norton, Helen Mirren, and Kate Winslett, Will Smith delivered the best acted scenes. Although some of Howard's scenes with his wife were not so good.

The biggest problem I have with the movie's plot is with the Madeline character and a twist that felt more like a cheap shot. The earlier interactions between Howard and Madeline did not support the plot twist, in my opinion. I think the movie ends a few minutes after that reveal with a quick montage and the characters almost literally walking into the sunset. The rushed ending is my second biggest problem with the plot.

That the dialog is cheesy and full of clichés and platitudes in this type of movie is like saying that film noir movies are too dark. So I won't say much more on that.

If you have read some of my previous reviews, you might have read about my father's battle with Alzheimer's. Sadly, he passed away very recently. I don't know if I would have understood Collateral Beauty the same way had I seen it before, but I get it. The words in the movie, cheesy and preachy as they may be, were all directed at me and I felt them profoundly, even moved to tears. I believed these characters, who I knew (well not really) were acting out a deception on Howard. Particularly Amy's lines about love and the knowledge of love. I was feeling what Howard was feeling when Death, Love, and Time spoke to him. Howard suspected that he was deceiving himself and we were supposed to suspect that the characters were all part of a horrible lie, but I did not care. I clung to every word of that script that most critics would burn and then bury. I wanted Death to tell me it was going to be beautiful, Love to tell me that it did not die because my dad did, and time to tell me that I have done the best with the time I have been given.

I suppose that is what grief really is for some of us; it allows us to find the collateral beauty.

Evolution (2015)

Some art, very little movie

[4/10 · 14 August 2016]

Evolution looked interesting in the previews, which left me wanting to see more. Sadly, after watching the movie, I was left feeling like I had walked somewhere but stayed in the same place.

The movie is a very stylistic an artful rendering of some place near the water where children play and their mothers care for them. The strangeness of the place slowly (and I mean slowly) becomes obvious. We soon notice that there are no grown adult males, for instance. There is very little that I can say that will spoil the movie, but I will refrain from going into anything that might be construed as a plot element. Suffice it to say, the movie is about 90% ambiance, with some beautiful shots. The underwater shots contrastingly more beautiful than the starkness and dullness of the village life. There were shots in which I measured a character literally staring at the lens for nearly one minute - and yes, I looked at my watch.

Evolution is, sadly, like riding in a beautiful elevator with some soothing background music playing through ceiling-mounted speakers. We feel like we are enveloped in the ambiance of that moment, staring in the same direction as everyone else. We may or may not notice the music, the ornate trim, or the polished floor. We just want to get to our floor. Or, perhaps, if it takes too long, we may consciously notice what song is playing. Nevertheless, at the end, the doors open and we get out, the elevator not leaving any impression on us. It got us somewhere, but we don't care, we are here where we always thought we would be, no thanks to the elevator. That is Evolution, a mildly satisfying piece of semi-conscious background images and sounds that dumps us at the end of the ride and lets us go on with our lives - we don't know if we liked it, it was beautiful but we are indifferent and only thankful that we did not go crashing, because it could have been worse.

OK, so where was I going before? .... oh yes, here is my floor.

Embers (I) (2015)

Could have been so much more

[5/10 · 6 August 2016]

I could not help but keep thinking about the Gabriel Garcia Marquez novel "100 Years of Solitude" and the insomnia plague that invaded the town of Macondo along with contagious amnesia that attacked many of Macondo's residents. They would have to write notes like "this is a cow, you must milk it daily" and label the chairs and tables. I also kept waiting for Embers to take me to a similar place of magical wonder. It almost did but then the movie was over.

There were also many technical inconsistencies in the plot that, for a thought-provoking movie proved too much of a distraction for viewers' busy minds that are trying to absorb every detail on the screen and make something out of them. If Miranda and her father had been in the bunker for 9 years, why does everything outside have such a "recently abandoned" appearance? Is the whole thing an experiment? a hoax? Nobody is dirty, people are relatively neatly groomed (i.e. nobody has 9 years' worth of unkempt hair). Also, why do Miranda and her father speak Spanish if she was born in Singapore? Is she really who she thinks she is? Was the "self-check" a way to overcome the amnesia? a trick developed to help her be Miranda? was she really sick without her own knowledge? I mentally gave the movie the excuse that perhaps they were diplomats and moved on. But, after seeing the ending, it would have been so nice if the plot could have gone in any of all those other directions.

Perhaps I should mention that my father suffers from Alzheimer's, so lately I find myself looking for movies that play with the concept of memory and the memory of love. My mother recently told me the story of how the dog across the street "decided" to love my dad and how the dog would come over every morning, and how my dad would meet the dog every morning (sometimes "for the first time") and feel the happiness of new friendship. My mother would feel happy for my dad in those moments, even though my dad is very sick. She found the feelings conflicting. For those very personal reasons, the story of Ben/Mark and Katie in Embers was to me the only redeeming part of this movie. I kept hoping that they would stumble upon the child, then find a matching bracelet, and the child would love them... like my dad must do in his mind... but Embers never went there either.

True love is not something one decides to do, I believe it is a form of knowledge. We know that we love, we don't remember that we do. And that is the look I see on my father, even when he doesn't quite remember my name or thinks that I am my brother. If only the movie had gone there more. Then again, as some already hinted, we have seen that before in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

Ironically, if I could forget reading that Marquez' novel, I might have liked this movie more.

Robot World (2015)

Interesting but with some serious flaws

[4/10 · 16 May 2016]

My 4/10 score is perhaps inflated, due to my very low expectations going into watching this movie. With a title like "Robot World" and the goofy poster, I wasn't expecting anything more than a B movie to entertain me on a lazy Sunday. Setting the bar that low, the movie delivered better than expected; just not 1,000 times better.

First of all, there is only one human character in the entire plot of the movie if we don't count the radio voice and the found film. And, yes, there is a bit of "found footage" that too conveniently moves the story forward by leaps and bounds just about when the viewer is beginning to get restless.

The fact that the pilot seems to know how to operate the projector, but not the handgun during the found footage scene was one of many goofs throughout the film. For example, how is it that the two worlds have identical cultural customs for grooming, clothing, use of tools, interfaces, etc? How come none of the robots came to investigate the crash site? At one point, the pilot was walking over what was obviously a path then appeared shocked at finding evidence of intelligent life. Parachutes, combustion/fire, gravity, etc. all work too conveniently as expected and Earth-like for not ever having set foot on this planet before.

The premise of the story is the most interesting part, but so much more could have been done with it - I am sure, based on the resources evident on screen that there were budget limitations. The pace and some of the shots seem to attempt to pay homage to 2001: A Space Odyssey. However, these are vague similarities. The story also seemed to have a Philip K Dick tone - which is more to say that it felt like a short story stretched into a movie with an attempt at a social/moral message.

Once I was committed to watching the film and started getting into the story, I kept praying that the story would not fall into the "all aliens speak English" category. It came dangerously close, but I credit the movie for twisting the premise around. There is one shot of a newspaper that is shown in a strange language and switches to English when the camera pans across it that is the only tell-tale indication that what the pilot sees and what we see is not in the same language. We learn later that the unfamiliar one was the pilot. This was reminiscent to The Hunt for Red October when Captain Ramius was speaking in Russian and switched to English mid-sentence as a device to allow the viewers to follow the story. Except that in the case of Reconnoiter, the device served as a plot device that some viewers might consider a cheap shot. Unfortunately, once the viewer catches on, the movie turns into a one trick pony and there is not enough plot left to carry it to the end.

The conclusion of the story and the ending of the film were extremely disappointing. Are we to believe that the arrival of the machine and the pilot triggered a religious war that ended up in the extermination of all humanity? Yet, that humanity capable of such high level of automation could not simply send a probe to check out the machine and make contact on their own? Without a better and more satisfying third act, the viewer just feels left hanging.

Great Performances: Turandot at the Forbidden City of Beijing (1999) Season 27, Episode 16

Excellent performance, DVD could have been better

[8/10 · 4 July 2006]

I considered going to this performance until I saw the price tag. Seeing the DVD, I wonder if I would have enjoyed it in person. The audience looked uncomfortable, there were tourists taking flash photography during the performance, etc. The performance was great and the staging was superb. The ninja executioner was brilliant, especially for DVD audiences who may not fully appreciate the static elements of the staging. The DVD I am not so happy with. I have a San Francisco Opera's laserdisc performance that aired on PBS that is still a better experience than this DVD. Why no Dolby Digital? The PCM audio track is a joke. I also happen to own a Placido Domingo, London Philarmonic, CD performance of Turandot which sounds much better than this PCM track. For instance, the beginning of the second scene on the second act (after the Ping, Pang, Pong trio) when the imperial court assembles should sound thunderous and full of pomp - in the PCM track it is as flat as a radio broadcast. I still love Turandot, as you might have guessed. I think Zubin Metha is a living treasure. I also applaud the producers for the courage to bring this performance to the Forbidden City. Perhaps the next time I can afford to go in person.