Reviews written by registered user
|77 reviews in total|
Gets off to an interesting start... not what you would expect, as
obstacles to trying to exonerate the (apparently obviously) guilty
arise, and are seemingly insurmountable.
'Justice don't play right when colour is involved...'. An interesting quote from the African-American prosecutors who struggle with some 'shortcuts' they took to get the original conviction.
Characterized by good performances.. bit of gruff language and some sensuality, but not like what you see on many cable-network produced shows, or European equivalents.
Now available on Netflix.
Koukussa, aka 'Hooked', can be streamed on AcornTV, for the price of a
membership. Acorn has dozens of European series, notably British.
'Hooked' involves a drug-cop, Oskari, in Finland who has a home, a full-time girlfriend, and a very bright, but delicate, son of 16. Out of the blue, the boy's mother, Krista(now mid 30's) shows up, apparently trying to re-connect. Krista has a shady 'hippie-lifestyle' kind of past, but the statute of limitations on her sundry drug charges has expired. So, she is a free agent, but her old boyfriend wants nothing to do with her. Particularly, he does not want 'their' son to know she even exists, and, naturally, is not anxious for his new gal pal to get familiar with his old love interest.
Krista carries on, however, scraping out a living working at a night club, and occasionally, boarding with an old friend, an aging drug partner, helping him move some 'product' for a small profit. In time, she is brought into contact with competitors in the drug trade, notably the odious 'Kode', whose brother-in-law has a ripening cocaine trade operating behind a respectable veneer.
Kode has designs on Krista, envying her easy-looks and seamless method of moving product, but Krista seems to want to go 'straight'. In time, though, she hooks up with her 'ex', Oskari to work as an informant, feeling that this will be her ticket OUT of the area and the drug trade.
Sadly, complications ensue on all fronts, impacting a potential drug bust, and the personal fortunes of all the main characters. There is a certain dark 'Greek tragedy' quality to most of these European crime series. So, if you want happy endings, rent a typical Hollywood rom-com, with its mandatory argument & break-up at the 75-minute mark, only to be resolved with happiness everywhere 15 minutes later. 'Hooked' is NOT for those who prefer light fare. It is a compelling but somewhat-gloomy story, with typically conflicted, complicated characters, and some graphic content you may prefer to fast-forward. If you like that sort of thing, try 'Hooked' (aka Koukussa - 2015).
Ignore the negativity here at IMDb about this show. This is an interesting but complex mini-series that examines what happens when a monster corporation with good connections gets into political intrigue for the sake of profit, and tries to cover it up. We see the plot unfolding from three pairs of eyes: a young political activist (with a blue-blood background); a female soldier from an elite team who take down a wanted terrorist; and a lawyer who has signed on as an employee to defend a company that is in 'over their heads'. This show lacks the explicit language or sensual activity of series of this genre produced in Europe, although BBC (and, lately, the Danish) have certainly produced a bumper crop of hard-hitting (but adult-rated), exposé-type of shows, broadcast over 9-15 weeks. Nice to see an American show take up the challenge to produce a quality non-cheesy, but (PG-13) offering. My only complaint is that the remaining (6?) episodes of Season-1 are not yet available at Netflix - so, we will all have to wait for a final resolution. M Gull (May-2015)
I was intrigued by this movie when I caught it on NetFlix a few years
ago (sadly, it's no longer available there). An elite FBI team (for
some reason) lobbies for, and then is assigned, despite much
opposition, to investigate a well-planned terrorist attack on an
American compound in the 'Kingdom', presumably Saudi Arabia. Jamie Foxx
and Chris Cooper are compelling (I will watch anything with Chris
Cooper in it - awesome in supporting roles in 'Horse Whisperer, 'Sea
Biscuit' and the Bourne entries, and magnificent in 'Breach'), as are
the actors who play the Arab nationals who 'host' the FBI team.
There is much culture clash to be overcome when the FBI team arrives, toting Jennifer Garner as the mandated-by-cliché tough chick. A lot of conflict must be overcome if the team is to get to the bottom of the who and how causes of the attack, including restrictions on where the team may stray in their investigation, plus some conflict with the embittered American nationals who were the object of the attack.
A surprise abduction and attempted rescue climaxes this story, which will have your pulse racing, but, generally, I found the dialogue between Jamie Foxx's team and the Arab liaison staff, plus the growing bond of friendship, most compelling. You will have to put up with an (unnecessary) array of f-bombs, unless you catch a sanitized version of the film. 9/10
Notwithstanding the pleas for higher ratings from our beloved
colleagues here at IMDb, I am recommending you pass. I really wanted
Will Ferrell, and Mark Wahlberg to be funny, but, the truth is, after
less than an hour, I turned it off, not really caring how the story
ends, or how the main characters fare (just so readers don't accuse me
of 'not giving it a chance').
Hollywood has trouble turning out non-clichéd comedies these days - and this is an iteration of the 'cop-buddy' movie, with silly robberies, hijacks, and idiot violence (sometimes self-inflicted, as in the case of the 2 heroic cops envied by Wahlberg and Ferrell. Ferrell (who plays an accountant type) is a nerdy pencil-pusher married to a drop-dead gorgeous woman (Eve Mendes) -- a hot-tempered Wahlberg has been busted to a desk job after accidentally shooting a celebrity mistaken for a mugger (maybe the only original funny bit in the whole movie). These two yearn for the action of genuine police work in the street, but are ill-matched to work as a team, Wahlberg frequently criticizing everything about Ferrel (including his feminine farts). The two try to resolve their differences, but this regresses back to hostility several times in the film, when the writers realized there wasn't going to be anything else to laugh at.
Lazy writing, a lack of genuinely-original material, and uneven development of character & plot leave you with a sense that the whole thing was conceived over several drinks at a frat party (where proper masculine farting was, no doubt, exhibited en masse).
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Someone frames our poor little girl from Montreal, and pulls off a
tremendous caper by getting her to 'switch' her PQ apartment for a
trendy flat in Paris. Paris cops show up and detect a body. Problems
begin, including identity theft (ramped up on the Richter scale).
A thrill a moment, and excellent hand-held camera work (shot in 35 days by 2 guys with hand-helds, reportedly) during numerous chase scenes. Sadly, our innocent heroine commits several felonies while fleeing and trying to prove her innocence: if O.J. is in jail for life for storming a trophy convention, while armed, just to retrieve his own property, how much time would our PQ girl get if she had her 'on-the-run' misadventure in the good old USA?
I mean - Harrison Ford escapes custody in the Fugitive, but he is careful to avoid committing other serious crimes while on the run (he even saves a couple of lives) right? Our heroine has to commit so many serious crimes to get through this thing, I was thinking she might have been better to confess to the murder she was framed for, stay in custody, and try contriving an appeal from behind bars!
If you have read the 'Dirk Pitt' novel-series, you always wonder how
they would fare as films. Cussler is a brilliant story-teller, linking
real-life legends with hero-villain 'save-the-world' action plots. He
isn't anxious to cooperate with movie-producers, however, since they
typically mess up the script and fill it with CGI and idiot explosions.
Sahara was constructed with pride & care by McConaughey, if you listen to the narratives. He's too much of a pretty boy to look like the image of Dirk Pitt in the book, but he is very watchable. Likewise, Zahn does not resemble the linebacker-like Giordino, but the two have good chemistry, and Cruz is quite charming in support. Macy was born to play Sandecker.
I believe this is the first 'Dirk Pitt' production to make it to the big screen since 'Raise the Titanic', which was a futuristic novel, accurately predicting the kinds of underwater reconnaissance tools that came into being decades later and were used to find and photograph the real Titanic. 'Titanic' lacked a credible lead (some guy who never acted again, and no one had heard of him before he made this one - sadly, he was a stiff). Action films need a likable lead - Harrison Ford has made a career of it, and he could have done 'Pitt' in his younger years. McConaughey does fine here - he won't be challenging for an Olivier award on the British stage soon, but he is engaging as Pitt, in Sahara.
I don't get the people who criticize the plot lines of these Cussler stories, thus demonstrating that they never read a 'Pitt' book. There are many more 'Pitt' books ideal for movie scripts, and I hope that Cussler allows us to enjoy them, even if McConaughey isn't his first choice.
Klondike was much-hyped on Discovery, and looked interesting. As a
period-piece, it works on some levels, offering a gritty look at the
Gold-rush era in the Yukon. However, the story-telling and logic of the
plot is sadly wanting. It's almost as if the scriptwriters didn't want
to use any clichés in their dialogue - so, they wrote obscure, pompous
phrases that are not clichés - but they don't make any sense either. I
wouldn't say that the acting is flawed - Tim Roth is brilliant as a
psycho land baron-villain - but the lines they are given just don't
explain the plot or what the characters are supposed to be thinking.
We watched 'Alaska-Ultimate Survivor' during which we saw how real-life survival experts dealt with frigid cold, especially after unexpected encounters with icy water. The Director should have watched that series before setting up some of his shots. (Once your core temperature drops, so do you).
There was also some explicit 'skin' scenes, thrown in to further narcotize the viewers who may have been nodding off. Unnecessary. Try writing a realistic script instead, Ridley Scott!
It tells a story, but is light on facts, and heavy on viewpoint. It
does a good job of showing that the 'anti-climate-change' spokesmen
have nothing under the hood - they are being paid to launch a
'reasonable doubt' defence to prop up extant energy and emission
policies. The film just doesn't dig into the scientific data that
proves climate change is in process - and it doesn't adequately refute
the bogus claims of the other side either. It just tells us that the
true scientific facts are overwhelming and empirical, and we see plenty
of evidence in visuals of the kind of catastrophes that wacky weather
I thought, for instance, that 'Crude Awakening' was very thorough in detailing the effects of oil-over-dependency. They interviewed experts from all over the world, including highly-placed executives of OPEC nations, and they clearly explained how the current oil consumption is unsustainable. Likewise, 'Inside Job' dragged into the limelight those cringing CEO's and lobbyists who led America to a financial brink while lining their own pockets. I had hoped that D.L.B. would reach the same heights.
I still gave it 8 out of 10, for having the guts to take on those snobby, arrogant quasi-intellectuals who keep saying we are dumb and naïve for believing the world's ecology is in a mess - and we can blame ourselves for it.
If the performances were so great, why only rate it a 7 out of 10? To
begin with, I watched this with my kids back in the 80's and we got
hooked on 9-ball right away--we would play in this garage, and I would
dominate until one of my younger kids dropped the 9-ball by accident,
ending my streak. So, the film has sentimental value to me.
In the clear light of day, however, I re-watched it recently, and recalled what annoyed me the first time: Newman's reactions to Vince seem inconsistent and inexplicable. When Vince (Cruise) does what Newman (Eddie) tells him to do, Eddie is angry - when Vince does the opposite, Eddie gets mad (once, even driving off and leaving him). I didn't get it.
We are supposed to view Eddie as the mentor here, but, frequently, the roles reverse. For example, when Eddie decides to play a competitive game against a stranger (a young Forest Whittaker), he finds he is the victim of a clever con-artist -- he throws a hissy-fit, but Vince's reaction is the correct one: "Forget it - we'll get this guy next time." Eddie won't listen. Who is the impetuous protegé now?
There are some great pool sequences, however, and a glorious scene where Vince - armed with a totebox containing a world-class cue - encounters the Hall #1 player, who asks: "What have you got there?" "Doom", replies Vince with a big smile. Wish I had the game to say that.
So, if can tolerate characters that react unevenly to situations, and aren't always likable, you might enjoy this unique film featuring Paul Newman's only Oscar-winning role (he shoulda won for Cool Hand Luke).
|Page 1 of 8:||       |