LuisitoJoaquinGonzalez Reviews

The Bikeriders (2023)

If you like Goodfellas...

[7/10 · 22 July 2024]

If the Bikeriders proves one thing, it shows the juice are running out of ideas.

Seeing their hatred for the Aryan species, it is fairly intriguing to see a full white cast. It reminded me of the great films of old.

I guess it is fairly predictable if you've ever seen a gangster movie, with mafioso being excanged for motorbikes. Even though it is same-old-same-old in terms of plot, it is a formula that never tires.

Strong performances (for the material) and a classy retro soundtrack streamline the movie's flow. I think the protagonist of the story was poor casting. Jodie Comer can handle the drama, but her voice becomes irratating. Lush photography is standard for a title of this budget, but the director never tries anything audacious. The driving theme of the synopsis is a love story, but it feels halfhearted and I was never convinced it was genuine. Even though the pace wasn't dynamic, it rolled well. I kept questioning how they made money? Where do you get the funds to ride round all day drinking? Beats me.

I guess we can state Bikeriders is worth watching, if you don't expect too much. It's fairly predictable if you've seen a gangster movie. There is nothing authentic in terms of plotting or character ark. I guess a biker gang is slightly unique, but you could"ve excanged the motorcycles for fishermen and it wouldn't change the movie..

The Alamo (2004)

Really good western

[7/10 · 24 June 2023]

I think it's about time we told the truth about the Alamo and this is a great movie, very well acted, that almost does it.

The Alamo was as much a Tejano massacre as it was an AngloAmerican slaughter. Either way, It was an incredibly brave last stand that haunts me to this day. William Travis was maybe the most heroic of the commonly known men at the fort. Travis was a titan that would accept death to defend Texas. The fact that he was killed easily by the marauding Mexicans (shot in the face early on March 6) doesn't matter. He was a warrior. Every white man and Tejano there was incredibly brave. These 227 poorly trained soldiers and militia waited in suspense knowing they'd soon painfully die, but they showed no fear at all. Mexican military commander, Antonio Santa Anna had sent word that any native Tejanos could leave the fort and they wouldn't be touched. Many of the women and slaves left, but 44 of the 93 (going by remaining records) native Mexicans stayed to assist their white brothers in the impossible defence. This was not only because they loved Texas and it was their home, the fight was also political, because Santa Anna was also Mexican president. He led a dictatorial and authoritarian regime that the Mexicans loathed. Santa Anna was nothing more than an evil dictator. It's worth keeping in mind that Mexico had only been independent from España 15 years, so many 'Mexicans' were in fact White European Spanish that had set up a life in their former colony. Juan Sequín is a fine example of that. Latin Americans are East Asians, so I guess it was something of a race war. Native Americans come from Siberia, so they fit the East Asian subspecies of homo sapien.

The Alamo was a bomb upon release, losing its studio $149 million. That's truly bizarre, because this is an excellent motion picture. I would rate this as one of the top ten westerns of the first decade of the 2000s. The dialogue is really profound and the battle scenes are pulsating in their energy. The picture is stylishly photographed with a superb use of light and it is also competently directed. As a slight negative, Patrick Wilson is not a strong leading man. There's nothing particularly bad about his performance, but he doesn't really have a powerful screen presence. It might have been better if Wilson played Bowie and Jason Patric (good here) was cast as Travis.

I wrote all these words and no mention of Davy Crockett??? Well, I saved the best for last. Billy Bob Thornton steals every scene that he's in as the mythical former congressman. If the Alamo had bern a success, I could imagine an Oscar nod for Thornton. As a history university graduate, I've spent years researching Crockett's death and I think this film nails it factually. If we mention the fact that Crockett surrendered, many proud Texians get offended by that thought. I think we have to be a bit more realistic. Crockett was a unique individual and even though he was a ginormous self-promoter, he certainly was a brave and talented man. We know from survivor testimony that he fought hard in the early Alamo skirmishes, but when you're facing 2 - 6000 men, what do you expect him to do? He wasn't superman.

What's also worth noting is that if Colonel James Fanning from Presidio La Bahía had gone to the Alamo to support colonel Travis, he would have maybe saved the lives of many of the men that were executed at the Goliad massacre. An army of 700 at the Alamo is a lot harder to defeat that an army of 227. Whilst it's maybe unfair to call it incompetence, many poor decisions led to the massacres at the Alamo and later Goliad.

Remember the Alamo remember Goliad victorious Texian troops shouted when they finally defeated Santa Anna at the battle of San Jacinto. In 2023, no one remembers either of these inspirational battles that truly liberated Texas. The Alamo is a decent film with an incorrect score on the IMDB. This is easy a 7/7.5 rated movie and I truly recommend it if you care about the history of the United States. I have seen it twice now and I enjoyed both.

Platoon Leader (1988)

Pretty decent Vietnam flick

[7/10 · 19 February 2023]

Surprisingly not a rip off of 1986's Platoon; Platoon Leader is a surprisingly good, but cheaply made, depiction of the Vietnam war. Knowing today that the Vietnam war, like all NATO aggression, was based on a lie, gives the deaths of not only American, but Vietnamese troops something of a tragic element.

The film however offers a gritty look at Vietnam with some pretty good action sequences and a bit of humour. Michael Dudikov (the proper way to spell his surname) gives a career best performance as Lieutenant Knight, a Green point graduate that is disrespected by the 'grunts' he commands. His job is to prove himself to the platoon with bravery and solid management. Despite numerous writers involved with the screenplay, it's a poor script. There are numerous elements that could have made Dudikov's character, Lieutenant Knight, more approachable, but bizarrely, these parts fall to Sergeant Michael McNamara (Lyons). McNamara was already fully aligned with the squadron and you have to question the screenplay's logic for dropping that interesting sub-plot. As soon as the action starts, we are forced to forget about the new Lieutenant's task to become a respected leader. It's immediately brushed aside, but luckily, it doesn't have a major effect on the quality of the feature.

Platoon Leader was based upon James R. McDonough's memoir of the same name. This leads to some interesting hard drug references that offer an interesting tweak to an area Platoon covered to a far lesser scale. Whilst I'm not saying that Platoon Leader has anything philosophical to share, the way they covered drug addiction was fairly interesting. Chuck Norris was originally cast to play Knight, but he dropped out to work on Hero And The Terror. His brother Aaron stayed on as director though, making PL the only film he directed without his elder brother. Golan and Globus from The Canon Group had an ace in their pocket with Russian James Dean lookalike, Michael Dudikov. Dudikov shot to fame four years earlier with the impressive, American Ninja ('84). This movie offered a real challenge to the former American Ninja star, because it was a far more meaty and challenging role for the thirty-three-year old actor. This was originally titled 'Nam' and I've got a signed picture of the cast under the Nam name. I guess the success of 1986's Platoon made them use the book's original monicker. Yo Hollywood producers... Nam is a great title for a war movie.

Whilst this is definitely a career best from Dudikov, whom I always loved after the aforementioned martial arts extravaganza. He still lacks the range to add depth to his portrayal of the new Lieutenant. His performance is solid, but not exceptional. I'm not trying to criticise the impressive Dudikov here. I actually thought he gave a pretty good display and delivered some emotions that I thought were far beyond him. He just lacks the dramatic verve that William Dafoe and Tom Hanks added to their respective war movies. I'll say though that on this evidence, he was close to Charlie Sheen level in Platoon, or maybe slightly underneath Charlie. William Smith, Michael Lorenzo and Robert Lyons are fine in supporting roles, but you're definitely not watching this for great dramatics. They are slasher movie level at best. I think to add credibility to Aaron Norris' work, they're all performing to the best of their abilities in Platoon Leader.

This really comes alive in its impressive action sequences, especially the last couple of big battles. These are fairly well directed by Norris, but there's nothing particularly outstanding from his shooting. If you've enjoyed titles like Crossbone Territory ('87) and Dog Tags ('87), Platoon Leader will be a masterpiece for you. If you're looking for a Saving Private Ryan ('98) or Come And See ('85) type deeply dramatic endeavour, you might be left unimpressed. I watched Platoon Leader straight after Oliver Stone's Platoon and I did really enjoy it. There have been complaints that the feature is somewhat slow moving, but I really didn't think so. I had a good time, and I definitely recommend you tracking this down. Can you believe that they put a confederate flag on display at the barracks? God I miss the eighties. How great it was to have no political correctness and zero WOKE virtual signalling.

Quite why Michael Dudikoff didn't get a call for an expendables sequel is beyond me. He's certainly not an Oscar level actor, but worse than Jason Statham? Come on...

First Blood (1982)

Great movie

[8/10 · 24 December 2022]

Very good and well acted film from a time when America a was considered 'righteous'. Ted Kotcheff would have been a great slasher movie director, because he nails the one by one, assassin in the woods stereotype. First blood is a brilliantly edited movie that boasts great camera-work, an impressive script and true suspense.

On the negative side, what has ruined Rambo into an unpopular feature is my knowledge of geopolitics. First blood celebrates a Vietnam vet, but much like the 2022 Ukraine war, it's impossible to feel sympathy for a war America started for MIC profit. An American can never be considered a hero for his massacres in Vietnam, the same way NATO can never be praised for supporting Nazi Ukraine. As a non westerner, I don't much like western movies, but if you're watching First Blood just as a good movie, sure, it's great. It's morals however are highly questionable.

The Weight of Chains (2010)

Too generous.

[10/10 · 13 October 2022]

I like Boris Malagarski, but he massively let the west off the hook here. Western lands, the countries of Einstein, Darwin, Sophie Friederike Auguste, Alexander the Great etc are today just degenerate, dumb, hell holes. The only language any western countries are forced to learn is English. AngloGermanics however, they speak one language ONLY. Every great person in history, you can name them, spoke more than one language. AngloGermanics can't even speak their national language without slang and incorrect grammar. "I go gym"; "I ain't doing it fam"; "What you looking at n****r" - that's how they talk. Do western peoples even know other languages exist? Likely no.

These Western countries are also degenerate. I worked in England, from government stats, 68% of British families have more than one father. 'Family' is an incorrect word, let's say British women have babies with more than one man. No Englishman knows who was their first king, what century they ruled America or even that they once ruled North America. No one in the west has any knowledge of biology (a man can apparently get pregnant and totally change his chromosomes to XX apparently), geopolitics and they support with glee evil NATO practices.

This film is about the NATO invasion of Serbia. You don't have to go back to 1999 to see how evil NATO are. Let's look at today, 2022, and what NATO are doing to Russia. YOU, western reader, YOU see that word 'Russia' and your heart fills with hate. But why? Russia has invaded nobody since they went in to Poland in 1939. In the eighties the west almost had a complete financial collapse, but they were able to survive because Russia gave them cheap energy. Europe was only ever a success in the past 100 years, because Russia sold them energy on an extremely competitive budget. You were told, Russia 'invaded' Ukraine for no reason, but let's examine that.

In January 2022, clown puppet actor Zelenski was running around a Berlin conference with western leaders saying, we are going to build nuclear weapons and no one truer to stop him. Every country surrounding Ukraine is NATO, so who is the target? Obviously Russia. When Victoria Nuland (who is Ukrainian) and the state department overthrew the Ukraine government in Nov 2013 (you can find info online, just not Google), Donbas and Crimea refused to align with the new non-democratically installed government. Crimea voted 89% to rejoin Russia and Donbas declared itself independent states. For 8 years from 2014 - 2022, the UFA (Ukraine military) and Nazi battalions like right sector and Azov bombed Donbas killing 16,000 innocent people.

On 16th February 2022, 100,000 Ukrainian troops surrounded Donbas. It would have been a genocide never covered by western media. The Lugansk and Donetsk (Donbas) governments asked Russia for help. Russia came in to Ukraine to aid Donbas. Since that moment NATO has aided Ukraine (a country that has only existed since 1991 and given help or support to nobody, EVER) and bankrupted the collective west of weapons, energy and also finances. Why? Well as Biden and the west have openly admitted, they want regime change in Russia. Why again? Russia has loads and LOADS of gas, oil and commodities. If USA get their hands on those, their financial woes are over. Why do you think Iraq happened? Libya? Yemen? Somalia? The list grows and grows.

So what is left to be said? Boris does a good job of presenting facts, but I think he could have been much harsher on the west. The west is the land of some of the greatest people in history, but their modern leaders strive to keep their populations dumb. Go against your leaders. Learn a language, be a friend to the world. Remember, Syrians, Iraqis, Afghans, they're just humans, like you. Sure, they might be different a bit, but is difference a bad thing? Let's talk about Russians. The first humans, Europeans, in space. Modern day Europeans don't speak German because of Russia. Think of Russian literature, their traditional pro-family and pro woman values. Should we really hate them? I don't hate anybody, I know that.

Top Gun: Maverick (2022)

Terrible.

[3/10 · 3 August 2022]

I was really exited to watch a film that would be a blast from the past for me. I'm not a westerner, but I was 5 when the first Top Gun film came out. I remember my brother bought the cassette and I still remember some of the songs. I haven't seen the film for years, but I remember it wasn't particularly good. Solid direction, amazing stunts, decent acting, but a teeny-bop love story that was just pathetic.

So now we get number 2. In honesty, it looked well shot, awesome stunts, solid direction again, but I just can't get enjoyment out of watching a bunch of one language only, zero culture Americans flying around in planes that they usually use to bomb innocent babies and children in Serbia, the Middle East or Pakistan.

What joy can any psychopath get from watching a bunch of one language ONLY, couldn't tell you the colour of ANY foreign flags, has no idea who we fought in WW2, couldn't recognise a foreign language if it slapped him, in a plane. Who can enjoy that?

Americans use these planes to burn, maim, disable and destroy thousands of innocent children in tens of countries. What enjoyment do you get from watching that? I'd like to see a movie where China or Russia, use planes to nuke the USA. That'd be an interesting aerial battle. The Chinese could state they'd spare anyone who speaks a second language and all the imperial AngloGermanic one language ONLY clowns would be bombed like the children of the Middle East. I'd pay to see that. Otherwise, drop me out.

Old Henry (2021)

Can't believe what I just watched.

[8/10 · 17 July 2022]

I heard about this film some time back, but in truth, I don't watch Hollywood crap anymore. I was expecting a bunch of trans cowboys, an LGBTQ+ love story or an entire POC cast, but the further I watched, the further my jaw dropped. An all white western? Impossible in 2021, where's WOKE Hollywood?

Thankfully for all conservatives or just sane people not obsessed with WOKE ideologies, Old Henry is a smashing picture and one of the best westerns I've seen of late. I bet Meryl Streep and the far left crowd are furious, two decent all white westerns (Terror on the Prairie and this) in the space of a year?

I wasn't aware of Tim Blake Nelson previously, sure I've seen him in a couple of flicks, but I had no opinion on his quality. He delivers an excellent portrayal that is both believable and deep. Overall the acting is top class. I must also comment on the cinematography, which is lush with a beautiful pallet of color.

Because Terror On The Prairie was launched with an immediate political backlash from the left wing, because it's from Daily Wire an openly conservative corporation; I guess in an ideal world, I'd like to say it's better than Old Henry. Unfortunately, it's not. TOTP is a decent western, but this movie is superior. There's not much between the two and I still recommend Prairie, but Henry delivers a nod to the westerns of old, something that I was never anticipating. I just have to take my hat off for that.

If you think of the greatest movies of the past 50 years, you have to think of the things that made them awesome. Was it POC, LGBTQ+ or diversity? The answer is no. Hollywood needs to realise that the majority of viewers care about a good story, good acting, good direction and a tight script. For us equality and politics is something that's forced down our throat everywhere else, we want to leave it behind in the cinema. The crew behind Old Henry know how to make a movie. It's just a shame so few people today have that knowledge.

What Is a Woman? (2022)

I have questions...

[10/10 · 4 July 2022]

You know, I'm Luisjo González, the lead author on 'a Slash above...'. If you check it there, you can see my photos. I'm an ex model, I modelled for Moschino, Bironi etc and with these good looks, I became a ladies man.

After seeing this film, and realising that I recently moved from vodka to martini, I quite enjoy female company and chick flicks.... so... am I a lady? Am I sleeping with women because I'm a lesbian? If that is the case, when do I get my period? Can anyone help please?

I'm a proud member of the LGBTQMXYT - what words is it again? Yeah...

You know, it's funny, but this film is great proof that America is dead. It's July 2022, America and its CIA has spent nearly 100 billion dollars, sent 78% of its weapon arsenal for a proxy war with Russia using Ukraine as their soldiers and they've lost horrifically. Suddenly rather than look a NATO power, NATO looks weak. America is almost $300 trillion in debt and continues printing money. Their films are pathetic and lack creativity, their music is horrendous and not one person in their entire country can 1) speak a second language 2) recognise a foreign flag 3) Answer which countries America fought in WW2. Too much comfort, living a life of luxury has made American people effectively useless. Too much easy life creates this insanity.

In this new unipolar world, speaking English only, living a degenerate life, it's all long dead. We left it behind. We no longer need the collective west and I can't see it ever recovering.

Katyn (2007)

One of the greatest war movies.

[10/10 · 6 May 2022]

Nowadays when the USA has killed something like one billion innocent people, it's very hard not to feel sentimental about when there was two superpowers. Today, we only have evil America, that ruthlessly mutilates innocent families on demand. America has killed so many innocent people, it is almost beyond calculation.

I certainly miss the USSR. Back then, there was two superpowers and neither would commit war crimes out of fear of the other. Sadly the worst one survived. The USSR was far from perfect and Stalin was an evil man, he ruthlessly executed twenty seven, three million, three hundred and thirteen people. (Most of them Russian).

The Katyn Massacre didn't need to happen. What occurred was, the task to train the Poles was handed to Vasily Zarubin and seven others across three camps. Their job was to teach Poles communism and the Orthodox religion. The Polish POWs, who knew they weren't at war with Russia and expected to be released soon, were extremely uncooperative. They outright denied the Orthodox religion and asked why they had been captured. Vasily Zarubin recommended harsher education in Siberia. Laverentiy Beria overruled him and ordered executions of all uncooperative Polish prisoners, which included the cream of the Polish military and priests, professors etc. Very few, but some survived.

This would eventually backfire on Stalin when he changed sides and asked for Poland's cooperation against Germany. Poland said, 'Sure, but you have our best commanders in your prison'. Stalin claimed that he released them. This was a huge problem for the west as all evidence showed a Russia massacre, but you know, it's the west, the most evil bandits in human history, so nothing was done.

Anyway, I guess we don't speak German because nothing was done, because Russia single-handedly won the war. It was a horrible massacre though. My heart bleeds for the Poles.

As a film it is very hard to recommend Katyn. It's a great movie in every way. Impeccably acted and directed with immense cinematography. It's a very sad film however. Powerful, but sad.

If you like sad films, watch it. If not, I recommend avoiding.

Battle for Sevastopol (2015)

How war films should be made

[8/10 · 2 May 2022]

We live in strange times. If you do research, you soo. Learn that Hitler's war machine was no different to Mc Donald's or KFC. Just another American international operation. So much so, that a Jewish guy sued the American government and won. Who made the tanks for Hitler? Henry Ford. Who made their elite communication systems? America.

Now 2022, nothing has changed. America are still funding Nazis and making you hate the people that that truly won WW2. Yes, Russia. Whilst your tax dollars fund Nazi nationalists in Ukraine, it's good sometimes to re-view the beauty of the Russian motherland. Not only are they a slim, multilingual, beautiful race (as opposed to one language only, obese westerners), but they also make amazing movies.

Battle for Svestapol (Bitva za Sevastopol) is one such movie. Riveting from the first five minutes, Russian cinema is able to really give us a motion picture that is as engaging as Saving Private Ryan, with three dimensional characters, awesome acting, cinematography, direction and a deep, emotional screenplay. Russia isn't able to throw half a billion at a film budget, but the film looks fantastic, with amazing CGI and a rich colour pallet. Yuliya. Peresild is a dreamy leading lady with big blue eyes and a curvaceous figure. Often Western films ruin their screenplay with pointless love scenes (Pearl Harbour/Enemy at the Gates anybody?), Russia add some romance, but it's light and respectable

Certainly one of the best ever war films. Russians surely know how to make a movie.

Enemy at the Gates (2001)

Very racist film

[4/10 · 1 May 2022]

Enemy of the states is a very well madre movie. In terms of direction, especially acting and battle scenes this is a superb war film, possibly up there with Platoon.

So why only four stars? Well, you know, I gave the film four stars due to the outright racism and factual joke history. Russia did not give two soldiers only one rifle in Stalingrad or anywhere else in fact. Russia also did not shoot their own soldiers. It's true frightened soldiers were arrested, but executed? Never.

Nikita Krushchev was in the military, but an evil sadist? Not at all. Kruschev was a very calm, peaceful man. Kruschev ordered the closing of the gulags. Kruschev brought peace and stability to Russia. Kruschev was very much against Stalin's brutal rule.

I guess, this movie is great for one language only westerners that love to live with the belief that Russia are some backwoods evil communists. Intelligent or foreign people will likely hate it, because despite being a very good movie, it portrays Russians as evil barbarians. This is something that they are obviously not. Do you know which country globally has the most pets and offers the most support to animals? Russia. Do you know which country over the past five years did the most to help homeless people? Russia.

When you're walking home one night and you see an Iraq veteran begging for money, remember that this would never happen in the motherland, Russia.

Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1986)

Grim, but unrealistic depiction of a serial killer

[6/10 · 15 April 2022]

I was born in 1981. As a young kid, I loved the slasher movies and the general theme of the VHS rental market of the eighties. At 41, I'm not very old, but I'm so far from the Facebook youth of today, I simply can't connect with them.

As a Hispanic guy growing up in London, I immediately took a dislike to the one language only, moral-less culture of the grimy London streets. Because I hated the bland, one language only idiots so much, I lost myself in videos from the rental store. Henry Portrait of a Serial Killer was one such movie. Whilst Michael Rooker excels as Henry, the serial killer, he is massively let down by his supporting actors, Tom Towles and Tracy Arnold, who really can't reach his level. Director John McNaughton directs everything almost as a documentary and it really applies a grim, unrelenting tone.

I guess the main problems with the picture, despite being believable, is that the killers make no effort to hide their crimes. Not wearing gloves would've seen a former prisoner, arrested in reel two. The film however, seems to operate in a fantasy world where criminal logic doesn't exist. The two killers commit countless murders, never wearing gloves and seem to always get away Scott free. In reality, this would never happen and it makes the film like a giant, steel, passenger liner with a 40ft hole in the bow.

An interesting movie, but hampered by the lack of logic.

The Devil's Advocate (1997)

The most conservative film EVER

[9/10 · 26 March 2022]

It's funny, I'm not a big politician

Why did I call this the most conservative film ever?

Well the plot concentrates solely on success in business as the key factor in defining wealth, progression. The movie is full of beautiful people, it's a scientific fact they generally vote conservative. The plot of the movie is about the devil and his son. Religion is key to classic conservative rules, but as an atheist I deny these institutions. Still. The look of the film (capitalism/success) screams conservatism, even though I don't believe a god exists.

I always liked this film, the characters, the performances, but this is the first time I saw it as a conservative institution, which it is if you can see it. Pure Republican.

Midnight in Paris (2011)

Heavily underrated film

[8/10 · 20 March 2022]

I think, what I need to get off my chest is that I would no way get on well with Gil Pender. He's an out and out democrat that openly criticises Republicans calling them 'insane'. Today, JFK would be a Republican. I'm not a Republican, I'm a libertarian, but we are also to the right side of the political pendulum. I simply would hate this guy in real life.

However, that is a minor distraction. What I think medianoche en Paris (the movie inspired me to use one of the seven languages I speak) does well, is it transports us to a more simple time. Today, men are the most dominate sex in female sports, our media no longer tells us the truth, we are given false narrative after false narrative, everyday. Wherever it be that COVID is a deadly virus, a man is a biological woman or that genocidal maniac Ukraine president Zelensky is a good person, we live in a time where our government, our medical establishments (big pharma) and our press are out to enslave us in every possible way.

Watching a movie involving Dali, Picasso, Hemingway, Buñuel etc, it just shows us a time when life was more simple. Not many critics highly praised the film; - it's impossible to argue with them. They considered it a very good, but not great movie. I think it really depends on how romantic you are, whether you enjoy or really enjoy Polnoc w Paryzu (IMDB doesn't allow me to use Polish characters)

I for one really enjoyed it. I knew all of the ancient stars in the picture and I enjoyed witnessing them exist. I think the performances are respectful and fair. Adrian Brody, Owen Wilson, Marion Cotillard and Kathy Bates really show the screenplay some respect, whilst Woody Allen directs the production in a comfortable way for the viewer. The script lacks spice; - and making Owen Wilson into a mini Woody Allen, I found slightly disrespectful.

The film works though and all in all I can only highly recommend it. I think one of the key things about the feature that will decide if you like it, is your age. A modern 18 year old will not know any one of the featured characters. Western education is so bad today, they just won't be aware of these legendary humans. 40+ age groups will really become a part of the whole story and that's a beautiful thing.

Only God Forgives (2013)

Not very good

[5/10 · 6 March 2022]

You know, after Drive, I was really thinking Nicholas Refn was on his way to the top. To follow it up with something like this was the biggest disappointment in movie history.

I am not sure what his plan was, but when you make a top notch blockbuster, with an A-list up and coming star, what drives you to follow it up with a disjointed art-house melodrama.

The film îs ok. It is nicely acted and very well shot. Some of the cinematography is amazing. What it really drives home is the shallowness, emptiness and lack of morals of Western planet earth (England and America) . If you look at the world, from Romania to Taiwan, you will never find a more shallow, non-cultured, one language only group of people. I think this movie delivered that point in a very strong way and I enjoyed that about it.

Would I watch it again? Probably, yes. It's just not one that I think has much merit.

Unlawful Entry (1992)

Not so much a review but...

[8/10 · 30 January 2022]

I rewatched this movie today, after seeing it as an eleven year old in Piccadilly cinema. We snuck in the side exit.

I'm not going to review the film in detail, but I can say it's a well produced motion picture with great acting performances from all key cast members and decent directing.

The script is good, but too unbelievable. A functioning cop this insane simply could not exist. That almost ruins the movie. It still just about works of you bite your tongue.

What is important to note, is that this film proves with undeniable evidence that Ray Liotta is a leading man. Why his career went downhill so desperately after Goodfellas is inexplicable. He's a great actor. I read somewhere he's a conservative too.

Twins (1988)

Decent movie, but who fed the cat

[7/10 · 9 January 2022]

I am a film critic of sorts with my own blog where I review films. This is not a review really, but I noticed something in this film that bothers me...

Who fed Vincent's cat when he was away for days in end?

About the movie, well it's kinda an illogical concept, but Devito is so fun to watch and Ms Kelly Preston is heavenly. Republican Arnie (I'm Republican) is not a great actor, but he's competent and he actually does an impressive job with the material. He never over or under acts and he's believable.

The movie is well shot and directed, funny and just an out and out nice movie. You actually want them to bond.

It's not an eighties favourite, but it's a good flick to watch every now and then. The concept is great and they make it work. I think the crime part of the movie feels a bit out of place when we only really care about the twins.

As a cat owner, I just wanted to mention the unfortunate cat. I just went to the toilet and gave my cat a stroke as she's outside my bedroom door sleeping.

Mickey Blue Eyes (1999)

Really hard film to review.

[3/10 · 8 January 2022]

This is the hardest film, I've ever reviewed, despite being an owner of a popular blog.

Is Mickey Blue Eyes a bad movie? Hell no, the script is awesome and James Cann demonstrates his actor chops that is equal to every gangster ever filmed.

What's the problem then?

Hugh Grant just can't do this role. I'm not saying he's a bad rom-com guy, he's not, rom-com is his genre. However playing a guy in peril? He's terrible and critics said the same thing

As an unfortunate mafioso, he was awful. What would Kevin Bacon, Matt Dillon, Tom Hanks do with this role?

This film is ruined by it's star.

Contact (1997)

A good film ruined by being too human

[6/10 · 1 January 2022]

I'm a scientist. I spent my life researching human DNA. Whilst there's no proof of aliens, did a meteorite bring RNA that created life to earth? Very possibly.

Contact is a well acted movie, with amazing special FX and a riveting story. It's sharply directed, competently edited with an amazing soundtrack and set design.

Why did I rate it 6 out of ten? The film deals with meeting aliens. ALIENS. What would aliens know about us? The final scene or the pay off is far too human to be believable. SPOILER. How would an alien know what a kiss was? The film had been superb up until the final scene, questioning god, promoting science, making us look like a smart race.

That final scene. The pay off. Ruined the movie. We have no proof of aliens. Do they exist? Of course they must. It's impossible we are the only planet with life. All you need for life is water and oxygen. I bet Jupiter's moon Europa has life. Did Contact give us a scientific story? No. It ruined it in the final scene.

Nixon (1995)

A poor description of a misunderstood man

[8/10 · 31 December 2021]

Nixon is a great movie. There are a number of strong performers, Woods, a real highlight. The film however portrays Nixon as something of a lonely sociopath and the real Nixon was nothing like that.

Richard Nixon was a good man. Politicians are crooks, it comes with the job, but Nixon actually cared. Nixon had a good heart and he wanted to always do good, but he was manipulated by people like Kissinger and Richard Helms. No other politician in American history could achieve what Nixon achieved with China and negotiations with Russia and Vietnam. Nixon's political brain was the best in the 20th century. What a guy.

Nixon had a mighty flaw. That flaw was paranoia. The reason I dislike Nixon is that it's true Oliver Stone plays the story centrally, but his democrat leanings are obvious throughout the film. A Republican or a Libertarian would not make this film the same way and it's obvious throughout Nixon.

Whilst it is a great movie, it tends to portray Nixon as a man who never needed support. This is so far from the truth of the real Richard Nixon who was an insecure man, who made mistakes because he wanted to be perfect for everybody. Through his life, he gave too much and was backstabbed repeatedly

Nixon is a good movie. It doesn't portray however the real Richard Nixon; an insecure man with a lack of confidence in his popularity. In another dimension Nixon would be the best ever president, because he cared so much. His downfall however was his paranoia. This movie doesn't demonstrate that and therefore it portrays Richard Nixon, a man that was a moral equal to JFK as a sociopath.

Only a democrat would make a film about this great man, this way.

Groundhog Day (1993)

Kind of a nineties film with an eighties heart

[10/10 · 29 December 2021]

You know, I can't say anything more than everybody else already said, funny movie with excellent performances, solid direction and a sharp script. The reason for my comment is that I prefer the original Bill Murray character before he becomes a nice guy. I think the original Bill Murray character who is sarcastic and dry is a lot like how I am. I very quickly look down on unintelligent people and I won't associate with fools. I'm pretty direct in my speech. Seeing the movie made me realise, a lot of people might consider me somewhat stuck up, but I probably wouldn't want their friendship anyway, so that's just my view. I like the first rude guy better than the guy in the conclusion that gets the girl.

Vice Versa (1988)

One of the best of the eighties

[8/10 · 27 December 2021]

I was thinking, just today, how much I miss Judge Reinhold. When I was growing up (I'm 40 in 2021), his face was common in my video rental store and he was an actor I always enjoyed watching. It's hard to believe that in the eighties, he was as big as Kevin Costner or Tom Hanks.

Vice Versa is certainly one of the best examples of Reinhold's quality, because he's brilliant as an eleven-year-old child trapped in an adult man's body. It's not just his performance, but his body language too, he really nails it. Savage is equally as masterful as the man in the child's body and the pair make this into one of the greatest comedies of the eighties. The film works on a number of levels, as a comedy, as a romance and as a buddy movie. I like it as much as the similar Big with Tom Hanks, but only one of them became a classic, because this movie flopped at the box office, which was a shame.

After this flick bombed, Judge Reinhold kinda disappeared amongst rumours that he was difficult to work with. He admits that he made mistakes, because he was acting like a spoiled brat, when he hadn't really done enough to warrant throwing his weight around. He was a decent actor, but he wasn't winning Oscars or dominating the screen like Patrick Swayze, Sean Penn, Matt Dillon, Charlie Sheen, Tom Cruise, Nicholas Cage etc were doing in the eighties. I miss him man. He wasn't someone too good looking to be believable, but handsome enough to believe girls would go for him. Judge Reinhold and Christian Slater are two actors I miss most in Hollywood. Whilst you can say that it's Christian Slater's own fault that he was chased out of Hollywood, I think Judge Reinhold deserves another chance.

Vice Versa is a great example of what made Judge Reinhold a star. He's really good here, wiping the floor with Dudley Moore who had played the exact same role the previous year. Highlights are him playing the drums in the department store and getting up on stage in a rock concert.

I truly believe this is one of the best comedies of the eighties and I'm not a guy that gives compliments easily to films. I 100% recommend Vice Versa. They don't make them like this anymore and it's a perfectly acted movie.

Hannibal (2001)

One of the worst sequels in history

[2/10 · 10 December 2021]

So I can't deny it, Silence of the lambs was a terrific movie and whilst as a film Hannibal is not awful and the performances, editing and direction are solid, the story is a total joke.

Hannibal has escaped to Florence, Italia and every single person who resides there speaks fluent English. Even Italian Police in an Italian police station converse with each other in fluent English. Hannibal gives historical speeches in English to huge crowds and even drug addicts that the cops use for chores speak fluent English. One guy gets stabbed in the groin and whilst he's dying, he speaks in English, not his native tongue. I'm not Italian, I'm Spanish, but our countries are very VERY similar. Not only does hardly anyone speak English in Spain (or Italy), our cops wouldn't speak English to each other for any reason.

This is so pathetic it immediately destroys the credibility of the entire picture. Pathetic excuse for a movie.

The Road Warrior (1981)

Superb movie

[9/10 · 9 November 2021]

I notice that in the USA, they had zero idea this wasn't a stand alone movie as Mad Max was barely released in the United States. This film was mostly known as 'Road Warrior'. In Panama and Spain where I grew up, I saw the films in chronological order and so I knew what to expect. I'm unique in that I prefer Mad Max 1 than number 2, but they are both superb movies. Most of the world prefer the sequel, but interestingly enough, Roger Ebert's favourite was part 3.

The reason for my comment is not to say anything different than most reviewers, this is a great, adrenaline packed movie. It boasts superb, gritty direction and great editing/cinematography. What I thought was interesting is that there is a hinted homosexual couple, the guy with the red hair and the one with the blonde hair. For 1981, this film was well ahead of the curve to include something like that. During the eighties you never saw anything even remotely similar, so that's quite interesting.

We Were Soldiers (2002)

Too much talk of god

[7/10 · 30 October 2021]

This is a fairly decent action/war films with some impressive battle scenes, effects and also some drama. Sam Elliot steals every scene as a sergeant, even though Mel Gibson gets top billing. The movie has a great soundtrack and as I said previously, the battle scenes are impressive. One thing I hated about the movie was that there was a lot of talk about god and God protecting them in battle etc etc. There's a whopping zero proof any god exists and the bible is as true as the thundercats or the Gobots. What we know is true is evolution. That is true because it has evidence. Evolution shows us that it's highly unlikely a god exists, so why do we have to watch it rammed down our throats in movies.