dinoluigivercotti Reviews

Knightfall (2017–2019)

Lost all remaining respect for "History" channel.

[5/10 · 4 January 2024]

From the folks who gave us Ancient Astronauts, Knightfall is an even bigger steaming pile of crap.

The first season was difficult to watch, got less historically accurate with every episode. Got the distinct impression the producers were attempting to "fix" Templar history, and just making it worse.

There are too many inacurracies to count, let's just say that this series tries to portray a pack oi supremacists as victims. Classic fascist propaganda.

They even managed to screw up the one bit of truly mystical Templar lore - the Curse of Jacques de Molay. Completely misrepresented.

When considering that the most sucessful movie franchaises (Star Wars) was based on Templar history, it is hard to imagine how this series failed. It even recruited Mark Hamill for the second season. And still bombed.

The acting was horrible, except for Hamill. His performance just showed up the others as clothes horses, mindless hacks.

I hope someone actually does an historically faithful dramatization of Templar history someday, but Knighfall is not it.

Cracking Up (1983)

He was a genre unto himself.

[8/10 · 30 October 2023]

If you have watched many movies directed by Jerry Lewis, you will have noticed they are very different from the Hollywood mainstream movies of the times.

Maybe best described as "experimental comedy", he was constantly pushing the boundaries of this genre. It seems to have been a reflection of how hard he pushed himself and those around him.

Especially in "Cracking Up" he seems to be releasing some inner impatience through his direction. The complete lack of regard for the attention span of the audience is clear.

It is an endless series of long overdrawn 'shticks', but these bits are all new. Like he is angrily challenging the audience "Look. These are NEW. Get it? Do I have to spell it out? Okaaayy ..."

By 1983 he was in a position to do what he liked, for his art, for himself. This movie was not even released until years later on cable and video.

He experiments with fractured narrative, a style that has become commonplace today. He also continues to drive stunning visuals, a hallmark of his direction.

The psychologist's office scene looked like the room was covered in ice, everything has surreal unnatural opulent sheen. His antics of slipping and falling for 20 minutes deeply underscored "THIS IS NEW".

No one needs to be reminded he was a genius in his own right, with patents on several inventions including instant-replay.

If you watch "Nutty Professor" carefully, you will see that Desilu Studios adopted not only his richly saturated visuals, but even many of the sound effects when producing "Star Trek" years later.

On a more serious note, his work with the MDA Telethon was an unparalleled financial success. He fought to direct most of the funding into genetics, specifically screening technology that has become a pillar of medical science today. A major first step toward treatment of any genetic disorder.

It was another risky experiment that succeeded beyond expectations. Very few thought so at the time, and people wonder why he had a reputation of being impatient with doubters.

He was first in many ways, he always had to be first. Even if it cost him personally, and many times it did. This movie was not his first experiment, nor his last.

If you can appreciate "Cracking Up" as a daring experiment, and try to see that no one in Hollywood was doing anything remotely as risky, then you can enjoy it at least at an intellectual level.

Progress is 10% inspiration and 90% persperation, and this movie did make some progress. He was truly the nuttiest of professors, who would even play the clown and fall flat on his face if it would make a difference.

He made a difference.

Moonfall (2022)

Over 2000+ totally polarized reviews.

[10/10 · 25 September 2023]

2K reviews on IMDb does not suggest a bad movie to me.

Rather it is proof that Roland Emmerich is a provocateur. He is a nerd-baiter-par-excellence. Ultimately he is a film director. It is his job to get people talking about his movies.

I honestly think he sets out from the very beginning of every project to make geeks scream in anguish and throw 1 star reviews at him. Because one thing that nerds will never understand is that there is no such thing as bad PR.

He uses SF "purists" to do all the work of getting the word out about his movies. He does it by deliberately inciting them to riot.

His art is a rejection of nerdery, not an invitation. His movies are an escape from technocracy, not an emergence.

His movies are in themselves hilarious and make me want to go to the theatre just to hear the shocked gasps of the SF priesthood. It makes me burst out laughing.

I myself enjoy detailed SF that inspires. His movies are not that. They are not thought provoking, they are nerdbaitery at the blackbelt level.

With just a few light touches he causes an enviable ruckus that would make a politician blush.

When that is understood, then you understand his genius. He wants you to laugh at nerds.

Halt and Catch Fire: Goodwill (2017) Season 4, Episode 8

H&CF is losing the plot.

[8 October 2017]

This entire episode was about clearing the house of a deceased character. A whole hour of soap opera.

Who do they think the audience for this show is? There is not a single reference to the history of the internet, the supposed theme.

They started out doing a pretty good job but this show has become simply an agenda for the ambition of the director, writers and actors.

This episode in particular is the ultimate proof of this. All the actors get to ham it up in what seems to be a deliberate and desperate bid for an Emmy.

No one expects H&CF to be anything else than dramatized documentary of the internet. Lately it has been all drama and no documentary. It is not as if they have run out of material - they have only covered the 70s up to the 90s.

They have abandoned their audience to pander to baby-boomer Academy judges. I expect this will be their last season.

A Family Man (2016)

Normalizing Boomer greed

[13 June 2017]

Without going into specific details, there are quite a few disturbing pieces of rationale flung around in this movie.

There is a religious belief that childhood illnesses can be attributed to the sins of the parents. That belief is core to this movie. This movie claims you can cure a sick child by simply not being a scumbag for about 10 seconds. Not only that, your entire life will be redeemed, and yet essentially unchanged.

There are other disturbing claims. Like if you hire an aging Boomer your business will grow exponentially. Also, that being a scumbag from a mansion does not count as official scumbaggery. Even drunken whore-mongering can be redeemed, and yet continue unabated.

Apparently this is the new American Dream - a feel good movie for the unrepentant.

One More Time (2015)

Needs more cowbell.

[3/10 · 15 April 2016]

I was looking at the time constantly while watching this movie - not a good sign. Not much character development, or plot either.

The overriding theme was that everyone was smoking pot in nearly every shot, even while driving. What kind of message is that?

I enjoyed seeing Walken again, and am glad this is not his swan song. He seemed deliberately upstaged by the lead actress who was mysteriously channeling Kat Dennings.

I half-expected Thor to make an appearance looking to score some weed, and should have left the theater the instant Amber Heard entered a scene wearing a guitar slung on her back.

This movie definitely needed more cowbell ... c'man.

Tomorrowland (2015)

Classic Occult Gnosticism from Disney

[7/10 · 1 February 2016]

As much as I disagree with its message and especially its age rating, this movie is an excellent example of the original purpose of cinema as a message delivery platform.

"Feed the right wolf" is the message of this movie. This is occult Gnosticism - literally a wolf in shepherd's clothing. Of course there is no such thing as a "right wolf". A wolf is just a wolf, all of them parasitic predators, wanting only to feed on the flock. Characterizing hope as a wolf is mere sophistry, and makes for a poor fable on which to base a children's story.

The CG sleight-of-hand is very convincing, but also abusive (children hit by speeding cars, children smashing the skulls of adults, etc), and represents most of this movie's budget. This is Disney culture at its most manipulative, aggressively and successfully pandering to our innate narcissism - our inner child is kept firmly on the edge of the seat.

The classic rambling monologue of the bad guy is excellent but full of Gnostic doublespeak. His statement that belief in the end of the world (that time itself is limited) somehow makes people lazy rather than motivated, is particularly mysterious. Again, brilliant delivery of a weak message.

The closing scene is plagiarized from the Bible, with clear signs of Gnostic tampering. An Antichrist (Clooney, as the "right wolf") defeats the Church (the "dark building" which teaches an end of the world) and finally looms over a flock of tiny humans. It is the most believable part of the movie. This stolen shroud of legitimacy is the crux of its successful message delivery.

I gave it a 7 because it objectively succeeds as cinema in delivering its message. Points off only for the message itself, and its age rating. Influence this subtle requires an adult mind to filter.

Indeed, this review took a long time to write and the conclusions it arrived at were surprising. I genuinely felt I liked this movie after watching it, but it seems feelings can be manipulated.