tomqcollins Reviews

Mob Land (2023)

Insulting to Small Town Rural Americans and the Viewer's Intelligence

[3/10 · 26 August 2023]

I really wanted to like this movie, but it suffers from faults on multiple levels to include how it was marketed and the way it's being reviewed.

First, the reviews. Even negative ones don't seem to understand what noir, neo noir or "rural noir" mean. This is not a "noir" film in any capacity. This might seem like a somewhat trivial complaint, but in fact I sought this flick out because noir is one of my favorite genres. While Mob Land is gritty and bleak, it possesses absolutely none of the elements of (neo, rural, or just regular) noir.

Second, also to the marketing: This movie was marketed well. A nice professional trailer, and even a theatrical opening if what I'm reading is true. On top of that it's currently streaming VOD on Amazon and other sites for more than $15, so clearly some money was spent on the front end of this production. Throw in the pretty decent cast and we aren't likely talking about a super low budget film.

So why, then, if it's set in the present day with new smart phones and pill mills (where unscrupulous doctors prescribe opioids), did they get so cheap in the vehicle budget? We're supposed to believe a sheriff and police chief are driving around in 1980 model Blazers and 1987 Mercury Crown Vics? Even the most rural law enforcement agencies in 2023 have relatively new police vehicles. And what's with the ancient cars our protagonists drive? Like literally a 1984 Buick Grand National, and a late 90s model Honda Civic is the newest car shown more than once in the movie. Only the New Orleans mob boss gets chauffeured around in a late model GMC Denali or Chevy Tahoe. I'm not buying that this was a budget issue given all of the other stuff I've mentioned. No this was laziness and treating the audience like fools expecting those of us who have actually lived in remote-ish rural settings to not know that nobody drives those kinds of cars except as collectors anymore. If the producers, writers and directors really did not have the money to obtain a fleet of contemporary vehicles, they could have adjusted the story back about two decades in time - except then they couldn't use the pill mill plot device.

Boy, sorry I spent so much time on that stuff. Let me move on to the movie itself. The script (dialogue) is awful. Plain dreadful cliché and stereotypes and a total insult to Southern small town rural Americans. Some of the turns of phrase are so ridiculous that I laughed out loud. "I'll slap ya so hard ya go to sleep and then slap ya for sleepin'..." "Well, taaaaarnation, I'll be a monkey's uncle...." Throwaway BS lines like that, which would be more at home in a Yosemite Sam cartoon or 4th grade level adventure book. It wouldn't surprise me if Travolta and Dorff were improvising if not for the fact that this wasn't an experienced writing/directing team behind them. But it wasn't just the more overt abuse of dialogue that ruined it for me; 90% of ALL dialogue in Mob Land is just as contrived, cliché and hyper sappy. IOW, just NOT believable AT ALL. Not even in a tongue in cheek joking manner if that was what the writers had intended. Just dumb.

And Dorff took it to a whole other level with his one dimensional, unbelievable, ultra-nihilist hit man character who I found myself wondering what this type of man would even live for? He didn't even get sadistic pleasure from hurting (actually almost always killing) people and he goes on at length multiple times about how meaningless life is; this when he's not condescendingly and completely unbelievably berating towns folk like the waitress or gas station clerk about how pathetic they are for even existing, which he always starts by asking them "Is THIS what you wanted to be when you grew up?" in a super annoying tone of voice. LOL, whoever wrote this needs to look into a different career, but I'm quite shocked that Travolta and Dorff (whose characters are by far the worst offenders, although the other sheriff comes close) didn't question the director and push back against some of this cringeworthy completely unbelievable dialogue. I seriously doubt most A-listers would look at this script and not either laugh or mark it up with brand new dialogue. LOL

Then we have the plot, which has so many holes that the movie could have been called Southern Swiss Cheese. I won't even get into them because I don't want to provide any spoilers; just know going in that you're going to be expected to suspend disbelief and accept some really illogical, contradictory and contrived story elements. Flat out - once you get past the relatively good cinematography (other than the shaky chimpanzee cam - I term I saw in another review and agree with totally) - there's absolutely nothing here that hasn't been done before, but better, more believably, and without condescending to its subject matter with tired, often bigoted tropes. Ironically this one was clearly made for the types of critics that give arthouse films high marks, but looking at the reviews it's getting, that backfired. So they better hope there's a bunch of people out there willing to shell out $19.99 to watch it on VOD, because if you've followed this review along this far, I urge you NOT TO DO.

Paris, Texas (1984)

Great in all respects but one: Believability

[6/10 · 18 June 2023]

I know the works of Wim Wenders and that he's more of an "art house" type director. This generally means you shouldn't necessarily take everything on screen as though it's intended literally. I have a lot of favorite directors and films spanning decades for which this is the case. But one thing I cannot tolerate as it does not allow me to suspend disbelief enough to become immersed in any given plot is lack of believability - especially by way of casting or persistent anachronisms. In the case of "Paris, Texas" the issue is the former.

Harry Dean Stanton does an amazing job at every element of acting in this film. Unfortunately the one area that he is helpless to do anything believable about is his own age at the time it was released.

Harry Dean Stanton plays the missing father of a 7 or 8 year old boy. The actor, also named Hunter was actually 8 years old when the movie was filmed and 9 when it debuted. Stanton was 58 years old at the time, and frankly he looked like a 65 year old of today. Yes, people look younger, older now - for the most part. Anyway, let's stretch our skepticism a little here. So Travis would have been 50 at the time Hunter was born. Not unheard of, so I'll accept it.

But the problems get worse. Naturally Hunter has a biological mother and she is played by Nastassja Kinski, who was all of 22 or 23 years old when this movie was filmed, and she looked it. This means that when Hunter was born, his father was 50 and his mother was 15 or 16 years old! And we are introduced to these characters within the first 20 minutes of a 2:25Hr movie.

With that in mind, I was unable to suspend disbelief or immerse myself in the otherwise expertly crafted world of "Paris, Texas." I didn't even mention the other problem with the movie because it's very much a personal thing and didn't detract from anything to 99% of people who watched it, but being that I happen to be from the Southwest, West Texas actually, I was slightly bothered by the fact that it was clearly not filmed anywhere in Texas but rather in Nevada or Arizona, including the Paris, TX scene which is supposed to depict a NE Texas city in the Piney Woods, but showed it as a desert. Lazy work on behalf of Wenders and his production crew. In any case, like I said that wasn't a problem for me.

So here we are ~20 minutes into the film and I'm left to grapple with the fact that this guy who has gone missing for 4 years fathered a child with a 15 year old girl and apparently *that's* not the issue his family has with him. No wonder the dude fled. He committed a crime in the State of California! Multiple crimes actually. His son's mother was a minor and he was in his 50s when he committed statutory rape! And the viewer is left to ponder what had happened BEFORE the son was conceived. How long had they been active in this manner? Such a disturbing job of mis-casting a movie on Wenders' part.

I will not waste any further time going into the merits of the movie, technical, musical, cinematographical, thespian, etc. It was a very well made movie aside from the core sin of a terrible, criminal even, casting job. This could have easily been mitigated by adjusting the storyline a little as well, but apparently they were too caught up in their artsy and lofty ideas to think about the small details.

6.4/10.0 rounded down to 6 for the location part.

Scared of the Dark (2023)

Good as far as reality TV goes

[7/10 · 17 May 2023]

The setup is pretty obvious, but also creative. Seven celebs have to survive about a week in the pitch blackness of the hangar-based set. Things start off pretty rough with a couple of the females being way too panicky and screaming a lot. Meanwhile Chris Eubank, the former boxing champion offers up continual opaque quasi-philosophical eccentricities, often seemingly at random. The rest of the cast is rounded out by some interesting characters such as former footballer and national legend, Paul "Gazza" Gascoigne (the only reason I even started watching the show), a couple of influencer types and a legally blind comedian who has less difficulty than most moving around in the facility.

Anyway to address the point raised by another user review, while Eubank may be an "introvert", that isn't why he didn't last and it certainly wasn't the case that he was being "baited" to do something violent. The show has an on-camera psychiatrist who comments along with the host and anything rising to the level of baiting, by the rest of the cast or the show runners, would have resulted in action on his part. The truth of the matter is that Eubank is a highly eccentric, very poorly understood individual who is a highly sensitive person and used to being the leader or "alpha" in his social interactions. Don't get me wrong, he's not a violent or bullying alpha, but more of a person who you can tell is used to people humoring (or actually taking to heart) his often meaningless ramblings and light scolding (ex. He tells another cast member not to use curse words and to strive to be what their parents and family would want to see on the TV screen when it airs). He also gets some things right. One of the women does in fact scream and make random high pitched noises way too often, and many times in response to absolutely nothing except whatever she's imagined. She was very annoying for about half of the show before she calmed down. But Eubank is a known eccentric and has been voted the 2nd most eccentric personality in the UK behind.....Bjork. So that should tell you what to expect.

Blah blah blah...anyway, this is a very entertaining show and I don't think it was mean spirited or geared at targeting one particular cast member over another. The point was to bring together some very different personalities into a difficult situation and egg them on a little now and then. I'm not really a fan of reality TV, but this kept me hooked. One last thing about Eubank is that I wouldn't be surprised if he's suffering from early CTE of some kind given that he fought upwards of 40 professional boxing matches and won a ton of them by way of 10 and 12 round split and unanimous decisions. So he's taken a beating over the years and unfortunately may be paying the price at this point in his life. Sadly, he also lost a son in tragic fashion within the past 3 years, so like some of the other cast members, he has scars and has retreated into a contrived external personality rather than dealing with them through counseling. I was shocked at the shape of Gazza too. The man has lived a hard life (by his own addictions and choices) and it shows. He's 56 years old and looks 70, but he seems reasonably self aware and in some cases self deprecating.

All in all, worth a watch if you're bored or happen to like any of the stars in the cast. It was certainly something different.

The Tutor (2023)

The whole thing rests on one ridiculous plot hole

[5/10 · 15 April 2023]

I agree with most of the user reviews here that this one started off kinda cool and promising. There was definitely a nice mysterious vibe to it, sorta like "The Game" with Michael Douglas back in the day.

The remainder of this review contains spoilers.

Problem is, that literally the entire story from the time the tutor, Ethan, gets the phone call to the end was predicated on an intellectually insulting plot hole, or, being kinder to the writers/director, a very dishonest ploy on their part to keep the audience in the dark. I suppose that they could have pulled it off if they'd tried something different. For example, maybe if Jackson and his father had moved to a different property than the one where his mother died. After all, nothing in the film clued the audience into the fact that Ethan had been to the property where he was paid to tutor many times in the past, ostensibly to tutor some other kid* - AND - where he had the affair with Jackson's mom. But we are left completely in the dark to this crucial fact because the writers/director were aiming to make this the big reveal rather than what most of us probably expected - i.e., rather than Ethan being the truly guilty party, instead we get to the bottom of what Jackson's problem or motivation is (and/or Jackson gets neutralized) at the end.

But the way the story line was handled, we're expected to believe that for whatever reason, Ethan displayed zero familiarity with the property, Jackson was an only child and we guess much younger at the time of the affair/murder who Ethan was initially called upon to tutor, but never got around to it and had an affair with the mom instead? This makes zero sense, however, because again if Ethan had been there before, met Jackson (at whatever age, say 5 years prior), had an affair with the mother who ended up dying in Ethan's company under suspicious circumstances, then why would he even take the tutoring gig? Does this make sense? Let me lay it out more plainly one more time:

1. Several years ago you're called out to a very lavish, unforgettable estate to tutor a privileged kid who is probably aged 9-13 at the time.

2. You end up having an affair with his mother. You may or may not have ever tutored the kid, but you'd think that you'd at least have met him and if so you'd recognize him several years later. At teh very least you will always recognize/remember the property.

3. You either on purpose or accidentally kill the kid's mom and somehow get away with it. You are questioned by the police but nothing comes of it despite a secret coroner's report saying that no water was found in the lungs of the alleged drowning victim. Mkay.

4. You move on with your life and meet a new fiancee, she becomes pregnant and you are still a private tutor for a living.

5. One day your boss/whatever calls you and says you have been specifically asked for by a family and they'll pay you $2,500/day to tutor their kid, so long as you stay on the property for as long as it takes for him to achieve whatever objective (higher test score?) he's aiming for.

6. You get there and you must realize, uh oh, this is where I killed that lady and this kid will recognize me, WTF am I doing here, I should immediately leave and stay as far away from this place and this family as possible. But you don't. Nope. Knowing that you got away with a murder on this estate, you proceed to follow through and meet with the kid, who somehow you don't recognize at all, all the while pretending that you've never been there (including to the audience who has no reason to suspect anything until the first mention of the affair well into the run time).

7. You realize that the kid of the woman you murdered had been stalking you and your pregnant fiancee, and rather than doing what you should have done in #6 and GTFO for good, you continue to tutor the kid!

Ridiculous. This movie was entertaining until the end, but the problem is that the end ruined everything that came before it. I'm giving it 5/10 stars because it was competently made, started off quite well, and had us guessing for a little bit. The cinematography is good too, and the audience believes that Ethan is the innocent party for as long as the director lies to us that he was. I really think that this story line still could have worked if they'd done a few things differently like having the tutoring sessions be at a new property, explaining clearly to the audience that Ethan never actually met Jackson before (and how that would be possible since he was having an affair with his mother while ostensibly tutoring the kid!). If a plausible background had been provided, the "reveal" at the end could have genuinely worked. Instead it didn't and it ruined the movie for us.

Inside (I) (2023)

Dumb.

[2/10 · 5 April 2023]

Take what the other reviewer said about this film being used for torture in the future. It's true.

On top of that it's completely unbelievable. Yeah some rich dude with a fancy art collection lives in an impenetrable fortress, right? Except no. It's "penetrable" from outside-in but not inside-out. LOL, OK.

If you are the type of viewer who isn't bothered by something like that being such an important part of the plot, and that it is never actually explained to the audience why there's literally no escape, even a, I dunno, FIRE escape (!), then maybe you'll be able to sit through this 1:45:00 utter waste of time. I don't recommend it though.

Oh, by the way, if you want to see an absolutely great movie that's funny, scary, cringe inducing and suspenseful (all in the good way) about a high-end art thief, give "Headhunters" a try. I think it's either Danish or Swedish and based on Norwegian best selling serial crime author Jo Nesbo's book. DO NOT read any spoilers or even the plot summary before you start it! I promise it will blow you away in the same way that "Inside" didn't.

Infinity Pool (2023)

Quite a riveting movie, sure to polarize audiences

[8/10 · 15 February 2023]

Finally had a chance to watch "Infinity Pool" last night and I have to say I found many aspects of the film to be very impressive.

Foremost among them is the world building that Cronenberg engages in when he conjures a bizarre, yet somehow still believable, post-Soviet police state that exists somewhere between the tropics and the Mediterranean coastline. If my deduction from opening credits is correct, it would appear that Croatia was the main filming location for the outdoor scenes. The country is given some crazy name and appears to be extremely poor and backwards, but with a thriving tourism industry. Thing is, tourists are confined to walled compounds surrounded by concertina wire and protected by armed guards. From what, we wonder?

The whole thing works despite a few ridiculous and entirely unrealistic premises - for example 1) That this poor backward country possesses the technology to create fully functional exact human clones within hours and/or 2) That given their laws regarding crime and punishment, it's hard to imagine anyone would ever want to go there at all with plenty of much safer alternatives available to the (mostly if not exclusively) rich clientele/tourists.

The cast was pretty much perfect for the occasion and the direction and cinematography were great and very visually compelling. In avoiding major plot holes and inconsistencies, Cronenberg does a good job of showing us just enough, but never too much so that it would be impossible to suspend disbelief and part of how he does so is in the visual direction.

As to the plot, well, I can see it being very polarizing to audiences. For one thing, as mentioned, it's semi-unbelievable. For another, it's a little convoluted for much of the film. Who is really in control? Who benefits from this strange place? How are we to interpret the ending?

So as to avoid any more spoilers, I won't get into specifics, but will conclude by saying "Infinity Pool" is very much of a piece with other recent movies like "Parasite", "Nuevo Orden", "Triangle of Sadness" and even "The Menu." The fabulously wealthy class of society is skewered in each of those films, but never more violently and disturbingly so as in Cronenberg's story - as it should be.

8/10 from me, but I can understand some of the lower reviews as well.

This Place Rules (2022)

Unflinching look at how crazy this country has become

[8/10 · 4 January 2023]

I wasn't familiar with Andrew Callaghan's work prior to learning of this documentary, but based on some other reviews he seems to have a following. I was also pretty sure I'd seen and heard everything there was to know about the events of January 06, 2021 and Qanon.

Mr. Callaghan has proven me wrong!

I have absolutely no complaints with his style or the editing, nor do I think he failed to address any points that bear discussion.

In short, this movie provides a glimpse into the mirror of our collective consciousness in the post-COVID USA. Neither side is spared where footage of various protests is concerned. We see foolish young would-be leftists and social justice warriors getting basic facts wrong while they yell at the pro-Trump side and unable to define "socialism." We see pro-Trump and Qanon types (some clearly intoxicated) making equal mistakes from the other direction. We see two contrasting families; one immersed in Qanon lore and having programmed their kids by repeating nonsense like Democrats worship Satan over and over and over, the other family slightly more "normal." We also learn of a very vocal Trump and Q supporter who rails incessantly about child trafficking and other terrible things, when he himself has been convicted on pretty much those exact charges! The facts? America - both "sides" - is full of hypocrites and people who have been fed a steady diet of misinformation guided by algorithms and shouting heads on Fox and MSNBC to hate or fear their fellow Americans.

Through it all, Mr. Callaghan's camera gaze remains fixated and he approaches every interviewee with the same neutral and non-judgmental manner. In the end,

There are other user reviews up stating that Callaghan missed details or intentionally left things out, but the truth is as follows:

* Only the President or a governor can activate the National Guard.

* The Speaker of the House cannot override the Commander in Chief and has no authority over the National Guard.

* AOC never said she was INSIDE the Capitol building during the insurrection.

* The Capitol Police only started "letting them in" once the critical mass had been reached and they had no other choice due to intensifying violence and growth of the crowd's size at the respective entrance point.

*"BLM" and antifa did NOT dress up like Trump supporters and participate in the insurrection. That is just flat ridiculous. For one thing, I counted maybe 2 Black people in the crowds and zero black bloc antifa types. There's nothing surprising at all about a Hispanic looking person waving a Confederate flag; ever been to West Texas? LOL

* While definitely damning for many other reasons, the Twitter Files do not address the "set up" to January 06.

In conclusion, congrats to Andrew for making that next jump in his career and bringing us all an important, scary and entertaining gaze into the mirror at ourselves!

The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power (2022– )

Total waste of time and money...so far

[2/10 · 2 September 2022]

What is there to say that hasn't been said? The acting is wooden. I blame the direction for that. The CGI is good, but so what, it's 2022.

The story of Galadriel is admittedly disjointed in the Tolkien books, but this series takes serious creative license with it to the point of utter absurdity. Anyone who's seen the first 2 episodes knows what I'm talking about.

And why invent a character from whole cloth? Peter Jackson did it with Liv Tyler's character and now we get a random Elf soldier and another stupid, uninteresting love story. I shall leave it to the viewers as to the reasoning behind this one. Suffice it to say, it's obvious.

What an utterly disappointing start to a highly hyped series. Apparently writers simply cannot be trusted to faithfully convey any source material anymore. At least GRRM had some involvement in the first several seasons of GoT and it shows. Same for the first few episodes of "The House of Dragons." Sadly, it's obvious that no knowledgeable (or faithful) representative for JRRT was available with a $1Bn budget, eh, Bezos?

This is like "Foundation" so far. Flat, lifeless, but pretty. Uninteresting, no characters I care about, nothing original at all. I think I'll wait for all eps to be out and then attempt to binge watch, because I'm not sitting around and waiting for them to be dropped week by week.

Resurrection (2022)

Really wanted to like this

[5/10 · 7 August 2022]

Great acting, directing and cinematography cannot save what amounts to a big old nothing burger of a story/plot.

The film is very engaging to watch, sets were chosen well, Albany, NY makes an interesting backdrop.

But after we're fully introduced to the villain, the story stops making any rational sense. It's just not believable.

National Bird (2016)

Ignore the Security State apologists with a vendetta against the truth

[9/10 · 4 August 2022]

In this eye-opening documentary, we are introduced to several former drone operators and the individuals who make that job possible. You can safely ignore the "reviews" which claim to "debunk" the material based on semantics, unclear statements and somewhat badly formulated interview questions. The fact is that this film documents the horrible personal and sociological effects felt here at home by those who were participants in the mostly secret or intentionally obscured from the public drone wars under Bush, but then on steroids under Obama and Trump (and likely continuing w/ Biden).

Whether one of these individuals actually pulled the trigger or was, rather, a cog in the machine which comprises the drone war program(s) is immaterial to the filmmaker's points and the psychological impact felt by those who learned they were, as often as not, participating in the cold blooded remote murders of innocent men, women, children and infants in places far, far away (in most cases, some drones are operated from OCONUS military installations). If you're a part of the operation, directly participate in surveillance, targeting or image analysis, you're as guilty as the "pilots" (really more akin to a video game or remote controlled model plane w/ munitions) are and the subjects of this documentary recognize and acknowledge it.

To the content of the movie itself, it's essentially what you might think it is. A long hard look at what this kind of warfare and the shattered and maimed lives it leaves behind abroad does to those who carry it out. And to the would-be critics leaving IMDB reviews, especially the ones invoking the God fearing "democracy" that is allegedly the USA and the innate trust in their government which has lied to them countless times, if this program is so successful in its *stated* aims, why the dark, impenetrable curtain of secrecy? Why the million-person long lists, accessible mainly to those with high level security clearances, without any transparency whatsoever? Why are "we" still there in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and other places which pose absolutely zero threat to any American civilian at home or abroad?

The answers, partially documented here, are actually quite simple and they all tie back to the intense secrecy surrounding not only the drone program(s), but many, many other policies and actions carried out in far flung countries of the Global South. It's all about the Benjamins, and anything - including exposure of its existence, the telling of the horrible psychological toll it puts on the participants, and even more so, the loss of too many innocent lives to really fathom - will be attacked from every angle possible rather than simply explained, justified and debated. To continue along that thread - and following the one this film lays out - I would argue that anyone attempting to discredit this film or discourage others from watching it are nearly as guilty as the untouchable policy makers and politicians whose military-industrial-complex constituencies they serve over the actual people in their districts and states.

9/10 with a single star deducted for some editing and in the formulation of interview questions which would have precluded several of the negative "debunking" comments based only on semantics and a claimed true understanding of this awful system.

Shelter in Place (III) (2021)

It's on Tubi for a reason

[2/10 · 28 July 2022]

Unless you're extremely bored and haven't yet had enough pandemic themed streaming content, this is an utter waste of time. No redeeming qualities whatsoever.

1.5/10 rounded up to 2 stars.

The Speedboat Killer: The Killing of Charlotte Brown (2021 TV Movie)

Dude drives boat too fast, hits submerged tree, he and girl thrown from boat

[5/10 · 13 June 2022]

Which somehow leads to a protracted 5-year saga, mainly pushed by the UK tabloid media (gawd they're awful) and the girl's family.

This really didn't need to be a two-part series. The gist of the case was whether the guy was negligent and that's pretty straightforward to resolve. Where it goes off the deep end, no pun intended, is in the ridiculous character assassination of Jack Shepherd by pointing out such (not) awful facts as he was playing the field and dating multiple women a week (gasp!) or that he may have had a template for his dates (OMIGAWD!) because he allegedly took other women to the same restaurant and back to his house boat & speed boat after drinking (Truly evil!!!). Stuff like that consumes a good 25 minutes of this schlockumentary.

Subject flees the UK and is located by the sLimey tabloid media after having started not one, but two new lives with different women. Why it's supposed to be so important to the viewer that he married one of them and had a kid so soon after the accident is only known by the director and producer. That also consumes about 20 minutes of the run time.

Let me just spoil this TV show in case anyone wants not to waste their time with it.

1. Man takes girls on speedboat. One night it goes awry when either he or the woman was driving the boat, at high speeds, intoxicated and without wearing life jackets.

2. Authorities initially view it as a tragic accident and decline to prosecute any case against the man.

3. Victim's parents and fawning, aforementioned over-the-top slanderous UK tabloid "journalists" begin massive campaign of influence and character assassination ultimately getting the authorities interested enough in investigating the case further.

4. It's obvious to all at the very beginning that he and she were both behaving recklessly, that his boat was not water worthy (at least at the speeds it was driven), and that it was mutual negligence which caused the accident and tragic death.

5. We are treated to headline after headline branding him as a cold blooded, conniving "killer" despite any evidence other than what we already know from #1.

6. His life is laid out from around the time of the incident to his getting married and having a kid, cold cocking a poor bar employee in his new town in Wales, and then leaving the country for Georgia where he is eventually tracked down and extradited to serve the 6 year sentence he received in absentia.

If anything, the dude deserves another 2 years for what he did to the bartender.

End of story.

The Night House (2020)

Nice little horror film.

[8/10 · 10 May 2022]

I really enjoyed this movie and surprisingly so did my wife who is not a fan of the horror genre.

I wouldn't say it's outright scary, but there are a few moments which are genuinely frightening.

It's more of a mystery in that regard and a slow burn sense of dread pervades the film. Most people will probably catch on and guess the conclusion about 2/3 of the way through, but it's compelling and original enough to merit an 8-star review.

The Lost City (2022)

Do yourself a favor and watch Romancing the Stone instead.

[4/10 · 10 May 2022]

I was suspicious when the wife wanted to drag me out to see this film because I had seen literally zero advertisements or trailers on TV or the Internet.

Now I know why. Clearly they blew the budget on the lead actors, locations and effects.

Don't get me wrong; there are a few funny and cute moments, but this is not worth the price of a movie theater ticket these days, let alone drinks and popcorn.

Watch "Romancing the Stone" or even "Jewel of the Nile" instead and wait for this thing to hit Netflix with ads, lol.

Wild Tales (2014)

What an awesome cinematic experience

[10/10 · 25 May 2021]

This is why people pay to watch movies. If you haven't yet read the plot (and it's convoluted to say the least) I highly recommend that you stop reading reviews right now and just find a way to watch this film.

What can I say that hasn't already been said? It's as though David Fincher and Paul Thomas Anderson got together to make an anthology contrasting the strong human ego with the weak grasp with which we actually hold onto our lives.

I don't think I've ever given a (modern) film a 10-star rating, but the cinematography, direction, score, acting, and story ideas/executions were all 10/10, hands down.

Argentine cinema has really caught up to Hollywood if this is any indication.

There isn't a better title in the world than "Relatos Salvajes" ("Wild Tales") for this movie which more than lives up to it. This is a film that you can watch again and again or show to friends when you're trying to prove you've got great taste in cinema! You won't be disappointed, I promise!

Under the Tree (2017)

Excellent dark comedy

[8/10 · 25 May 2021]

I found this film to be highly enjoyable. It does a great job of portraying super uncomfortable situations in a darkly humorous manner. The scenes centered on the dog were some of the best and most hilarious.

Not everyone will get this kind of dark humor, and not everyone will watch films with subtitles. But as long as you go in with reasonable expectations and take "Under the Tree" for what it is, you shouldn't be disappointed.

Please don't leave 1- and 2-star reviews just because you didn't get it or like it. At least provide some objective criticism and/or comparisons to other films that you think *did* succeed where you're claiming this one failed. Thanks.

Seance (I) (2021)

Pleasantly surprised!

[7/10 · 25 May 2021]

I only pirated this film because it showed up in the catalog at a torrent site and isn't available to stream or in theaters in my area.

All in all I really enjoyed it. The score was great, really liked the creative choice in music and it set the perfect tone for a genre bending mystery/slasher/haunting story.

The acting was just fine and the cast of all female leads were mostly easy on the eyes.

Direction was first rate and the plot kept me interested enough to stick through to the end. With a short-ish run time of about an hour and a half, this film didn't try to be too much or cram any extraneous nonsense in.

Rating: 7.5 for entertainment value and that's about the highest rating I'll give for a movie that isn't super original so it's not a knock on it at all. Ignore the sub-5 star reviews as they were clearly going in with completely unrealistic expectations.

New Order (2020)

Simple take on the tyranny of the few when corruption and inequality prevail

[9/10 · 23 May 2021]

"Nuevo Orden" uses as its foundation the huge wealth gap and prevalence of violence in modern Mexico, which primarily is due to drug cartels and allowed to continue by police/military and governmental corruption.

The premise is simple: In a situation like what you have in present day Mexico where the very real violence of the drug cartels is being used as an excuse by the easily corrupted government to militarize the country and enrich themselves. The savvy viewer will realize that neither the upper nor lower classes are painted as the bad guys across the board. Mexico has extreme wealth inequality but as long as the violence of "the streets" and the cartels doesn't encroach on the rich, the bribes are paid and everyone pretends things are normal, the people will accept a certain amount of government corruption, sometimes even participating in it (note the bride's comments about the bribes), and they'll sacrifice some of their liberties to feel "safe." Meanwhile, the poor - ever faced with extreme poverty and violence - must know their place and stay in their lane for things to feel "normal."

This movie takes the cynical view that with those dynamics at play, any demonstrations or popular protest movements might just be allowed to turn ugly so that bad actors in the military and government can crack down on everyone to reinstate "order." At the end of the movie the only thing that's changed is who's in control. The rich remain rich and the poor remain poor. Everyone is under martial law and extreme surveillance. The corrupt "new order" uses intimidation and murder to hold onto their new powers and other than those who died, nobody else is in a different position than they were when the movie started.

So it's a basic lesson about what's possible with extreme wealth concentration, lack of economic mobility for the poor, a citizenry that isn't allowed to legally own guns, high corruption in government and police, a large domestic military presence and a country that obviously has developed a tolerance for extreme violence as long as it is relegated to the fringes and polite society feels "safe" from it. It's a very fragile and fraught dynamic which can easily result in the "need" for martial law which is borne of corruption within all areas of the government.

The level of brutality was necessary, IMO, to make sure that the viewer realizes that once a certain line has been crossed and there's no impartial reliable way to redress grievances and no legal way to climb out poverty, nobody is safe and the people with the most firepower just might decide that they're the new leaders. It's happened before, even if it didn't look exactly like this movie.

Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (2019)

The number of 10 star reviews is simply not realisitc

[7/10 · 12 August 2019]

I am a long-time fan of Tarantino. I watched both Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction in theaters on opening day in two different cities. I have seen all of his movies in the theater within a week of their release, and I absolutely place three of his films in my all-time top 20 list.

Let me summarize this one as quickly as I can with no spoilers. Tarantino is trying to do two things here - write a love letter to Hollywood of the 1960s and predicated that on a post-facto would-be revenge story about the horrific Manson family murders of Sharon Tate and her unborn baby in 1969. The film making is top notch as usual (my literal one complaint is that DiCaprio did NOT look like he belonged in the digitally manipulated clips - the sweat/oil on his skin did not match the other original actors) and the editing and storyline are very well managed. The reconstruction (digital?) of 1969 LA and Hollywood is phenomenal. It's on par with the job on Roma, which was set in 1970s Mexico City and rightfully won a Cinematography Oscar.

There is plenty to see and talk about in this film. The acting is great, and the fictionalized narratives are realistically believable. It's a fine film.

But this is NOT a 9 or 10 out of 10 by ANY objective scale when taken against the history of film-making. IMDB has lost control of the ability to regulate real and fake reviews. Literally every big-time wide release movie now is flooded by either 9/10 star reviews or 1/2 star reviews. It's ridiculous and the site's credibility suffers as a result.

"Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" is a fun 2hours and 45minutes and a very well made film. It is not an achievement in cinema nor is it one of Tarantino's top 4 films.