Change Your Image
SalTBalsak
Reviews
Nobody Speak: Trials of the Free Press (2017)
Schoolyard Bully Finally Gets Smacked Down, Proceeds To Cry About It
This completely one-sided affair with copious amounts of willfully blind hypocrisy, irony and ignorance is good for nothing other than seeing, in living color, the cesspool that was GAWKER Media and its amazingly smug and self-righteous founders, "editors" and "journalists" (cough cough) finally get its comeuppance. From that standpoint, you will thoroughly enjoy the film. Hence my 2 star rating instead of 1.
Particularly sad is the filmmaker's desperate attempt to juxtapose Trump with the root of this documentary, Bollea v GAWKER. They intersperse shots of Trump and his base calling out the media with shots of the court case as if they were somehow connected. Don't be fooled, the GAWKER case and Trump's tirades against the media never crossed paths in reality. One can only assume the filmmaker did this in a desperate attempt to gain notoriety for the film and sympathy for the subject matter which in GAWKER's case is a pretty tough, if not impossible sell.
Next they argue that Peter Thiel's involvement was the only reason GAWKER lost the case and was subsequently bankrupted. Yes, how dare someone with pockets deep enough to actually take them on head to head showed up, otherwise they would have won. I guess now they know how it felt to all the "little people" they defamed on a daily basis with no means to fight back. This blatantly obvious irony and hypocrisy is absolutely lost on them.
The filmmaker then goes on to highlight the "dangers" of "ultra- wealthy" individuals buying media outlets in order to control information and reporting. They use casino magnate and right-wing boogieman Sheldon Adelson purchasing the Las Vegas Review-Journal as their go-to example of this peril, yet amazingly fail to mention Jeff Bezos, Amazon founder and the world's second richest man, purchasing the far more influential Washington Post whose usage of anonymous sources in their reporting is just an accepted norm at this point. All the while, a Washington Post journalist is one of the interviewees espousing the dangers of the Adelson purchase. Once again, the irony is overwhelming.
Also, what the journalists interviewed and another reviewer on here fail to understand, but thankfully the jury did, is that Hulk Hogan and Terry Bollea ARE two different people in the sense described by the GAWKER case. Professional Wrestling is not like acting or being a sports figure or personality of any kind. An "old-school" wrestler such as Hogan/Bollea is expected to maintain his in-ring persona/character as a completely separate identity from his true self even when just strolling around outside their homes. It's called maintaining "kayfabe" (google it). So when "Hulk Hogan" is being interviewed or speaking about himself, that is absolutely completely different than interviewing "Terry Bollea". They ARE two different, distinct people. One is a character, one is the person playing the character, but one does not necessarily have the same characteristics of the other. I understand this is a difficult concept to understand, but, it's just a known fact in the wrestling industry... something of which an actual journalist should have complete knowledge.
Lastly, and I apologize for this review being so long, it's just that this documentary is so easy to pick apart, but, the moral the filmmaker is trying to get across, particularly in the GAWKER case, is, if you're a "public figure" a media company should be allowed to publish nude photos or a sex tape of you, secretly shot and distributed without your consent, otherwise it is somehow an affront to "free press". Does that make sense to you? I seem to remember sports personality Erin Andrews being secretly filmed through a peephole in her hotel room, suing and winning millions of dollars and the media applauded her, and rightfully so. But, I guess if it's the media profiting off the photos/video and not some ordinary creeper, it's a completely different story.
Are you beginning to get the same sense of the hypocrisy and irony I did? I think just maybe you are...
The Final Destination (2009)
Hysterically entertaining, The 3D adds to the series beautifully.
I have to admit, this is going to be a short and biased review. I love the Final Destination series and I've never seen a movie in 3D before. Add those 2 factors up and you get the most fun I've had at the theater in years. If you even remotely like the previous films, this one is a no-brainer. If you're like me and only seen the past 3 on cable or DVD, get off your butt and go see it in the theater in 3D...TOTALLY worth it.
If you've never seen any in the series, this is the one to see, but again, see it in the theater in 3D. My wife had not seen any and to quote her, she "definitely enjoyed it for what it was". She was dodging, flinching and laughing the whole time.
Also, if you haven't seen any of these films, let me assure you these are not conventional "horror" movies. There's no wacky slasher running around, no hordes of zombies, no haunted house. This series just uses a thin plot to loosely tie together some of the most creative and hysterical sight gags ever seen.
Okay, now for my mini-critique...
First off, the death scenes themselves are the same creative, tongue-in-cheek, over-the-top, gruesomely delicious deaths we've come to expect from the series. But, the painstaking 3D associated with them is what puts them above the other films (or any comic-gore movies). No spoilers here I hope (I mean, you know people get killed, right?), but the one right before the opening title and the one with the mechanic are simply off-the-chart awesome. I kept wanting to hit the rewind button on the movie so I could watch them again and again. Let's hope they release it on Blu-Ray in 3D when the time comes.
My only real complaint with the film does come from the death gags as well however. Although the actual deaths themselves are creative, the rube-goldberg set-ups in this are lacking the ingenuity of the previous films.
My other minor complaint lies in the methodology of how the lead character identifies the who and the how of the next death. Again, I don't want to spoil anything, but the previous versions handled this better.
The acting is serviceable at best, but again, the deaths and 3D are the stars of the movie and what you're paying to see. If you want acting, go rent "Doubt" (another very good movie). If you want to laugh, flinch and go "OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOhhhhhhhhhhh" at amazing sight gags, see "The Final Destination 3D".
"The Final Destination" series keeps on delivering the goods (in 3D no less) while series like "Saw" and "Hostel" were one and done. I really hope this movie posts some decent numbers. It is definitely the best Horror (and I use that term loosely) movie series of the past 10 years and I'd like it to continue. Go see it now!
P.S. I know my review skills suck, but this movie does not!
Mission: Impossible II (2000)
"Mission Implausible" more likely
Wow, talk about suspending disbelief! If you're gonna set a movie in the "real world" at least give me a grain or reality where at least one of the laws of physics still apply. Truly a sad, sad movie. The fact that it made so much money is even more disturbing!