Change Your Image
vern-729-149732
Reviews
Hypnotic (2023)
Did Affleck have a bad cold when he made this?
Very confusing and hard to follow also hard to feel any connection to the plot or characters. Reminded me of "Jumpers" but not nearly as good. Ben Affleck's voice was... ugh... horrible. Was that voice an acting choice? Sounded like he had a bad cold or was channeling batman again. If it was intentional it was a very bad idea. Along with his horrible low voice his acting went along with it. He actually seemed to have the flu but was under contract and a deadline so he did the movie anyway and simply didn't bother trying to act at all. It was awful, embarrassing. In several scenes it was clear something was wrong because his voice broke.
The acting was awful. No one was on their game here. The dialog badly written, quite frankly the whole movie was badly written. I simply had no emotional response to it. I only watched it to the end becasue someone recommended it and I hoped it would get better. It didn't.
Personally I loath movies like this where people are "taken over" and the protagonists simply can't win. This is also one of those movies where it's a bunch of different scenes of the same thing, "almost get caught, get away, almost get caught, get away" over and over. Oh and of course they repeat the movie trope "find a friend, lose a friend, find another friend" etc. The only movie where taking over people to catch the protagonists worked was the Matrix and that was because it was a small part of the exposition and action. They didn't over use it.
Prey (2022)
This movie gave me chills... haven't gotten chills from a movie in ages
8 out of ten but I wanted to give it ten. I decided to leave a little room. I Before watching I read somewhere this was as good as the original. I have to agree. I got the same excitement and thrills and felt a strong character development. And, this movie gave me chills. I haven't had chills watching a movie in a long long long time. I can't even remember when I felt a chill of excitement watching a movie. It's been many years. I found the native american portrayals and character development on par with movies like Dances With Wolves... okay that might be a stretch... but it was damn well done. I thought the build up was right on target. Despite complaints here, about plot holes and unbelievability of the heroines strengths, I believed in her despite her apparent weaknesses. Come on people, Arnold compared against predator isn't much better than a young Comanche against a predator. It's not size its cunning skill and confidence. Dang Predators are so freaking arrogant of course they lose. Watching previews I wasn't sure how they would handle language but was grateful there were no silly accents or subtitles.
Beyond the Black Rainbow (2010)
No comparison to other films really
Many have written that this is sort of like 2001 or Solaris or other films that are vaguely similar. However those movies being compared have definable plots and dialog that clearly tells a story. This movie has none of that AT ALL. Zip, zero zilch. There's barely any useful dialog, no exposition of any kind. What dialog there is doesn't explain or have impact on "the plot" (plot in quotes because there is no plot). I watched it all the way through and enjoyed it to some small degree. I "appreciated it" as an "art film" but would never recommend it. It was worth watching once and that's about it. Now at least when I see the preview image on streaming services I can skip over it and not worry if I am missing anything.
In the Tall Grass (2019)
Derivative - Same plot as Cube 3 - Hypercube
Kind of monotonous and annoying characters. However I kept feeling like I'd seen it before. Then it dawned on me the plot is the same as the movie Cube 3. Same concept of people trapped in an endless, never changing environment finding copies of themselves in different times and alternate futures.
Not saying it was bad. It's still worth a watch, I just get annoyed in this day and age of "short format" storytelling to pad a movie like this with a large portion of "movie mulch" or "cinema cereal", a bunch of empty repetitive filler to stretch a simple concept to fill some old school 90 minute time slot. Not sure but I seem to recall the novella or book it was based on was a lot smaller and simpler. This could have been an hour long, maybe even 30 minutes and still be terrifying.
MythBusters: The Search (2017)
Cast is trying to hard
I too had high hopes when I first heard about this but even the PREVIEWS and commercials were so annoying my hopes slowly were dashed. Finally when the show started I could see it was never ever ever, even in it's wildest dreams, going to be remotely, fractionally close to the original.
The main problem with this concept is WHY Mythbusters was a hit for such a long time.
t was not the concept looking for casting. It was not the "pitch" of the show to a producer or network that made it a hit.
The reason Mythbusters was a smash hit, successful and an inspiration to so many people was because of the two hosts period. Without that chemistry, without that GENUINE surprise, joy, enthusiasm to what they were trying to do it wouldn't have worked.
This new show starts of right away with one of the worst elements (in my humble opinion) of "reality" shows. The COMPETITION and kicking someone out.
I despise "vote someone off" TV shows with a passion. They come up with this "forced" work together for a goal with an undercurrent of "working together but secretly against each other". You can't separate that no matter how hard you try.
The original Mythbusters was the TOTAL OPPOSITE of that horrible reality show concept. Tthe joy of the original Mythbusters was the camaraderie, the working together to figure stuff out. Yes, yes, I know that Adam and Jamie had "competitions" but they were simply fun and no potential careers were on the line. Neither of them was going to "lose their job" if they lost. (I actually think I heard once that Jamie didn't enjoy the competitions but I may be wrong.) Personally I never liked those competitions.
Another problem with this "search" concept is that all of the cast are TRYING TOO HARD!!!!!! Good grief STOP TRYING SO HARD. It's ANNOYING when some of the cast simply gush and act like morons, doing really really REALLY bad impressions of Adam (or Jamie to some degree). I guarantee the end result of this show will be two "clones" of Adam and Jamie which is a HUGE mistake. I agree they need a new idea.
Adam Savage's silly, childish personality was 100% real based on who he is and it was clear and believable. The behavior of most of THIS cast is as fake and unbelievable as a 3 dollar bill. It reminds of me of little kids shows when the hosts are completely over the top baby talking happy and over the top enthusiastic because the audience is tiny children.
I find the majority of the cast unremarkable and unwatchable for more than a few minutes before I start to gag or have to avert my eyes and cover my ears. Those that don't annoy me are simply unremarkable. They have zero personality or their personality is so fake I don't see it lasting very long before they crack under the pressure.
This show will fail is my prediction. Any resulting "Mythbusters Reboot" will also fail... but I am thinking maybe... this is NOT about finding new Mythbusters hosts but ONLY about another "Survivor" show.
What a shame if the Mythbusters reboot is just a new show about pretending to try and find someone as interesting as the original cast.
Pay It Forward (2000)
This movie confirms that "paid" critics get it wrong most of the time for me
Have to say that this movie is not one of my favorites, but it also is a movie that is "on the edge" of what pushes jaded "professional reviewers" over that edge.
When looking at an overall consensus of "critics" and "viewer" opinions, the actual VIEWERS opinions, those people who watch movies by choice, and not because it's "their job" this movie gets more positive feedback, in fact from what I can see the jaded, "forced to watch it" critics hate this movie.
IMDb on the other hand shows ratings based on viewers opinions and it's those opinions lately I go to for a more even handed and realistic view of whether I will like a movie. Even this movie which really is an "over the top" good lord this is just a bit too much to take kind of movie the score is still even handed and fair. Yes it leans past the middle into the positive but quite frankly even if you hate this type of thing it still deserves it.
I did enjoy many moments. I did wish the world could be maybe a little bit that maudlin "sometimes" within limits.
But overall what it shows me is that IMDb is much closer to showing me scores and reviews that match how I feel about movies compared to almost every other review site. There is some overlap of course, some movies just can't be panned even by the most jaded reviewers.
Pay It Forward is a very sappy sugary type of movie but even the worst of us enjoy that type of snack occasionally, even if we would NEVER admit it publicly.
The Black Stallion (1979)
One of the best movies ever made... humble opinion
I hate checking the "Contains Spoiler" checkbox. I don't think I reveal anything specific that isn't already well known about a movie this old but checked it just in case.
I was in high school when I saw this film. I believe it established early on the style of film making I have appreciated for the rest of my life. I have been trying to find where this love of quiet, minimalistic, but extremely powerful imagery became such a huge part of my cinematic taste. Although the one big movie I compare this too was made before The Black Stallion, I didn't see it until years later. It was The Black Stallion that was the first of it's type to influence me.
This may seem a completely bizarre comparison but one of the films that has a compelling similarity is the original "Alien" film. Little or no deep exposition at the start. Limited dialog, or at least only the dialog that would happen naturally in the moments. No flowery, over the top poetic nonsense. Alien also was "two movies" in "one". A calm non threatening setup, leading to intense conflict.
I know I know, these two movies seem completely and utterly opposites and not related in any way, but after watching it again today, Alien was the first movie that popped into my head. One of the things I loved about Alien/Black Stallion are the "sound textures". When you have limited dialog the director or possibly the sound designer, tends to include rich and detailed sounds. For example the scene with Brett in Alien, when the water is dripping on his cap. That scene is brilliant and the sound is compelling. The Black Stallion is filled with moments like this.
Another movie, maybe a bit more comparable from an emotional aspect would be "The Natural". Much more dialog, but still minimalistic. A bit more "magical", but it had a similar "feel" and impact. It also had a strong "two movies in one" structure but with a shorter "first half". Also the endings of both while not identical, have a similar emotional release.
Rarely do I see a movie again after so many years and still feel the same about it. Usually it's the youthful newness of the movie in my minds eye that doesn't last over the years. I saw this movie again for the first time after at least 15-20 years. If anything it was even a stronger and better movie with my older viewpoint. At least it totally held up. Some movies from my youth look like crap on re-watching years later.
The horse "actor" was amazing (was it one or more horses? Not going to check. Can't tell anyway). The trainer has to be the best in the business or else that horse was special. The relationship between the child actor and the horse was simply perfect. After research I discovered the actor grew up with horses... what a perfect combination and I don't doubt this contributed to the realistic relationship between the horse and the actor. The relationship was so good you assumed they must have spent a long time together and developed a true connection. In many movies with animal/people relationships, you can see the animals "acting" to off-camera instructions and the relationship feels forced. The Black Stallion was absolutely perfect in that regard. In the first half of the film I was convinced they simply abandoned the boy and horse on an island with some cameras.
Many times child actors are... well... often when a child actor is cast in a lead the decisions are very poor. I hate to beat a dead horse, but Star Wars Episode 1 comes to mind as the number 1 in bad child casting. The actor in this film however, was perfect. Sadly the star of The Black Stallion wasn't able to continue his acting career after a bad accident. Maybe "sad" is the wrong description. He may not feel that way.
Casting a child in a film like this requires a genuine talent. You get it wrong and the film is a failure of max proportions. Get it perfect and a modest film can become a hit. Imagine this film with a horribly awful bad actor playing Alec. Oh good grief, if that happened the movie would have flopped and been hard to watch.
The supporting cast was also perfect. Micky Rooney was amazing. You honestly believed his back story. Alec's mother also was perfect. Of course, she had that reputation as an actor portraying a supportive mother against her better instincts.
The "two movies in one" aspect was brilliantly handled. I remember seeing it the first time and the "transition" felt jolting but not in a bad way. My most recent viewing, the transition felt smoother. This is also another cinematic choice that can be very difficult to pull off.
Also, many times this type of "extraordinary animal" movie can be completely unrealistic. This film simply nailed it. There really wasn't any aspect of the developing relationship between the boy and the horse that didn't feel like it could have happened that way. My only tiny bit of skepticism would be to question if a truly wild animal is capable of recognizing when someone helps them out of a stressful situation. A minor quibble and I'm probably wrong. I assume taming or breaking a wild horse would be done in a similar way.
Anyway... brilliant movie. One of my top 10. Inspirational movie.
It's not in my top 10 of "watch over and over" type films. This is an intense watch. You have to WATCH it. It's not an "easy" watch but it is a brilliant experience.
Rio Bravo (1959)
And I don't even like old westerns!
Usually I don't like these types of old westerns. They often present a "let's go camping with our cell phones and gourmet freeze dried food" version of the old west. I think the old westerns tend to make it more glamorous than it was. I do like many of the recent westerns. Probably starting with "The Unforgiven", and I also like any of the classic spaghetti westerns with Mr. Eastwood. Those are often more gritty and quite different compared to this type of "amusement park western" with John Wayne.
However, this one was just plain dang fun with great characters and a believable romance (Every time there's any type of romance in any movie that the film maker's want me to believe in, I compare it to Star Wars Episodes 2 and 3. Two movies to create a convincing love story and it failed miserably). What I appreciated was that it wasn't "simplistic". The developing romance between the Wayne and Dickinson's character had some "relatively" complex elements that weren't simple western cookie cutter, not all spelled out, type of cinematic relationship. Yeah it wasn't that complex but it was interesting to figure out the motivations and fun to follow along. There was even some comic relief! Quite frankly, Angie Dickinson was a major hottie in her day. Whoa! She looked familiar but I couldn't place the face. Didn't recognize her AT ALL. I had to check the credits.
Some reviewers don't care for the romance and the longer story development elements, but just like one of those man made climbing walls at a sporting goods stores, without it there aren't any good handholds. I need those parts to hang on to, keeping my interest so I can keep climbing to the top.
Without some slowing down and something to care about, the rest of the action is just another old western that bores the heck out of me. I know people who "fast forward" or "talk" through the slow bits in action movies. I am the complete opposite. Without that back story, without the stuff that happens BETWEEN the action sequences, I have no commitment or involvement in the outcome. Without light there's no dark. Without contrasts it's all "one color".
I couldn't sleep, it was early early morning so I was up anyway, flipped on the TV and this was on. Was going to change channel but was too lazy and hadn't planned to watch anything "with commitment", just background noise. But then I got sucked in and before I knew it was totally engrossed in the characters and story and really enjoying it.
The only thing I might have left out would have been the kind of out of place, awkward "musical break" from the two major singers in the cast. I thought this would be coming at some point but hoped they might skip over it... but... at least there wasn't too much of it. I can't imagine two "cowboys" with singing voices like that just randomly thrown together in the same town in the same dangerous situation. Another one of those "throw out all believability" old western cliché.
The Colorado character seemed a bit out of place and unconventional but I think he pulled it off. Acting was a bit stiff but I didn't mind. He was almost like a "Deus Ex Machina". Might be too strong to say that but close enough. He was always in the right place at the right time.
Some say it was too long? Wow... I was actually disappointed when it ended. I wanted more. Guess I have to watch some Gunsmoke reruns. I had to give it a 10 out of 10 based on how much I enjoyed it. When the time just flies by without consciously noticing, and I feel sad when the credits roll, I have to give it a 10.
The Code Conspiracy (2002)
Typical low budget "less than B" movie
I pick up these cheap discount DVD's that have 4 movies for $5. Often you get lucky and there is one or two worth watching. This was not one of those. It was quite awful.
The main plot element regarding keyless encryption is utter nonsense as far as I know. Keyless encryption already exists but is not very secure. Also during the movie the so called "keyless encryption" required a key to unlock it which is not that far fetched.
From reading the reviews I get the impression know one knows what really happened in the beach scene. Possibly the writer knows?
Two theories Theory 1. Quantum physics and teleportation (mentioned earlier in the movie) Personally I would never get into a teleportation device. You could NEVER know for certain that you aren't just being destroyed and an exact copy is being made (any teleportation technology would involve the destruction of the "source").
Theory 2. John is a new messiah? David Warner's character mentions that John's name is in the code in reference to Jesus. John needs to release the code like Jesus spreading "the word".
Not a religious man myself, but I often wonder about "odd" things like PI and prime numbers... fractals etc. Those are mathematical and bound by rules... but also relate to the so-called "natural" world. Math itself is part of the natural world. It existed before man, or the earth. Mathematics was not "invented" by man, it was "discovered". 2 plus 2 can never equal 5 (unless you are George Orwell). So how were those rules "created"? Is there another "universe" where 2 + 2 = 7? The filmmaker missed a great opportunity to do something interesting and thought provoking without needing to talk about nonsense things like "keyless encryption" and "bible codes".
Overall, really bad movie. If a message was trying to be sent with this movie regarding the writer/director's religious beliefs as some reviewers seem to feel, the message could have been a tad less ephemeral.