shannonjefferies Reviews

La La Land (2016)

An epic romance tempered with reality

[10/10 · 1 October 2018]

La La Land is an epic romance tempered with reality. It's about two people trying to make their dreams come true in Hollywood and how much their willing to sacrifice along the way. Along with great music and choreography, the story ranges from hilarious to heartbreaking. In spite of it's bittersweet undertones, there's a lot to love about La La Land. For those who were left bewildered by the ending, here's some clarification so you won't be left scratching your head. (The following is not a spoiler but references the last scene.) The final musical montage was how Seb imagined his life might have been if he'd given up on his dreams. Afterwards, the smile he shares with Mia indicates they're both satisfied with the choices they've made.

World War Z (2013)

Left me asking myself "why"?

[3/10 · 21 November 2017]

This movie left me asking so many questions. Here's a breakdown of what had me shaking my head. 1) Right from the start, when Brad Pitt was stuck in traffic, why did he floor it and drive like a maniac until he wrecked his car? 2) At the grocery store, why was his wife being attacked by looters when she had an empty cart and nothing to steal? 3) When he and his family were headed up to the rooftop, why did he suddenly shut the door behind them and trap himself with the zombies when he could have just run through the door and locked it behind him instead? 4) When he was in Jerusalem, why was there a woman singing loudly into a Mr Mic when everyone knew there were a bunch of riled up zombies on the other side of the wall? 5) When he was running to the car, why did his driver look directly at him and then speed away even though there was no immediate danger? 6) Why did his plane conveniently crash right next to the exact place he was headed? 7) Why did the doctors at the WHO tie him down and interrogate him like he was a criminal? 8) Why did he very carefully leave his only weapon outside of the lab where zombies were roaming, thus leaving himself defenseless? 9) And finally, why did an A list star like Brad Pitt do such a terribly written movie? After careful consideration, I figured out the answer to questions 1-5 plus 7-8 is: to manufacture drama even though the characters had no logical reason to 1) drive like an idiot, 2) steal an empty cart, 3) lock himself in with zombies, 4) serenade zombies, 5) abandon the guy he's hired to drive, 7) be suspicious of a concussed plane crash survivor, 8) get rid of his only weapon. To answer question #6: his plane crashed directly next to the WHO because watching him walk there would have been boring. As for question #9, which is the most important one for me: Brad Pitt did this movie because the producers paid him such an insane amount of money that he completely lost his mind.

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)

80% Awesome, 20% plot holes & melodrama

[8/10 · 6 October 2016]

No, it isn't as good as the 1st film but it's still worth watching. I did notice several inconsistencies and some of the drama was a bit contrived but the good far outweighed the bad. Yes, it was way too convenient that an alien spacecraft was left unguarded in the Indian Ocean and it's completely ridiculous when Lois has to risk her life to retrieve a weapon she hid just 10 minutes earlier but the rest of the film was so good I can overlook things like these. The cinematography is breathtaking, the soundtrack is riveting and I happen to like the Christ analogies. I think it's completely plausible that if Superman were real then we would all take sides and either worship him or demonize him. As far as the ending goes, Henry Cavill is signed up for 3 more of these films so I wouldn't worry - I'm sure he'll be resurrected. Maybe around Easter?

Drunk History (2013–2019)

Hilariously entertaining but not always true

[14 March 2016]

First let me say that this is a great show. It's highly entertaining and it does actually teach history. However it's been my experience that in most episodes, at least one "fact" isn't actually true. One of the biggest falsehoods is the claim that Alexander Graham Bell stole the telephone from Elisha Gray. This is not true. Both men filed for patents on the exact same day and Bell's patent was not a copy of Gray's. In fact Gray's design was a variation of one Bell had come up with a year earlier. So really it was Gray who copied Bell, not the other way around. Another big falsehood is the claim that Patty Hearst woke up one day and was completely won over by her captors. The truth is she was beaten, raped and never allowed to go outside without armed escorts. Her life was under constant threat and she was always under duress. Pictures taken during the bank robbery show that some of her captors were pointing guns at her to make sure she played along. Most episodes don't have inaccuracies as big as these but they often have small ones. For example, Stetson Kennedy was not a down and out salesman but a published journalist and author. Also the phrase "banana republic" did not come from Sam "The Banana Man". It was coined by the author O'Henry years before Sam ever became involved in Honduran politics. Aside from inaccuracies like these, this is still a great show. It's absolutely hilarious and I always learn something new when I watch it.

Wreck-It Ralph (2012)

Wrong Lesson

[7/10 · 7 January 2016]

Let me start by saying that this is a wonderfully entertaining film packed full of action, humor and heart. However the best kids movies not only entertain but teach some kind of lesson as well. At the beginning of the film Ralph is misunderstood and mistreated by everyone. His "job" is to be the bad guy and he's treated as such even though he's actually a nice guy who's been assigned a crummy position. So you'd think that by the end of the film everyone will realize what jerks they've been and that the real villains are themselves. The lesson - look beneath the surface and treat people how they deserve to be treated not just the way you think they should be treated. Wrong!!! There's only one very brief scene where Felix realizes how unfair he's been to Ralph, and that's as close as this movie comes to getting the right message across. In the end things improve for Ralph and the others give him the respect he deserves, but they do it for all the wrong reasons. Instead of celebrating him for being the great guy he's been all along, Ralph saves the day and proves himself to be a hero. So I guess the lesson here is if you want people to invite you to parties and bake you a cake, save them from mass destruction. Otherwise you can go live on a pile of garbage and be alone.

All the President's Men (1976)

Thought I was going to die of boredom

[6/10 · 2 January 2016]

Most of this movie is people talking to each other about things that never play out on the screen. I thought I was going to die of boredom. It's literally nothing more than people having conversations with one another and it's about as exciting as watching people while they sit around talking. The Watergate scandal is an important part of our nations history, but it would have been more interesting to read about it than to sit through 2 hours of people talking about it. For future reference - there's no such thing as a "political thriller". This is an oxymoron. There's nothing thrilling, gripping or even suspenseful about politics. So if you ever see a movie described as such, don't believe it.

Eat: The Story of Food (2014– )

Lots of flash with little substance

[5/10 · 1 December 2015]

With its rapid fire info, flash bang graphics and thumping music, I could only stand to watch about 15 minutes of this documentary. Perhaps if I had ADD I might have found this manic style appealing, but I don't so I just found it irritating. I was also wary of the factuality of this documentary, since most of the "experts" were authors and TV personalities rather than historians and nutritionists. They talked a lot about how food makes them "feel", so these experts didn't lend much to the documentary anyway. I was surprised to see this got 8 stars. Perhaps if I watched more I'd find it worth while, but I just wasn't willing to subject myself to the Ludovico technique to find out.

Citizenfour (2014)

Biased and doesn't tell all the facts

[4/10 · 6 September 2015]

This is a one sided documentary that paints Edward Snowdon as a heroic whistle blower. It only focuses on the fact that he exposed the US governments' far reaching surveillance programs and never mentions the fact that he stole millions of top secret files which he indiscriminately turned over to a handful of journalists. So does this make him a whistle blower or a traitor? Well, he exposed how the US spies on people on it's own soil. I'd say that makes him a whistle blower. But he also revealed which nations the US spies on, how we do it, which nations spy on each other, how they do it and which of those nations are passing that info on to us. By doing so he also told every terrorist and criminal who's spying on them, how they're doing it and how to avoid detection. I'd say that makes him a traitor. This documentary also suffers from some other problems. More than once people talk about what "they" did but never explain who "they" are. It's full of vague techno jargon and acronyms. No one explains what any of it means, so the audience is left to figure things out for themselves. I also have to take off points for several excessively long scenes of Edward Snowdon doing mundane things - staring at his laptop, looking out the window, fixing his hair. I think they were meant to convey his isolation, but they just made me feel bored. So, bottom line - this is a biased documentary that leaves out facts, throws around vague techno babble perpetrated by "they" and portrays Edward Snowdon as a hero/victim who's only crime is telling the truth.

The Borgias (2011–2013)

So sorry this series was canceled

[10/10 · 21 August 2015]

I loved "The Borgias" and was really upset when it was canceled. I'm a total history nerd and the renaissance is one of my favorite time periods. This series is not just about the characters, but about life in the early renaissance. As far as historical accuracy goes, the writers did take some liberties, but it's still a thousand times more accurate than "The Tudors" ever was. For example, Machiavelli was actually a very young man, not the mature man he's portrayed as. And Ludovico Sforza was a refined patron of the arts, not the raging barbarian he's portrayed as. Season 1 is fantastic, but the first few episodes of season 2 felt like it was written by people who'd never seen the show for an audience who'd never watched it before. Scenes and conversations that were already played out in season 1 were basically repeated in season 2. There was also an episode where the characters take a tour of the city and talk to each other about what life is like during the renaissance. I felt like I was watching a documentary and I half expected a professor to step into the screen and address the audience directly. After these disappointing episodes, season 2 got better and the rest of it was just as great as season 1. Since the show was canceled during season 3, I was worried that it would end without resolving most of the story lines. Although the last episode ends very abruptly, all of the loose ends are tied up and whatever happens next is left to the audience's imagination. It was a satisfying ending, but historically, there's much more left to be told. Nevertheless, if you love history, you'll love "The Borgias". After you're done watching it, read about the real people and about the rest of the story this series leaves untold.

X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014)

So many plot holes you have to try not to think - at all

[6/10 · 21 August 2015]

I liked the overall storyline, but this movie is nothing but one plot hole after another. To start with, Kitty has to constantly stand over Wolverine while she's projecting him back in time. But since he spends several days in the past, doesn't that mean she also has to stand there for several days? Wouldn't she at least have to have a bathroom break once and a while? Next, I'd like to know where Quicksilver got his Walkman from. Did he travel to the future, because this movie takes place in 1973 but Walkman's weren't invented until 1979? Now, as for Magneto, his power is to manipulate metal, right? So when he's standing on top of the train how does he know where to place the metal inside of it? Does he also have x-ray vision? And why do the robots obey his commands? Did he also reprogram them? Maybe he took computer programing classes while he was in prison - although that seems pretty unlikely considering most people didn't own a digital watch or even a pocket calculator back then. Finally, when Magneto orders the robots to kill the mutants, why don't they just immediately shoot him first? I mean he's standing right next to them, so shouldn't he be the first mutant they spot? Sorry but this movie has so many plot holes, the only way to enjoy it is to abandon all logic and just try not to think - at all.

John Carter (2012)

Completely enthralling and worth every minute

[7/10 · 14 July 2015]

I thoroughly enjoyed this film from beginning to end. For a long time I avoided watching it because of all the bad reviews it got. Many reviewers said it was slow and boring while others complained that it had poor pacing or that it was "cheesy". I disagree with all of them. As someone who's watched countless sci-fi films I can be a very harsh critic myself, but I don't have a single complaint about this film. It was exciting, suspenseful and action packed. It had drama, romance and just the right amount of comic relief thrown in. I spent the entire time completely enthralled and never once felt like it was too slow or too fast or corny or predictable. I've never read "A Princess of Mars" so I don't know how closely this film follows the book. But now that I've watched it I want to read the entire series. I don't understand why so many people gave this film such a low rating. Please don't let all of the bad reviews stop you from seeing it. Give "John Carter" a chance. It's definitely worth it.

The World Wars (2014)

Skewed History

[5/10 · 24 June 2015]

This is a good series, but it focuses 100% on famous figures like Churchill and Hitler and completely excludes everyone else. By doing so they've created a pseudo history which leaves the audience believing that Patton and McArthur were solely responsible for the allied victory during WWI. Patton for instance was not the 1st nor nor best tank commander during WWI and McArthur was not the 1st nor the only person to see the gap in the German lines during the Hundred Days Offensive. The Battle of Cambrai was actually the 1st successful tank mission and that was before Patton ever learned to drive a tank. Lt. Col. Walter E. Bare was the 1st person to see the gap in the German line not McArthur as this documentary claims. This series does have a lot of good information, but sadly anyone who doesn't know any better will walk away with a false sense of history.

How We Got to Now (2014– )

Should be called How America Got to Now

[9/10 · 24 June 2015]

A great series, very informative, but I kind of feel like it should have been called How America Got to Now. Beginning with the 1st episode, you would think that Chicago was the very 1st city in the world to create a sewer system. Not so - every city all the way back to Mesopotamia had a sewer system, but around the mid 19th century many had outgrown their old sewers and began updating them. At the same time Chicago was updating theirs, London was doing the exact same thing and without any help from the Americans. By the end of this segment the viewer is left with the impression that the Chicago sewer system was the sole inspiration for the London Underground - absolutely not true. The Brits were the 1st to invent the steam engine, the train and the underground subway without a single American to help them along. Here are some more American-centric examples from the series: The host goes straight from whale oil to the electric light without ever mentioning gas lights. Gas lights (another British invention) predated the electric light by about 80 years and were used throughout Europe. In the episode about glass the host barely mentions the camera and fast forwards to the camera NASA developed for the moon landing. BTW both the still photo camera and the movie camera were French inventions, but I suspect that's why they weren't included in the show. In the episode about sound, the host fails to talk about the invention of the radio and skips ahead to the vacuum tube which amplified the radio. But I guess that's because Marconi was an Italian and Lee DeForest was an American. In spite of these glaring omissions, this is still a really great series full of very important inventions that have shaped our world today. So I would encourage everyone to watch it, but then afterward look up gas lights, the camera and the radio and read about all of the non-Americans who also shaped our world.