Change Your Image
rolee-1
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014)
Bad tactics equals bad writing
At minute 13:00 in the movie, Captain America, the character, and Captain America, the movie, do something that is unforgivably awful. They fail to neutralize a hostile. I am not an expert in warfare, nor do I play one on TV, but the one absolute that must always, always, always happen in a combat situation is that you completely neutralize your target--you make it ineffective. So many movies and TV shows transgress this obvious rule that for media the rule should usually be the opposite--leave hostile forces hanging around, fully capable of wreaking mayhem.
But just because it's transgressed in media doesn't make the tactic forgivable much less laudable when it's done. It just speaks of poor writing. If the character needs to escape, write it in the script that he/she escaped some other way. Don't spend ten minutes showing how tactically advanced your troops are, just to have them idiotically leave a hostile ready to catch the troops unaware. That makes it look like they have stupid soldiers despite years and millions of dollars of training and advanced weaponry.
To add insult to injury, Captain America, the self-righteous, just after the 13:00 minute mark, goes on to tell Black Widow that she has jeopardized the mission despite his blunder that will, within a matter of seconds, almost cost both of them their lives.
At the moment, I can no more rate the entire movie than predict the end of the world because I haven't seen it. I have watched up to 13:23 because I had to get up in disgust and walk away from it. I have given it a neutral 5 because I suppose it will redeem itself somewhat later.
One possibility that the writers are really trying to say is that Captain America, the character is stupid, that he's an arrogant moron, a big fat loser, a washed-up has-been blow-hard. If that is the case, and I'm not betting that it is at this point, then kudos to the writers for nailing him to the wall. It's a effective way to make him look stupid and arrogant. It certainly works with the character Tony Stark in Iron Man. The character's hubris and flaws are served up for him to be knocked down and humiliated. Maybe Captain America needs it as well. I'll find out. If I can convince myself to keep watching.
Dressed to Kill (1946)
Bright only in comparison to dim bulbs
It's a shame that to make Basil Rathbone's Holmes seem brilliant they had to make Nigel Bruce's Watson the dimmest bulb that ever attempted to shine light and even Holmes has some really dimwitted ideas--storing the music box at 221B Baker Street and going to confront criminals alone when having an accomplice would have been no more difficult. The way the plot was written it seemed necessary, but it seems sloppy writing to have a genius think like an idiot.
The Greatest American Hero (1981)
Groovy man
It's official: the sixties ended in 1983 when "The Greatest American Hero" went off the air. At times it's not clear whether creator Stephen Cannell is skewering or celebrating the foolish idealism of the 60s. A lot of the groovy-speak and idealistic rants of the characters, usually but not always, Hinkley, is so over the top that it seems it's a satire. But the protest music from the 60s and the lessons learned at the end often point to a true belief in at least the ideal of the ideals--helping our fellow human beings--if not some of the more specific forms that those ideals often take, for instance non-violence in the face of extreme violence.
At the opposite end of the spectrum, Bill Maxwell embodies the narrower and usually less thoughtful version ideals of law and order. Maxwell's character is so grating that it's obvious Cannell doesn't think much of his personality or his tactics. But Maxwell does seem to have his heart in the right place--helping our fellow man--and his willingness to risk his life despite being without the protection of a special suit. He is presented as a slightly skewed version of our notions of justice and humanity that has always existed as a counterpoint to the naïve idealism that Hinkley represents.
What was it that brought this show into being? A reaction to the mercenary idealism of the Reagan years? Perhaps. Whatever the reason, it's interesting that Cannell trots out the naïve, goofy idealism that represented the counter-culture of a decade earlier. Perhaps it was such an iconic and easily identified (and spoofed) pattern that it was just easy pickin's. Overall the show is enjoyable but occasionally heavy-handed with the idealistic romps.
Star Trek: The Next Generation: The Perfect Mate (1992)
Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy
This is one of those episodes that makes me think badly of Star Trek (old, new, newer) despite the fact that I do like a good many episodes. They run the security of the ship, a quasi-military ship, with less rigor than a college frat party. I know that in this instance it moved the plot along that they let a couple of Ferengi loose on the ship, but the sloppiness of it really spoils the rest of the episode. They could have accomplished the same effect in a different way if they had thought about the plot for another twenty minutes, but that seems too much to ask. Next Generation is better than the original in this respect most of the time, but it too has lapses. If it weren't for the sloppiness, I would have given the show an 8.
Star Trek (1966)
The more I watch it, the more I dislike it
I started out really liking Star Trek. I remembered it fondly from when I was a kid. It had some great ideas put on the screen that were probably new to a lot of television audiences, although not necessarily avant-garde to true sci-fi buffs of the time. But for a prime-time show it was really interesting.
My mistake was watching it again as an adult. I knew that William Shatner had a bad reputation for over-acting in the show (bad acting, bad script writing, or bad directing? We may never fully know how much of each it was.) I thought I was prepared to gloss over that and I mostly was. However I was not prepared for the sloppy script writing and bad directing in general. I have now finished season one and every little bad line by Kirk and McCoy just grinds me down. Every little sloppy bit of science just chips away at my confidence in the show. Every sloppily constructed scene saps my will to watch another episode.
I think the thing that disappoints me most in every show is that the ship is, for the most part, a quasi-military ship, but continually fails to live up to how even the sloppiest military might operate. I don't mean that it doesn't have the snappiest military procedures in the galaxy. I mean that is has all the military polish of "F Troop" or the stalag in "Hogan's Heroes". It's just pathetic and laughable. I know that to move the plot along, so-and-so has to escape and run amok, but the way that they invite suspicious characters on the ship and then fail to monitor them is just terrible. It wouldn't be that hard to at least have a better script that shows that they know better how to operate a ship than Colonel Klink. But they don't. The script writers are just sloppy.
It has a captain and security team and weapons and almost everything that a navy vessel of 18th century England might have. But the captain is closer to Captain Bligh of the Bounty than Admiral Nelson. I'm not even a military person and have no concept of how the military is actually run. I just know common sense rules of what you might do when bad things are about. And the show consistently fails to live up to what a private in the army could figure out by thinking for five minutes.
And for a science fiction show, it should at least have its head on its shoulders about scientific procedure. In the most recent episode I watched, "Operation -- Annihilate", they collect one (1) creature for testing. One? Really? Did the logical science officer, Jethro Bodine, gradiate the fifth grade? They're going to subject it to a battery of tests--battery meaning more than one, plural--and yet they collect one. Scientists in the 5th century AD knew to collect more than one of something if they wanted to test it multiple times. That was just one of the holes in the script that made the episode a big let-down from what I was expecting.
Every few episodes I come across a brilliant show like "The City on the Edge of Forever" that makes it worth it. But in general my enthusiasm wanes with each new sloppy script. It may get better but I don't think I'll make it far enough to find out.
Sightseers (2012)
Is it comedy or just black?
I watched this film because I had seen Alice Lowe in "Snuff Box" (more black comedy) and I was curious about her accent. So I didn't know what to expect. If you've read many comments, you'll know—lots of psychopathic violence.
I may be wrong. Ben Wheatley may have just woken up and thought, "Wouldn't it be funny to have a mentally off-balance couple on vacation?" I assume that it's more than that, but the British like their comedy black.
Here's my take. It seemed to me more about questions than statements:
What role did Tina's mother play in the creation of a monster?
Why did her mother dislike the boyfriend? Was she just being selfish or petty,or did she really see something evil in him?
Would he have turned out the same way if not for the first accident?
What is it that makes couples move toward each other—thinking alike, doing alike, trying to please the other—when the things they think or do are often so destructive?
Is the movie saying something about a society that, while often rude, is civil and trusting enough that people put themselves in the path of murder without even being the least bit suspicious?
What is going through the characters' heads as they commit each act? How many Chris's are there in society just waiting to pop?
I think there is one statement that the movie is making: You don't have to like or sympathize with the main characters just because they're the main characters. Not every story has to have a hero. Just because you can't identify with or like the main characters doesn't make it a bad movie.
I gave it 8 out of 10, not because I'm recommending it for everyone--far from it--but because I thought it was interesting in a way that so many movies are not.
Gosford Park (2001)
Watch the writer's comments, not the director's, on the DVD
I just watched the commentary for "McCabe and Mrs. Miller", one of Altman's first movies. In the director's commentary Altman said "I don't really care that much about story in a film. I think more of it as painting." That becomes obvious in Gosford Park. Many people that I've talked with about Gosford Park have said they disliked it because as a whodunit, it's really awful. Well, okay. But I think that Altman doesn't really care about the whodunit as the point, but rather as just a vehicle to expose the inner workings of the manor. It's really more of a "whydunit"--what motivates the characters and why they do what they do.
If you like the film reasonably well, WATCH THE WRITER'S COMMENTARY! Not the director's, which is okay. The writer's commentary is fascinating. The writer talks about how life works in the English upper crust and in the servant's lives downstairs. Hearing details about how the upper classes of England try to be as rude as possible within the limits of the rules of etiquette is fascinating. It's full of observations like that. You might have to like documentaries to like it, but I loved it.
The Time Machine (1960)
What's wrong with Morlochs?
I can't understand why the movie vilifies Morlochs. Let's look at the good in them: All of their protein food is fully free-range, not in the narrow organic sense, but fully allowed to wander as they wish; well kept and raised in a safe environment; given a healthy diet that is natural to them; raised apparently without hormones and antibiotics; raised locally to minimize the carbon imprint of transportation; killed humanely; kept healthy and disease-free not by harmful inputs or artificial genetic modification, but by natural selection.
Now lets look at the Eloi. They are given more to looks than brains; susceptible to a herd mentality (the same thing that got us Nazis and the Holocaust); predisposed to stick with a bad system because it's easier; anti-social; and chock full of bad haircuts (to be fair, so are the Morlochs).
Finally let's look at H. George Wells. The first thing he goes for in the future is a cute blonde ditz with a great body. He may talk a big game about books and civilization and all that rot, but what he really wants is a good looking piece of a--.
Loving (1970)
A bit of a chore
I know that movies about alcoholics aren't implicitly bad. I know that movies about people obviously headed for ruin aren't implicitly bad. I know that movies from the seventies aren't necessarily bad. But up until the last scene, I found the movie irritating. I'm sure that that is probably some of what the director wanted: we're supposed to be irritated by the stupid things the characters do, we're supposed to be irritated by all the same things that get under the skin of Brooks Wilson. Somehow though, the irritation wasn't translated for me. It was dumped directly into my veins without any intermediary.
I think that it's mostly because it's a seventies movie and I find so much of seventies movies tiresome. As soon as I started watching it, I found myself gritting my teeth as I saw the city streets and all the late sixties and early seventies cars and clothing. I know that the movie has value and it was probably a very interesting film when it was released. And I think that the ending makes it worth it, but only just.
If you can see past the seventies style or don't have the negative reaction that I do, you will find it much more enjoyable. If you don't like seventies movies, you probably won't like this one either.
I Want to Live! (1958)
Realism in film or simply bad acting, bad writing, and bad directing
When my friend (a film professor at the college where I work) and I were watching I Want to Live, we had to pause the movie for about ten minutes while we discussed realism in film. I brought up the character David Helfgott played by Geoffrey Rush in the movie "Shine" When I first saw Shine, I thought that Rush's portrayal of Helfgott was a little overdone. It seemed unnecessarily manic and jittery. That is until I saw the real David Helfgott play the piano at the Academy Awards broadcast that year. Rush's portrayal was absolutely spot-on. The David Helfgott that came out on stage was the David Helfgott played by Rush. It was as if Rush had channeled Helfgott.
I was comparing the Geoffrey Rush performance of Helfgott with the Susan Hayward performance of Barbara Graham. If Hayward were really channeling Graham, she was doing a great job.
Here's the rub. Neither of us thought that Hayward was really channeling Graham. We thought that someone, probably the misbegotten director, had told Hayward to play Graham as a tough girl. I our opinion she didn't play Graham like a tough girl. She played her like a middle-class college graduate girl who was trying to fake her way through the criminal underworld by talking tough. Big difference. It ended up sounding like a not-so-good B-movie, not an academy award winning movie. It is possible that the real Barbara Graham was like that. If so, I stand corrected. It's not the first time I've been wrongsee the first paragraph.
We endured the rest of the movie by making fun of it MST-3000 style. We normally don't do that to movies, if it tells you how much we disliked it. What was more interesting though, was our discussion of realism in film, which was ten minutes not thirty because we'd talked about it before. According to my friend there is a LOT of critical discussion on realism in film. The question that he brought up was whether it was better or more truthful to create a film that has the illusion of reality (a believable Barbara Graham) or a film that plays Barbara Graham as she really might have beennot that we think they did a good job at either. Much of the critical thinking on the subject says that there is no one universal timeless and culturally unbiased way to present realism in film, even in documentaries. All methods of creating realism are based on contemporary culturally-based notions. Since realism in film is culturally relative and artificial and attempts to actually bring reality into film ironically have the effect often of making it seem contrived and artificial, it is often better to err on the side of seeming realistic rather than "being" realistic, if anything captured on film can actually be realistic.
Final note: Inititially I loved the musical score. It got tiresome after about twenty minutes.
The Homecoming (1973)
What to do with a defective family
My comments are partially a response to "My Mind Parasites must be dead".
I wish that I could talk with the author of the comments more to get an understanding of his reaction to the film. For the first hour or so, I was thinking some of the same things about it. I slogged through what I thought was just going to be a lot of angry, repressed people in a rotten, emotionally poisoned family just to say that I had seen it.
At first I found it very irritating that people would sling words at each other with barbs of hatred attached. A lot of the dialog seemed stilted and somewhat like lectures. And the words and the emotions often had very little to do with each other. Eventually I realized that this was just fleshing out the characters. It even seemed like a substitute for conversation by people that had completely forgotten how to communicate with each other.
During the last thirty minutes or so we've been given a tour of what five different people will do when immersed in an aquarium devoid of the oxygen of any sort of positive emotional bonds. What Pinter seems to be doing is taking five possible approaches and carrying them to their extremes. Although the possible ways that each character could have developed are endless, the thrust of each is representative: sex, violence, and shut-down.
I found myself most fascinated with trying to guess what Teddy was thinking and feeling. I imagined mostly bottled rage, but perhaps instead, relief at leaving it all behind. In a way Ruth's character was the most fascinating because she had only tangentially been exposed to the family by marrying into it. But by the end of the play, she had developed a complete, and for her, necessary response to her environment.
To the author of "My mind parasites must be dead", I hope that it had no resonance with you because your family life bore no resemblance to the play. For most of the rest of us, there was probably a lot too much of "oh, yeah", "unh-huh", "yep", "been there, done that", "that's just like my uncle/brother/dad/me." Painful but cathartic.
I soliti ignoti (1958)
A tender look at some incompetent incorrigibles
One character approaches another to get him to take the rap for a crime. But he can't do it, so he suggests someone else. The third character can't do it either. Soon a half dozen people are in search of someone to take the rap. They eventually decide that they need someone without a previous criminal record. But none of them knows anyone without a criminal record.
I had no idea it was going to be a comedy when I first started watching it. By the end I was laughing out loud. It's a little slow, but many Italian movies are a little slow and caper films usually build slowly. But it is thoroughly enjoyable with some gags that I've never seen anywhere else in film. Cosimo's bank heist was very amusing.
If you've just recently watched The Bicycle Thief, and are depressed by the bleakness of life shown there, this movie is the perfect antidote. It shows the lighter side of people who are down on their luck.