Reviews

12 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Morbius (2022)
3/10
Enjoyed the subway
11 October 2022
As a native of New York City and formerly a very frequent visitor to London I got a kick out of using the underground to be the NYC subway. Almost every classic element of London's underground was included-long tunnels, vaulted tunnels, banks of escalators, escalator lobbies, side passages leading on to platforms, the platforms themselves, not one of these bearing any similarity to New York. It was interesting, though, that not one, but two of the actors shared the first name Jared.

Aside from that, boring as hell. Bad acting, no character development. I couldn't wait for it to end. When it did finally end, the suggested continuation was presented, as it should, because virtually nothing happened in this film.

NOT To Be Continued, in my opinion.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Amazed this was allowed to be made
17 September 2022
I don't know how this could be made unless it is explicitly sanctioned by both the authority that investigates and charges crime AND the people that make up the persons of interest. I can't imagine why anyone would agree to it.

Not what I would call a documentary.

Anyway, aside from that I did enjoy it as an entertainment, which I think is problematic as a "true" story.

Now my problem with the presentation in one crucial aspect of "evidence" as presented. The language as we know is Norwegian. I watched it dubbed in English with English captions. As is often the case, the spoken dialogue does not match the captions. Normally this is not a problem, but: Tom Hagen is about 70 and has been married for 49 years to his disappeared wife.

The film has the prenuptial agreement signed in 1993 I believe, which would have put their wedding at around 1973.

1993 is 29 years ago, not 49. Giving more weight to this observation, the dialogue says prenup, the caption says marital agreement. Ordinarily one would not make a fuss over this language discrepancy, except, you cannot have a prenuptial agreement when you've already been married for 20 years.

So, this was not a prenup but an agreement made after 20 years of marriage. It casts an entirely different light on the story, because although it was clear an error was made, what the error was was not clear. Was the year of the agreement 1973 and therefore a prenup (no, I don't think so) or was it not a prenup but a marital agreement made after 20 years of marriage (yes, I think) Although I figured it out I was not 100 percent sure and thought about it the whole time I was watching which was a distraction I could have done without.

It is not evidence of a crime, however, but changes the idea of motive.

If one were not paying close attention to do the math, and not having captions on they saw a different film from me.

I am very disappointed.
19 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Out of my depth here
17 September 2022
I feel like as a non south Asian white male living in the USA with little exposure to entertainments related to the culture represented in this film (except my having spent a lot of time in London) that I don't actually know what I was looking at. So many things to observe. Was this an education for me; am I to believe it?

I wondered why the characters switched from speaking Hindi to speaking English for no apparent reason. I am flabbergasted at the behavior of the police-too many instances here to enumerate. The absolute histrionics was beyond belief. The plot, everything, so unbelievable. Mira losing her phone and in the next scene using a phone to show a picture of the dead girl to someone, who, by the way, given the crime, should have been a person interest, but was forgotten by the filmmaker. Just one example. The ending, ridiculous.

But, as I started out, perhaps all intentional for an audience I am unfamiliar with.

You could miss this one easily or it may provoke you to learn more.

I am going to pass on learning more. I think this film and its content was mostly bogus.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Ragdoll (2021)
4/10
Only worthwhile if another series addresses the holes in the first series
26 July 2022
Absurd story, if there even was a story.

I stuck with it for several reasons, chiefly because I had downloaded it on my iPad as a possibility of something to watch in a no tv no Wi-Fi weekend.

Very unlikeable characters, especially the American detective, and some really bad acting, probably because the script was so bad.

Episodically and mostly visually interesting though.

I couldn't believe it was over, because nothing at all was resolved.

A waste of time.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
El Hijo (2019)
3/10
Waste of time
30 June 2022
Absolutely obvious ending, therefore there was no ending.

Long story short, as in yadda, yadda, yadda, gotta go.

I'll tell you the rest later. The actors, director, etc. Obviously had to be somewhere else.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Bad ending?
22 April 2022
Warning: Spoilers
Many have not liked the ending. I am one of them, however, a story has to end and this was a way of ending it.

I actually would have preferred an ending that was as ambiguous as the story itself. I think this severe ending puts the story out of balance.

I'll explain. My take on the story, up until just before it ended, was that people believe different things about the same events. Olivia and Kate/Holly believed they were raped. James believes he did not rape anyone. They are all correct.

I think that was the point of the story. The line "Don't be such a prick tease" can be a response to a no, firm or otherwise, or it could be pillow talk. 'Not here" could mean no, or it could mean later. Holly was turned on initially by James in the cloister, then backed off when he became rough, then happily reengaged with him when he became tender and was then shocked when he penetrated her. So, what actually happened? We know what happened but I think this story was about perspective. A Rashomon.

The subplot was annoying to me as well, perhaps in the same perspective sort of way. What did James do that was so wrong regarding the death of Alec? For that matter what did Tom do that was so wrong?

Wrong, yes, no, perhaps, but so very wrong?

In the end the story disappointed itself by making it a tale of revenge of a cheated wife.

The only definite crime in this was Kate/Holly's unethical behavior.

In that sense, it's the only unambiguous bit of information in the piece.

There is no possible explanation for it and would definitely result in severe punishment. The crown prosecution lead by Kate/Holly is the only clear miscarriage of justice in this show.
4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Thank you Wikipedia
14 April 2022
I just saw this film, and enjoyed it until it ended with me scratching my head.

I read the Wikipedia article, with which I wouldn't say I didn't have a clue, but informed me of missing bits, affirmed some suspicions, and corrected misapprehension. All in all, with Wikipedia's help I got it.

Tye Sheridan was very good.

Helen Hunt was never more shrill, and that's saying a lot (btw, not good) P.s. Wikipedia articles tells the whole thing, so beware of spoilers.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Dr. Everest has a secret
13 April 2022
Warning: Spoilers
I liked it, principally because I found the character Edu sympathetic, but also dumb. It is hard to believe I gave it a 9 owing to the comments that follow.

Edu was just so adorable.

Things I didn't like.

Lisbeth Everest lied about having had no emotional life.

The name Lisbeth E.was given by Edu to Elisa.-I guess this didn't happen in the universe of the character of Edu we are meant to follow.

When Edu returned to attend the play, it was obvious to me that he would have, should have indeed, allowed the Edu of that universe to attend, instead of what he did which was to replace him. What good could that have done? I did say he was dumb.

How is it that Dr. Everest is a permanent resident outside of her own universe? What purpose did it serve (scientifically or otherwise) to not have revealed herself to Edu?

I really don't need to make sense of these and other discrepancies as this is common to this genre, which does not make it alright, but understandable.

It was the emotion that mattered, although, the loss of the children didn't make enough of an impact. The result was that the couple mourned the loss of their (possibly) happy marriage(s) more so than the deaths of their children, of which they had a shared, but distinct experience. This cast a light on this piece as lightweight and immature.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Broken (2017– )
10/10
Excellent series, except ...
10 July 2020
Warning: Spoilers
My PBS Station is repeating this now. I saw it the first time around a few years ago. Gritty and real it was. What sticks with me though is the ending. As I recall, it's been a while, it seems the priest has a psychotic break, or that's one way to look at it, for me the only rational way. As things are at their lowest, miraculously, and I guess I'll give you the religious take on that word, everything is right. Everyone forgives and is forgiven, and goes to church. As a non Catholic, indeed a non Christian, I am left to figure this out on my own. It seems to me that religion, in this case specifically Catholicism, is presented as a miracle cure, and by the end of the series the drug kicks in for the full effect. I liked the series, I just wish it hadn't ended in la la land. I truly don't know what the writers intended, which I guess is fine if they just wanted to be provocative. Still, I give it a 10.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Joshua (2007)
7/10
Bad parents or bad kid or both. All creepy.
16 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Throughout the film you never really know on whose side you belong. The parents seem to be caring but at the same time neglectful. The child is obviously weird. At the very beginning when Brad receives the call that Abby, his wife, is about to give birth he rushes out of Central Park with Josh in tow, crosses Central Park West to get a cab but leaves the boy behind on the parkside curb. Another instance of Brad's less than fully adult moves is his reaction to the news that his dog is dead. We, the audience, do not know that this was the nature of the phone call that causes him to flee the squash club, mid game, not changing his clothes and running through the streets like a madman, carrying his clothes with him steaming in the wind. One would have thought that full on death and destruction were afoot, a la 9/11, but his dog was dead. Sad, of course, but not the catastrophe he made of it. Abby is also rather distant. Pride keeps her from admitting that she needs help and she comes across as being self absorbed and self obsessed. Neither parent actually ever fully completes a transaction with their son. They never ask him how or why he feels the way he does or does the things he does. They show no interest in getting help for this boy, who clearly needs it. They are just furious with him without the loving balance of a competent parent, or even a competent adult. If you suspected that your son murdered your mother your first reaction would not be to send him to boarding school (very far way) ASAP. No one ever asks him why he killed gran. The movie is flawed, no doubt. Much is left unexplained and unsaid. A little too much, in my opinion. I wasn't sure how I felt about the film even when it became clear that Joshua had planned the outcome, i.e. the demise of his parents, and that he was indeed a bad seed (not that his parents were such bargains) What has given me pause more than anything else is the last scene when he sits with his uncle Ned (Dallas Roberts) and sings a real love song to him. A song that went on and on. It was shocking! I need to see this again, but it seems to me that Ned remained clueless. Clueless that Joshua was responsible for the situation, and clueless that Joshua was in love with him, or to be more PC, had a huge crush on him. This ultimately made me realize that this is truly a creepy film, which is not a bad thing and probably the only thing that gives it a reason to be considered worthwhile.
3 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Nothing new here
18 May 2005
I can't figure out why so many people liked this film AS MUCH as they did. Yes it was stereotypical, that cannot be avoided. The art, which is lacking, is in making it less predictable. Not only was it predictable but there are times when it became so episodic that it fell flat--towards the end when the couple are about to be married I thought it would bring things together, create some interest, make something happen. Nothing happened. They got married without a hitch, everyone lived happily ever after. No awkward moments, no signs of insight or growth. Comedy has to work a lot harder than that to merit a happy ending. The character of the groom was especially troubling as he seemed not to have been given a personality--just a persona, i.e. the one who loves. Give me Renee Taylor any day in Made for each other, or Lovers and other strangers for ethnic humor, with substance! And real laughs. P.S. Love Lainie Kazan.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Chasing Amy (1997)
A lesbian by any other name
22 May 2001
A lesbian is a woman who hasn't met the right man.

And the moon is made of green cheese.

This movie disgusted me, although I think Jason Lee is GREAT.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed