ambrosia_1's Reviews

Sliders: Into the Mystic (1996)

Season 2, Episode 1

1/10

30 May 2020

Warning: Spoilers

The first episode of the second season was SO incredibly bad it had as much to do with the eventual broadcast-death of the show as the idiotic decision to make "Beverly Hills 90210" its lead-in (the two demographics could not have been more different.)

The episode plot was stolen directly from The Wizard of Oz. The foursome found themselves in a frightening magical world nothing like home, and were off to see "The Sorcerer" whom they were told may have the power to send them all home. But to get to him, they must travel through a spooky woods to get to his castle.

Sound familiar? Just wait.

When they get there, a giant angry floating head tells them they must bring him something he wants (not the witches broomstick, but blueprints held by a rival shaman) before he'll help them.

So the foursome return to the shaman, defeat him and return with the blueprints only to be told they can't see The Sorcerer. Quinn gets in anyway to discover "The Sorcerer" a just a regular guy (his own doppelganger.)

The only thing missing was Toto.

Worse still, they tried to introduce an "evil villain" (the Devil?) who was secretly thwarting their ability to return home (thank goodness they dropped this idea after this terrible episode.)

I think this one episode did as much to crater the ratings & force Fox to pull the plug (selling it off to the Sci-Fi channel) as was scheduling it right after after a show where the audience consisted mostly of 14 year old mallrats.

2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Fahrenheit 11/9 (2018)

6/10

Too little time actually spent on Trump. Nothing on Russia. Mostly Party bashing

25 September 2018

Warning: Spoilers

Ignore every rating of 10 or 1. They were all cast by people who rated the movie before it ever came out. This movie was a solid 5.5 (and I'm a Liberal Dem). And it is impossible to review w/o at least SOME spoilers.

First off, if you go expecting a rundown of the deplorable behavior and general insanity of Donald Trump and his supporters (like I was), you're going to be severely disappointed. Moore actually spends very little time on Donald Trump (yes, he shows lots of disturbing behavior of Trump & Trumpsters) and other than saying "Russia" helped elect him president, he actually (incredibly) provides NOTHING about Russian meddling or Trump's disturbing connections to Russian oligarchs to support it. Seriously.

A decent amount of time (with disturbing cell phone footage) of the Stoneman-Douglas school shooting and the rise of youth activism is covered, and plenty of support for young Dems challenging the Democratic establishment (including some hidden mic audio that will make you angry), and speaking as a Bernie Sanders supporter (as was Michael), a good segment on how Bernie was robbed of his duly won votes by way of the Electoral College (with proof) was a pleasant surprise. Moore actually spends about 2/3 of the movie criticizing establishment Democrats who he blames for betraying Progressive voters and depressing turnout. He actually spends a considerably amount of time criticizing President Obama (and deservingly so as you'll see in the film.) A few minutes of Trump's disturbing sexualization of his daughter Ivanka are covered as well. But Trump's extraordinary narcissism... hardly a blip in the film.

Michael really needed to make a separate standalone film about the Flint water catastrophe, but instead spent a good 45 minutes of this 2-hour film talking about how MI Governor Snyder poisoned the water supply of an entire city... beginning in 2011... years before Trump even ran for president. He DOES point out how Trump supported Snyder (even campaigned for him in 2012) and how Snyder & Trump both ran on their "businessman credentials", but save that for "Flint: The Movie" Michael. This was supposed to be about Trump.

A few disturbing minutes of footage of angry, threatening, Trump supporters spewing racist epithets, and about 10 minutes on the rise of Hitler with some similarities to Trump, should be seen by all. But only a brief shot of the protesting Nazi's carrying Tiki torches last year, and the Nazi who plowed his car into a crowd of counter-protesters (killing Heather Heyer... whose death is not even mentioned let alone her name) was merely background footage while Michael waxed on about the decline of civility.

Michael even reused (very briefly) footage from "Rodger & Me" (his very first film in the early 80's) to show Flint's decline (again, well before Trump) and from SiCKO regarding the repeal of ObamaCare. But no mention of Trump promising heathcare "better & cheaper than ObamaCare" during the 2016 race.

I shudder think how much good usable footage on a variety of topics regarding Trump must have been left on the cutting room floor. This SHOULD have been a film about Trump's disastrous policies and/or showing his numerous connections to Russia, but instead it is mostly a movie about how the existing political system... BOTH parties... have failed us. A call to action?

The ominous line from the movie trailer, "Ladies & Gentlemen, the LAST president of the United States", doesn't even appear in the film. Seriously.

10 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Dunkirk (2017)

5/10

Powerful story poorly told. Know your history.

5 August 2017

There are NO spoilers in this review, but some helpful information to understand it if you see it.

This movie is based on the true story about the rescue of over 300,000 (out of 400K) British solders during WWII. I went into this movie believing the soldiers were POW's in a camp and most of the story would be about *them*. THEY ARE NOT. The troops are "stranded" on the beaches of France, cut off from England a mere 22 miles across the English Channel. Cut off by land by Nazi troops (whom we never see) and by sea in the heavily patrolled waters by German planes & "U-boats" ("Underwater boats", aka: submarines.) The movie is told in three parts (actually 4): Land, Sea (2 sea stories) & Air... but the movie expects you to figure that out for yourself, making things quite confusing. Part one is "The Mole" and takes place over the course of a week, but here, a "mole" isn't a "spy", it's a French word for extended shoreline/pier. It would have helped immensely if the screen told you this was "*STORY* 1: The Beach" instead of "1. The Mole". I spent the first hour trying to figure out who the Spy was (and the paranoia of some of the soldiers didn't help.) The movie is well acted (and LOUD), a lesson in one of Britain's proudest moments, but the telling of that story is too disjointed... a prime example of why writers should not direct their own movies (and vice versa.) Christopher Nolan (Director of the Batman films) both wrote & directed Dunkirk. He's a great director, but should have outsourced the writing to someone with more experience.

I rated this a 5. Deserves at least a 7.5 for the story & production quality, but is just so damn disjointed, everyone who sees it says they would need to see it again "now that they understand what was going on." But no one wants to see a movie twice just because they feel they HAVE to to enjoy it *once*. :(

6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

King Kelly (2012)

5/10

Troubled daughter of White Trash family gets in over her head

1 August 2013

It is difficult to review this movie without spoilers because it is so disjointed.

The opening scene is an extreme closeup showing only the audio and text of an online sex chat between teenage Kelly and various older men that are paying for the privilege of watching Kelly "perform" for them. But this scene is deceptive because it's not what the movie is about. It is merely to introduce you to the life of a young girl that is pure "id" (or "superego") caring only about herself.

Kelly wants to "go pro" by starting a webcam site of her own, but again, that's not what the movie is about.

Early on, we are introduced to Kelly's dysfunctional White Trash family for some insight on just why young Kelly is so troubled.

Friends, family, everyone that gets sucked into Kelly's self-involved world ends up worse for it. Following a falling out with her on-again/off-again boyfriend, Kelly finds herself in a world of trouble, turning to one of her online clients for help. Things continue to spiral out of control and you are taken for a ride on one of the worst nights of anyone's life.

The acting isn't awful, and despite an amateurish script, is worth watching till the end, but don't go looking for "King Kelly" on Oscar night.

6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Invasion of Alien Bikini (2011)

6/10

Filini meets Korean film school project

17 September 2012

Okay, first things first: No bikini's in this film. The title pretty much makes no sense, so don't choose this movie based on the title.

The movie opens with a preview of the final scene, which I point out because you may get lost pretty quickly if you don't speak Korean... which I don't (the English subtitles were not written by anyone fully fluent in English.) Our hero... literally... is a geeky young socially awkward everyman that witnesses a cute girl being accosted by a group of thugs. He comes to her defense, beats up her marauders, and they run away together to his tiny apartment where he eventually learns there's something very strange about the girl he believes he "rescued"...

...or did he?

No nudity, but definite sexual situations to rate this an R. Done in art-house style, but with a script right out of college film class.

Interesting movie. Dumb, but interesting.

13 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Beasts of the Southern Wild (2012)

3/10

If you're expecting a real life Dora the Explorer, STAY AWAY.

12 August 2012

First off, this movie is NOT for kids. Not that there is anything explicitly "adult" about the film (no sex, violence or language), but this is NOT a kids movie, so if you're expecting a real life Dora the Explorer, STAY AWAY. This is a movie for grown-ups with more than a two-digit IQ.

If I had to write a one-word review of this movie, it would be: "Huh?" The film (based on a play) is about an extreme rural sub-section of America that (like me) you probably didn't know existed in America. Deep DEEP backwoods Cajuns living in shacks in the Louisiana swamplands. No electricity and if you thought "Gilligan's Island" was "as primitive as can be", they weren't even close.

The "star" of the movie is a young girl they call "Hushpuppy", who is being raised by her alcoholic and mentally disturbed father. When (you must assume) Hurricane Katrina strikes, the entire community must regroup, but none more-so than poor "Hushpuppy".

Lots of odd events take place in the young girls life, and nothing is explained to the viewer. I have to assume this was an Intentional artistic decision of the director to keep the audience as off-balance and in the dark as the young girl (who does an amazingly convincing job for such a young actress.) If you're looking for a "feel good" movie with a "satisfying conclusion", stay home. This movie is not for you. But if you're looking for some gritty truth about America, this movie is an eye opener.

Only 3 stars because the movie is more like a depressing documentary than the "family feature" the trailers seem to be selling it as.

4 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Money as Debt II: Promises Unleashed (2009)

6/10

Everything you NEVER wanted to know about money.

11 August 2011

The follow-up to the original "Money as Debt", which explained the origins of the modern day "fractional reserve system" and modern banking. This follow-up focuses on more modern-day banking and the effect the money supply has on the economy. Produced in 2008 and released in 2009, you will be amazed at just how well this film predicted our current (2011) financial crisis.

Both films may sound incredibly dull, but the producers explain things using simple cartoon characters and animated diagrams to keep you interested. While the quality of the static cartoons and animation in both films is quite poor, you don't watch a film like this expecting Fantasia.

If you are into history & politics, you will find this sequel almost as fascinating as the first. My only criticism: This sequel does repeat the myth that "it took World War II to finally pull us out of the Great Depression"... a surprising economic blunder for such a detailed film (if war provides such an economic boom, explain the fact the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have had a devastating economic effect on the U.S. today?) But once you get past that huge blunder, the remainder is quite accurate.

Fascinating to the point of horrifying, "Money as Debt II" is nearly every bit as good as the original.

1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Super 8 (2011)

2/10

Another JJ Abrams "stone soup" hack flick.

23 July 2011

Short review: One part "Wargames" sans the kid genius and super computer, two parts "Close Encounters" down to the late 70's setting but sans the friendly humanoids, and one part E.T., again, sans the friendly alien. THERE. I just saved you $8 bucks ($50 if it's a family affair with popcorn).

Long review. Abrams has a stock formula he uses again and again. Rip off an established film or films, tweak it just enough to turn it into something that "appears" original, throw in a bit of action scenes, only to discover by the end he has no way to end his story, wrapping everything up in an unsatisfying 5 minute conclusion that is full of plot holes.

He did this with his TV series' "Alias", and most recently with "Lost". "Alias" was just a female James Bond; "Lost" was "Gilligan's Island" meets "Indiana Jones". Neither of which ended well. And such is the case here with "Super 8". If you expect more from your movies but are still intrigued, wait for the DVD.

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The American (2010)

2/10

What was that? Was there a plot???

6 September 2010

After seeing a "7.2" rating for this movie here on IMDb, I decided to check it out. What a waste of two hours! The movie opens with a scene that makes NO sense and is NEVER explained by the rest of the movie. Clooney plays a Hit-man that (apparently) is hiding from "the Dutch" who apparently want him dead. Why? We are never told. In Shakespearean terms, this is known as a "wooden villain" that has no clear motive, simply inserted to move the story along.

But it doesn't even do THAT because THERE IS NO STORY. We never know how "Mr. Butterfly" (Clooney's character's alias) feels about his job or what his plans are for the future. His life is so empty, the only relationships in his life are the people he comes in contact with during the film.

There is nothing endearing about this character, and no reason to even care about what he does next. This was a pointless movie. Not worth the $10 I paid to see it. Not even worth a rental when it comes out on DVD. How this movie got rated as high as it is is a total mystery to me.

If you insist that your movies actually have a PLOT, skip this one and stay home.

9 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Salt (2010)

7/10

If you read only one review...

25 July 2010

Let's keep this simple (because the writers sure didn't)...

Anyone that rates this movie a 1 or 2 just can't be pleased. If they rate it a 9 or 10, they are WAY too easy to please.

Salt is a John LeCarre style spy thriller, with a fairly implausible premise, and a couple of plot twists that you eventually have to relax and just "go with", or else allow them to spoil an otherwise decent picture.

Without giving anything away, Salt is an American CIA agent. One of the best. A Russian agent wishing to defect to America is brought into the CIA where he is debriefed by Salt (an expert on Russian spies), where he reveals that someone at the CIA named "Evelin Salt" is actually a Russian spy. This is a big deal for Salt for reasons that are made clear in the movies' opening sequence. Soon Salt finds herself on the run from the CIA while the audience (at least those not paying attention) are left to wonder, "Is she a spy or isn't she?" If you pay attention, you'll know the answer right away, and the movie becomes purely an action flick. If you are easily fooled or otherwise aren't paying attention, you may find yourself guessing almost up until the end (but if you haven't figured it out halfway thru the film, you're probably too dumb to have found the theater in the first place.) It's not Shakespeare, but it's not Plan 9 either. The film feels like one long action sequence that holds your attention till the end (which comes quickly, trimming the film to barely more than 90 minutes because of its frantic pace).

Jolie has the dramatic thing down pat in her career, but has been searching for a good action franchise for years (most notably the disappointing Tomb Raider series) without much success. Salt has the potential of turning into a decent female James Bond-esq franchise for Jolie, if they can just move past the sloppy plot formulation.

Bottom-line, if you see it, you won't come away feeling you wasted $9. If you can handle a decent action movie containing a number of weak plot-twists without groaning, you'll come away pleased. In all, a 6.5 is about right ratings-wise. Good, not great. Better than average despite weak writing.

4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Knowing (2009)

3/10

Plot holes, intuitive leaps and religious innuendo?

29 March 2009

If, like me, you expect to see a movie about Cage running around trying to prevent incredible heart-stopping disasters from occurring before they happen (as any logical plot would of taken), you're going to be sorely disappointed.

I've seen a number of films where I expected one thing and got something else entirely. While that's not always a bad thing, sometimes the alternate path turns out to be ruinous. Such is the case with "Know1ng".

First off, the way in which Cage's character first comes to realize the list is more than just a list of random numbers requires an ENORMOUS amount of forgiveness on the part of the viewer (Cage *just happens* to pick THAT particular sequence of numbers and JUST HAPPENS to break them up in a way that looks like dates without ACTUALLY breaking the numbers up into dates (clue: there is no "91st" minute, hour, day or month, so why did he separate it that way??? No logic behind it.) He's an MIT professor, so I guess we're not supposed to be smart enough to understand his thought pattern? Then Cage's character makes some intuitive leaps based upon mere coincidence. One or the other would already require a suspension of disbelief, but PLEASE don't compound them. Believing one coincidence is bad enough.

The final disastrous straw is when the movie moves headlong... and entirely unnecessarily... into Religious innuendo. I won't spoil it for you if that's the kind of thing that might attract you to this movie, but "Know1ng" turns out to be a vehicle simply for pushing "Chri-Fi" (religious science fiction).

All-in-all, an enormous disappointment. The movie could of been a great action flick but instead tries SO hard to be something it's not, that it eventually becomes something else entirely. If you're still curious, wait for the video.

6 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Stop-Loss (2008)

6/10

Decent movie, but tried too hard not to put off those with differing views.

4 April 2008

(I rated the movie 6, not because it is bad, but because it is better than average. Not an instant classic, not action-packed, but not overly preachy.) If you are with other people of differing political views, no one is going to leave this movie feeling their position was disparaged. But neither will anyone leave feeling "vindicated" by their views. As such, the movie fails to be deeply satisfying for either audience and thus, hasn't done better at the box office.

"Stop-Loss" takes a cue from another politically-themed movie, "Shooter", pairing the lead character with his best friends' finance' as he seeks to fight the "injustice" done to him by his "Stop-Loss".

As I've said, while decent, "Stop-Loss" tries too hard not to offend those with differing political views. Problem is, the very theme of the movie is to criticize a current and highly questionable military practice, so trying not to offend Conservative viewers is a complete waste since they are not the ones coming to see such a movie, and you fail to give the other 80% of movie goers that would have no problem listening to criticism of the government, what they expect.

All of the soldiers in Shadow-3, including the main character, are all dedicated soldiers that believe in the job they are doing, though maybe not the way they are being told to do it. Criticism of "policy" is rare and criticism of the government in the movie is nonexistent, thus coming off as less than truthful trying so hard not to offend movie goers of either persuasion.

A good movie, decently acted, even with the over-the-top and clichéd' portrayal of life in Texas. It will hold your attention and you will be interested in seeing how the story plays out, so in that regard, a movie worth seeing no matter your political persuasion, and good for mixed groups with varying views.

5 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry (2007)

6/10

Not awful.

22 July 2007

Warning: Spoilers

Forgive the glowing review above. Cram full of more SNL cast members than an SNL reunion party, C&L makes poor use of most of them. Sandler seemed to provide temporary employment to just about everyone he ever worked with and then gave them all parts worthy of the cutting-room floor.

"Chuck & Larry" wasn't terrible, as far as "Message Movies" go. But Sandler and James seem to never even TRY to act like a believable gay couple as you'd expect from people trying to "fool" investigators. And their excuse for needing to fake a gay marriage is pretty flimsy (essentially, "I can't find anyone else that'll do it for free.") James plays a widower with two kids at home, a boy and a girl. Since it isn't Germain to the plot, I don't think it's a spoiler to say (stop reading now if you don't want to know ANYTHING ahead of time) that his young son plays an overly-effeminate aspiring Broadway star, and the subject of frequent laughter. But the fact that his butch young daughter, who loves baseball and video games, is never once inferred that she might grow up to be a lesbian. An overlooked double-standard for a movie trying to make a point about "social roles".

If you're a guy, the parade of gorgeous babes that Sandler ogles in the first 20 minutes will grab your attention. After that, it's a lot of "awkward situation" jokes (some even funny), and Sandler learning not to be such a jerk.

Not fantastic, but I didn't leave the theater demanding my money back either. I assume that if you're interested in this type of movie, you already know what to expect.

14 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Runaway (1984)

9/10

Movie is NOT set in the future.

8 May 2007

One of the biggest misconceptions about this classic scifi flic is that it is set in "the future" where robots are prevalent.

Quite the contrary. The premise of the movie is a world in which the development of robots evolved at the same rate as that of the home computer, becoming every bit as common-place and mundane. This is revealed in the opening scene where some small renegade field bots are described as using an "8088 microprocessor", the most common Intel CPU used in all IBM desktop PC's that year (1984). If this were the future, the writers would likely of made up some fictional processor of the future rather than date the film with currently available technology.

The cars in the film are no more futuristic than cars of the same year as the film, nor is the construction of any homes (no pools in the living room or places to plug in your nuclear toaster). Only items relating to computer technology are any different, and even that was no more advanced that was was currently available at the time (though of course what was DONE with that technology is pure fiction).

I think knowing this fact adds to the enjoyment of the film. Too many people seem disappointed that the movie doesn't seem "futuristic enough".

46 out of 62 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Wave (1981 TV Movie)

10/10

Most famous After School Special ever. Teacher conducts psych experiment on students.

3 August 2006

Based on a true story (do a Wiki search on "Ron Jones" & "The Third Wave" experiment), a Palo Alto, CA high school teacher in 1967 decides to give his students a lesson in "mob mentality" and it evolves into a psychological experiment on the evolution of fascism.

The movie was both highly praised for the ground-breaking nature of the subject and widely condemned for glorifying the almost certain devastating emotional distress inflicted upon the unwitting students/subjects.

Either way, the video is still replayed in high school and college sociology classes across the country to this day... and it must be on third and fourth generation video tape by now since (afaik), it is not yet available on tape or DVD.

The most memorable ABC After School Special ever made.

9 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

ambrosia_1

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed