Change Your Image
Jon-Osterholm
Great writing, convincing performances, concise use of special effects, and women with poise and beauty (honest) can make – or lack of it break – an entire film for me, even if it mostly annoys.
Nothing ruins a film for me more than a poorly researched and narrowly presented political, social or other perspective, whether for or against the perspective.
I rate movies on the whole impression, so even if I love something about a movie it can get a 5/10. Other times, something speaks to me so much I overate it for the message or emotional impact of one plot element.
I’m an actor, writer, and creative. I wish I’d move to Hollywood in my 20-30s sometimes, then I remember just how crazy it is out there.
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Rebel Moon - Part One: A Child of Fire (2023)
Unrefined film lost between Nazi - and Norse - exploitation, Star Wars ripoff
Much of the way through, I felt that this epic -- epically stiff -- production must have suffered from being over budget and forced to be tightly restrained, so much that the final work didn't quite get the attention it needed. Whether that's true or not, it felt like it. The film felt it was not thoroughly developed, not rewritten enough to reach clarity, not expertly directed and edited. It did not achieve the kind of action or narrative pace, nor character growth, to keep a clever viewer engaged. It was not refined, no more than something for an audience to stare at 'xplosions 'n' pew-pews, a film one might let distract them while in a waiting room. This was rarely a popcorn-chomping film full of "wow."
I'm not resentful, but I wanted to like this story; I wanted to love this film. I was intrigued by the backstory -- it is rooted in a rejected Star Wars story pitch by Snyder -- and interested to see how Snyder and team might build a Star Wars-esque space opera that didn't feel like a ripoff -- or awkward in other ways. It felt like a ripoff. Plus, there are some obvious cultural and accent similarities that I liked at first, but was annoyed by, in total.
There is a space-Norse villager feel, which might have been OK on its own, but then space Nazis (Motherworld enforcers) showed up to be cold and cruel. Then, Charlie Hunnam's character had an... Irish accent, umm, sorta. Why? (Why not just go with his native Aussie accent?! Just a thought.)
Rebel Moon Pt. 1 is filled with some intended intense characters, some intended bold action sequences, and has a basic story that must have been great in a pitch session. But, with whatever struggles were encountered in creating this Netflix film, it did not make for a finished product that offered a refined, watchable tale.
It was not as horrible as, say, "The Spirit" (a painfully stiff 2008 Frank Miller fantasy flick), but it is not even on par with, for example, "Solo: A Star Wars Story" (a decent, not great, 2018 Han Solo origin film), in its cohesion and entertainment value.
What makes it worth it? The actors and the characters, while not fully developed in this struggling narrative. As the lead baddie, Ed Skrein does evil well. I am a sucker for star Sofia Boutella (Algerian actor, you might know her from a "Star Trek" reboot film or "The Mummy" with Tom Cruise, among other films) is about as intense a female actress as is out there. Other actors show up and their skills are apparent, but get hammered by the stumbling last half of the film. Boutella and the other actors can't save this story, but she and some others make it watchable. Just not watchable enough.
So, is the Zack Snyder director's cut of this coming? Hopefully, they'll put more effort into it.
Florida Man (2023)
Entertaining, though not very well crafted
I enjoyed plenty about Florida Man thanks to the characters, even ones that barely belonged, like Deputy Barker, a vacationing cop who has plenty of misfortunes, played by Clark Gregg (who also directed some episodes). Broadly, the series appealed to me because of the lead characters' complex relationships, and the some supporting roles that were hard to predict in amusing ways. Several of the characters, lead and supporting roles, were laudably portrayed. I'm a fan of dramatic work by the star, Edgar Ramirez, and that drew me to the series.
Some acting/characters were weak, though, and that's not the only thing weak in the series. The writers seem to be clueless about guns, gun laws, gun shows, and in some areas, cops, too: There were some low spots in the approach to these things.
Seeing the series' title, there were predictably juvenile digs at the state of Florida - when they're sunny it's one thing, but a few were just vacuous, unfunny gestures. Viewers could have done without some of the unfunny ignorance.
It is a crime and comedy show, so some of the weaknesses seemed almost necessary, as such work is often stumbling in several ways in order to bring the laughs. This is no Breaking Bad, but is fairly light, mature entertainment.
I gave it a generous 7/10 stars. I found it worth my time, like a relative who invites questionable people over for dinner.
It's only on Netflix.
Spartan (2004)
Suspense fans: skipping this Film would be too Spartan
Apparently, Entertainment Weekly and LA Weekly have a few reviewers with severe attention deficit disorder, or perhaps David Mamet just ticks them off. They really trashed this film. To each his own and all that. The Chicago Tribune and Sun-Times, The New York Times and plenty others praised it.
This is one of the most densely -- and concisely -- layered suspense films I've seen recently, nearly at par with "The Contender" (starring Joan Allen) and that ilk. It was much more entertaining and gripping than some other Mamet shows, such as "The Spanish Prisoner." "Spartan" doesn't try to be too smart, and it doesn't keep you wondering, aggravated, what the pursuit in the plot is for, like "The Spanish Prisoner" did for me, as I recall. That film was ultimately painful and made me feel so much the loser for having ever been a mild patsy (or putting up and not stuffing a fist in the mouth of egotistical maniacs similar to Ben Gazzara's boss character in that film). I can't curse "Prisoner" for the uncomfortable trip it took me on, but I just didn't feel entertained by it. (Such is the risk by Mamet of trying to write something very original?) "Spartan" made me appreciate the vagueness of political life when lots of things are at stake and power-seeking sons-of-b**ches take the low and dirty road to retain the power they hold. More important, I respected the ugly tactics used to get to a happy ending. Life isn't pretty, and sometimes the devil can be used to bring the angels to bear.
You can appreciate why some heartless things are being done against Kilmer's character, yet it doesn't give them any more respectability. They're power hungry bums, these guys against Kilmer's character. You can understand the game, you're involved in it, and you want to be Val Kilmer's character, or his buddy. An anti-hero who's more hero than anti.
As for the actor Kilmer, this is the best work that I've seen from him in a long time. Could be the best, actually, though I've not seen all of his films. He actually takes some effort, and it shows, to get from plot point to plot point. That equals good acting, or cruel treatment of him by the director, or a little of both. I have been pretty bored with him since "The Doors," while I have seen some films, such as "The Lion and the Darkness," "Heat" and "Thunderheart," in which his performances had a some redeemable points, though the films weren't terrific (save maybe "Lion"). (He irritated me as Batman, but I don't think that was his fault.) Kristen Bell was excellent as the junkie punk of a president's daughter. William H. Macy, as I've come to expect, was excellent as one of the president's men. Ed O'Neill once again plays a convincing law enforcement guy, and lots of other things, including the settings, made this a rich suspense film.
Brutal in parts, it doesn't have you enjoying the violence as much as you would in an action flick, which to me is a good sign of a good suspense film. You feel the violence, and it hurts. It's a movie worth seeing for a solid straying into the political mean streets of Washington, D.C.
The Producers (2005)
'Springtime for Hitler' a letdown from Broderick, Brooks
QUICK SHOT: Right off the bat, here's the best thing to do if you must see this movie: get the DVD, so you can forward through the long-winded musical pieces with no fun bits worthy of your time. Save room for the visit to the director's house, and the actual Broadway debut of the show.
____
'The Producers' (2005) perhaps may have served people well who hadn't seen the original film of 1968, nor caught the musical (or related interviews with show bits, or the Broadway musical CD, etc.) or enjoyed any Broderick films aside from 'Inspector Gadget.' For you who fit into that category, this film may not have stunk.
Why did it stink? Well, the worse things about the film were Mr. Broderick and the incredibly long-winded singing numbers throughout. Unfortunately, that was a huge portion of the movie. Had Broderick been replaced by someone who could remember they were no longer on a Broadway stage where barely an audience member could see his face, it would have been more enjoyable. As a DVD -- easy to glide past the long, tiring tunes.
Mel Brooks' works aren't exactly categorized under fast-paced and funny, but a lot of them are among the best comedies I've seen, from the schlocky ('History of the World, Part I,' 'High Anxiety') and painfully hilarious ('Blazing Saddles,' 'Young Frankenstein'). Not this movie.
Whatever happened to the actor Matthew Broderick? Not sure how the first 20 minutes of this film survived the dailies, or the initial review of the shoot. What happened to the professional actor of "Glory" and even "Ferris Beuller's Day Off"? He wasn't in this film, though he was singing and dancing. Just not acting. His very, very bad attempts -- assuming they were meant to be funny -- at panic attacks, squirming faces, outbursts, and fear of the token hottie in the film, were not only distracting but disappointing. He was just going through the paces. In most scenes, he was struggling merely to keep a straight face. Hmm -- maybe he should have just gone with it? C'mon Broderick -- DO BETTER! To be brief, everyone in this show was terrific and most were all-out campy (as they rightly should have been for this funny tale), and were it not for the very icky performance of Broderick, and the needlessly long musical numbers that lacked the humorous touches I expected from this, it would have been a terrific movie.
But it only rates a 6 out of 10, since no one could seem to embrace the spirit of this silly tale and let the players (be the right ones, in one case, and) get the most out of the absurd plot. I wish there could have been more funny and less singing in this telling. I'm going to get the original, and see if it was that much funnier. I think it had to have been.
Alexander (2004)
Guts beget glory, gore begets cruddy film
QUICK REVIEW: Bloody, wacky telling of a legendary world leader not really worth the plastic it's imprinted on. Think "Natural Born Killers" for the sandal-wearing era.
If this film presents what makes a man great, I'll take unaccomplished and pray that there's an afterworld where I can find some satisfaction out of my existence. That said, this movie seems to have skipped most of what made Alexander so great, going straight for the mental issues and blood lust. I would think that most of what showed in this film was the bad side and Stone's idea of a true story skipped most of the greatness in the man.
Movie where the only interesting acting (beyond film staples Hopkins and Plummer) was from Ms. Jolie. Serious historical look at Alexander? OK, the blood parts. Look up Alexander the Great on Wikipedia.org, guaranteed to get a better idea of who he was than this grisly, obtusely and graphically violent film. (The digital abuse of elephants in this film alone ruins the attempt, frankly.) Blood was part of his story, certainly, but my gut feeling is Stone may have imagined this a "Saving Private Ryan" or "Braveheart" with the staging of these battles for world dominance. He was wrong, as it is tiresome to sit through the warring scenes.
I find it not only hard to believe, but troubling, that Stone took years to develop this disparaging freak show. What's next? Rather skip it, myself, Ollie.
Be Cool (2005)
Can't Consistently Be Cool
The sequel to Get Shorty, a humorous and slick film, Be Cool has humor, slickness, and a gay ... well, you'll have to see it. I don't like spoiling a film, even when I think it would get a low "C" grade in high school. John Travolta's character, Chili Palmer, is as cool as ever. Based on what disappointed me about it, I should give it an F or worse ("F" being a "5" or lower). But there was enough to enjoy that I don't consider it a waste of time and money. But it sure took me on a ride with a sparsely enjoyed ending.
'Be Cool' shows how Elmore Leonard (wrote the novel), the script writers, director, and John Travolta all "get" this Chili character. My wife and I thought we misheard a line from Chili, and backed up the DVD to hear it again. I realized, afterward, that the character is so well-honed, and I "get" the character so clearly thanks to these people, that the comment we thought we might have heard -- an insulting comment -- was not something he would have said in the given context. What we thought we heard was insulting and petty, and Chili doesn't give disrespect, he just gives what folks are asking for. That may be far worse than disrespect. He's cool, he handles things; he doesn't need to insult anyone, unless a humiliating throat punch or flip down a stairwell can be considered insulting. What he actually said is inconsequential, the effect was that the character is understood. Thanks to the talent of Leonard and the follow-up "Chili-centric" creators, Chili Palmer becomes a classic and well-understood character.
The Reagans (2003)
Put 'The Reagans' on the curb
I'd love to hear what others thought about this movie. Maybe I am more a fan of Reagan and a bigger sucker for hype than I thought, but the supposed bio-film, 'The Reagans,' to which CBS gave the boot, was garbage. A Cabinet-appointed committee should be set up to investigate this bad movie-making. CBS -- and Showtime -- should have given it the boot because it was a rain-soaked cardboard facsimile of Ron and Nancy and a bad movie, not for any ideological controversy. "Idiot-logical," maybe -- logical to idiots.
The real controversy is that the movie sucked amazingly well and garnered any extensive media attention at all, short of the kind that 'Gigli' earned, for being a bad film. The only controversy growing out of this bad pic should be a belief growing among conspiracy theorists that the movie's real goal was to coyly reveal that the Reagans were actually robots that went wildly out of control, created by Ron's former employer, GE.
The characterization of Nancy was particularly one-dimensional (no, I won't even give it 2-D). The expression on her face through almost the whole movie -- the two hours I suffered through, of the three -- had me waiting for her to pull out a big knife and start jabbing at anything that moved, like the freaky undead Nazi assassin in 'Hellboy.'
Like most movies written and produced to leave a bad taste in one's mouth, it was without a good script and strived unimaginatively to make people think Nancy was solely a greedy woman who manipulated her brainless husband into politics. It will die a death like any such movies and TV shows, such as this goofy Henry Winkler show where he was trying to make fun of conservative radio hosts only to look like a dork himself. Add to that list Bill Maher's very existence in the public eye; once an enjoyably opinionated talker, he's proved to be more myopic than most of his guests on 'Politically Incorrect.'
Who cares what you think, you silly bio-film producers and writers. "Why can't you tell an honest story, no matter your intent?" That's what I'd like to ask the creators of 'The Reagans.' I wasted two hours of my life trying to figure out why anyone made this feeble movie, rather than trying to recall the good, bad and ugly of Reagan's public life with some sort of relevance.
NOTE: 0 out of 34 people found this review useful as of 2008. I want to thank each and every one of you. Judging from the other reviews on here, which got very favorable reactions from readers, I am happily alone in this instance.
O Que é Isso, Companheiro? (1997)
Not Learning Portuguese
I didn't learn any Portuguese, but from this movie I learned a bit about Brazil, though "Four Days" is mostly in Portuguese. (I have a hard enough time with Spanish, thanks.) This film offers insight into a part of South American politics that I frankly have little knowledge of and I didn't follow at the time (I mean, the parts in the movie's epilogue during which I was alive and aware), and for that alone it is worth watching. Even if you don't care, the movie will bring it to light so you can imagine the Brazil of the 1960s and you just might care that you learned something about it.
"Four Days" manages to carry the viewer through to the 1989 end of the military regime in its epilogue. The Soviet Bloc was falling apart at about the same time, the Berlin Wall, if I recall, came down that year, so I suppose many would have missed this interesting ploy for attention by revolutionaries for that reason (which I certainly admit to, having following the Soviet departure steadily and having no idea about this Brazilian event).
The movie is a telling of when eager Brazilian Communist-leftist revolutionaries, both innocent and veteran, take the U.S. Ambassador hostage to draw the attention of the world toward Brazil, and to challenge the Brazilian powers they hope to overthrow ultimately, with demands for releasing their compatriots. I thought it was a convincing movie, though coming up short on making the characters particularly compelling. But then, the event was the focus, not the characters. Alan Arkin was terrific. So was the actor who played the central character, the young, not too tough, glasses-wearing Fernando.
The show didn't hide behind the revolutionaries, either. We saw things from the other side, too. It was believable, and I really enjoyed the handling of both sides of the coin in this real-life drama. There was a smoothly presented bit with a regime torturer and his girlfriend (wife?), where he suddenly admits to her what he does for the government. He'd claimed he was doing something much milder for some time, and finally outs himself as a member of the secret service. He rationalizes his torturing college kids to prevent a breakdown of Brazilian society, almost convincingly, but his lady doesn't buy it, and neither should the audience. The scene was meant to put a human face on the bad guy, and did it reasonably, but we also get that his
rationalizing leaves even him a bit flat, as he tries to embrace his woman when she turns away from him in distaste.
Most of the film is spoken in Portuguese, and I didn't mind reading this movie a bit. (It's when a movie that wouldn't be enjoyable in any language that I mind reading my way through it.) This is a movie worth seeing for its attention to a daring moment in Brazil's move toward democracy. And even if you don't care about that, it is a terrific suspense film.