Change Your Image
drewbear1969
Reviews
After the Wizard (2011)
This is not an Oz story
While this was a very amateur production with a few good performances, as a life-long fan of the Oz literature I could have overlooked that if the story had been any good. My biggest issue is that it's presented as an Oz adventure when it's not, and whatever story it's trying to tell is muddled by two incongruous plots. Elizabeth is an orphan who pretends to be Dorothy in order to cope with vague and undefined problems, while the Scarecrow and a guy in grey makeup travel across the United States to seek her help with vague and undefined problems back in the rock quarry that's supposed to pass for Oz. I've wondered if I might have liked this movie more if I'd seen it as a child.
This is touted as a sequel, yet nothing about it matches the canon or indicates that anyone had actually read the books despite the frequent praise for them from the writer and the characters. There are already at least two other "sequels" anyway that DO incorporate elements of "Land of Oz" and "Ozma of Oz," the books which follow "Wizard:" Filmation's "Journey Back to Oz" from 1972, and Disney's "Return to Oz" from 1985. This was more like an "add a word" forum game that someone cobbled together into a script, and given that a few dozen people received special thinks for the writing, I wouldn't be surprised if that's what happened. It would certainly explain why the overall premise was so disjointed.
Ultimately if you like stories that have a simple plot with minimal conflict that's easily resolved and a pat happy ending all around, you'll find that here, but if you want something more complex, keep looking.
Rag Tag (2006)
I wanted so much to like it more
This is definitely an independent film with a low budget. The acting, direction, script, and music were uneven, and the pacing felt rather quick to me; I glanced at the clock about halfway through and was surprised at how much had happened by that point.
However, this wasn't guerilla filmmaking, Adaora Nwandu seemed intent on making the best film she could and it came across to me as very much a passion project. I liked the effort she made enough that I've looked into what else she's done, and could see her skill improving with each work (I'm probably too culturally naïve to get everything in it, but I enjoyed "The Venician"). Overall, I thought this was a good film that showed her potential. I remained engaged to the end, I've seen it twice so far and I'll probably watch it again sometime.
What bothered me, and the main reason I settled on a median rating, was how the story was told. Significant information was vague or left out, and the action jumped around between several extra characters, so I sometimes had trouble following what was happening and who was who. The worst for me was the Nigerian aspects. Beyond being unfamiliar with Nigeria and its relationship with the UK, even with closed captions to help understand the dialogue at times (and subtitles using the same font as the credits, which was confusing), I had no idea who Tagbo was working for and what kind of work it entailed, or why Tagbo and Raymond were sent to Nigeria. All I could tell was that it was supposed to be shady. It didn't even need to be defined, just less ambiguous than "not drugs."
Same with the man Tag and Rag stayed with, and the man's friend. It was supposed to be Tag's uncle, his father's twin, who I'm pretty sure was having a clandestine affair with another man, but it would've worked so much better if Geoffrey Aymer had played both Tag's father and uncle so that we'd see that they were twins, the hidden relationship wasn't so subtle if it existed, and Nigeria's historic nonacceptance of homosexuality was more apparent so we'd have a better understanding of the underlying tension. Loved getting to see the country though, including the brief glimpses during the end credits.
The other part of that is how cluttered the story was. Several ideas were presented but not explored very much, which I think is why the pacing felt so rushed and choppy at times. Tagbo and Raymond were dealing with an ignored romance on top of issues with their parents, their significant others, their friends, their job prospects, and their trip to Nigeria. They both had a lot to sort out in their lives -- which is realistic, we all do, but that doesn't work as well when telling a story. Some of those plot elements needed to be trimmed or pruned away in order to reveal more of the story's essence. I also kept noticing the recurring theme of "they're not like us," but it was only ever mentioned and not the focal point it could have been.
I was a bit disappointed with the character of Tagbo's father too. He was suitable as an antagonist overall, although I didn't get why he wouldn't kick out his gay son, unless it was intended to show his continued attempts to exert control. Mainly I didn't like that he was basically relegated to intolerant villain by the end.
Despite their immature and hypocritical personalities, I'd become quite enamored with Raymond and Tagbo when they reached their pat happy ending. While this is the sort of film I wouldn't mind seeing remade with a more generous budget and more careful direction, frankly I don't know that I could see anyone else playing those characters.
There are a lot of ways that this film could be made better, and as another review mentions, closed captions may be necessary, but if you're okay with the lower production values it's not a bad love story.
Witchcraft (2020)
An alternative to reading the Wikipedia article I suppose
I noticed this on a streaming service recently and was curious how much of it would be informational and how much would be propaganda. Turns out, it's basically just a rehashed narration of the Wikipedia page on witchcraft. No new information is provided, and you won't even miss out by listening instead of watching because the video portion is only generic stock imagery that's loosely related to the voice-over.
I wasn't sure how to rate this. Production quality is adequate and the narration is pleasant, however I thought the stock footage detracted from any objectivity as an educational film.
Z Nation (2014)
Surprisingly entertaining for SyFy and Asylum
I'm not their target audience and don't generally enjoy what either of them have put out over the years, but this was fun. Honestly, I'm just going to echo other comments and say don't bother trying to compare it to Walking Dead, TWD focuses on telling a serious story while Z Nation is from SyFy and Asylum. They don't do serious stories as well as they do goofy stories. And there'll be plot holes and predictable plots and lame subplots, don't bother trying to figure it out, like that episode in which a bunch of people vanish like a fart in the wind but then nothing's ever said about it, or the two characters who act like best friends reunited when they'd spent all of five minutes together during the initial outbreak nearly a decade prior.
There's a lot of dumb stuff, especially in the last two seasons, and it took several episodes to find its stride, but it was still entertaining. At least the first three seasons. I kept watching during season four even though I didn't enjoy all of the episodes as much, then I found myself skipping past the heavy-handed social and political commentary in season five. If (or really, when) I feel like rewatching this show, it'll just be the first three seasons, maybe four if I'm not quite ready to stop yet. Far as I'm concerned five is forgettable.
Oh and if you haven't watched "Black Summer" and want to after watching this, be aware that although it's supposed to show the early days of this zom-pocalypse, the tone is much more serious and suspenseful. I liked it, but it was made so differently that frankly it didn't even feel like the same franchise to me, it'd be like comparing "Dawn of the Dead" 1978 and 2004.
Cockneys vs Zombies (2012)
Adequate but fun
For the most part I thought the story was fine, the script was fine, the effects were fine, and I liked the characters although I wasn't given much reason to become invested in them. It did well enough balancing drama and humor without going too far overboard with either. Can't quite put my finger on why I thought it was good rather than great, but I still thought it was a fun zombie flick that kept me engaged and entertained enough that I wouldn't object to watch it again sometime.
There are plenty of inside jokes for those more familiar with London than I am, probably more than I was aware of, but I did think the subtle connection to the Great Plague with the tomb and the rats was clever.
Ramses (2007)
Not as bad as I'd expected...
...but I still wouldn't recommend this for casual family viewing because it couldn't find the right balance between educational and entertaining. I honestly don't see kids being distracted by it for more than a few minutes, and even older viewers would probably find it tiresome.
At first glance, "Ramses" may appear to be a cheap knockoff of "The Prince of Egypt," but it actually recounts the beginning of the 19th Dynasty, when Pharaoh Horemheb selected his vizier Paramesse (Ramesses I) as successor. The "Ramses" of this story was the grandfather of Ramesses II, the pharaoh often associated with the Exodus (although many historians believe that was more likely an earlier dynasty). Don't bother waiting for Moses to show up, this is a totally different story.
Short take: I didn't think this was very good. Didn't think it was terrible, just not very good. The animation and voice work were low budget and it showed, and there's a lot of dialogue which is heavy on exposition and often rattles off names that will probably be unfamiliar to a lot of ears. There's very little narrative, so the movie comes off more like an animated textbook with no context or reasons given for why the viewer should care about this arbitrary historical figure, and it doesn't get many of the facts right. The sound and music were good though, and the battles, while bloodless, could be dynamic and surprisingly brutal. Not really suitable for leisure, too dubious to be considered educational, and some might even find it too dull for heckling.
Longer take: this is from the Italian filmmaker Orlando Corradi, who's been doing children's programming in Europe since the 90's through his Mondo TV. Probably his most notorious projects were two animated movies about the Titanic that featured rapping animals and the negation of more than 1500 people dying in one of the worst tragedies of the 20th Century. If you're already familiar with any of his other works, you'll know what kind of quality to expect, but if not, well, this is certainly not an "animated classic" as touted in the title and contradicted by the lack of any reviews in nearly 15 years.
It was made with "limited animation," the cost-efficient option when a company only has a few animators to produce weekly 20-40 minutes shows or a 100-minute movie. In the case of "Ramses," the animation is minimal, the color palette elementary, and most of the character models are so similar that it's hard to tell who's who, never mind the obvious copy/paste crowds. Those loyal to Pharaoh are shown as virtuous Good Guys wearing white head cloths, and those who oppose him as devious Bad Guys with black hair, no subtlety or grey inbetween whatsoever. Then there are the Nubians, exact same character models but painted in dark purple blackface.
The English voice work was a blend of over- and underacting done in British and American accents, and there's a Scottish accent that really sticks out. The one female VA's voice was monotonous and often difficult to understand. The script lacks characterization or any other reason to become invested in what's happening, the lines are there simply to deliver information. And I have a feeling the dialogue sounds just as stilted in Italian.
It took a couple attempts to watch this all the way through. I had trouble following it because they throw around a lot of ancient names and don't enunciate very well, and most of the time I couldn't tell the characters apart anyway. There's no real indications of time passage either so it felt like everything happened over the course of a few days. I was able to catch more details on a second viewing just to see if I could follow it, although I still needed to rewind once in a while and couldn't watch in one viewing.
As far as the historical accuracy, it's generally not, which is unsurprising given this company's habit of embellishment. I understand that liberties have to be taken when describing ancient events, so things like the use of milled paper centuries before it's invented can be overlooked, but a little research reveals that many key events are distorted or blatantly false. For example, one of the sons of the Hittite king Suppiluliumas was indeed assassinated, but he and his successor son died soon after from disease brought into the Hittite kingdom by Egyptian prisoners (which the movie seems to portray as a Hittite ploy to poison Egypt), not in battle avenging the assassination. Ramesses I was also chosen mainly because he had a son and grandson, yet this movie shows his son to still be a young boy when Horemheb dies.
Overall, it's passable quality, certainly no 10/10 "underrated masterpiece" but I could tell that effort was made, the animation was mostly watchable despite the subpar English dub, and it managed to hold my interest more in the second half. It relies on recognition of the title name to attract viewers, so those who are interested in that part of history might get something out of it, but it's not a movie most would sit down to watch for fun and shouldn't be taken as a factual account.
Especial de Natal: Se Beber, Não Ceie (2018)
Pleasantly Surprised
The film takes place the morning after the Last Supper, and flashes back to the night before. I thought they spent the right amount of time between both without being confusing or gratuitous. The story flowed, things pieced together logically, and more than a dozen characters were portrayed as real people and developed pretty well in such a short amount of time -- I was genuinely surprised that 40 minutes had passed the first time I watched it. The humor ranges from juvenile to raunchy to highbrow, and you'll probably catch more jokes if you've seen "The Hangover" or you're already familiar with Porta dos Fundos. Heads up to those who aren't fluent in Portuguese or don't like subtitles, because the dialogue does go pretty fast sometimes.
If you aren't offended by Gore Vidal or movies like "Life of Brian" or "Dogma," you'll likely be entertained with one viewing. But it also has details to find with multiple viewings for people who like that kind of thing, and subtext to discuss, such as literally taking someone's word as gospel (and not just the bit with Diego). I thought Jesus was a bit more of a jerk than necessary, but overall I've enjoyed it enough to have watched it more than once.