a1_andy_11

It's almost as if the director wished 3 mile island was as bad as Chernobyl. You'd think it was if you watched this docudrama. 70% of the documentary is emotion over facts. Unfortunately, far too little was spent on what happened and why, and how the operators eventually fixed the issue. Instead there were countless minutes spent listening to a 50 year old woman who was 6 years old at time, recollecting the incident with crystal clear clarity. That and a disgruntled employee, whose credibility is highly suspect. If you liked this mini-series I urge you to do some reading on the facts of what happened.

Isaac gives a great performance in The Card Counter. It's not enough to make this film more than an average. The dialog at times was stilted. The cinematography was bland, documentary tier, not feature film quality. Tiffany Haddish's was terrible at times. The pacing was slow, which would be ok if the plot went anywhere.

The film did a lot of things well, deep character study on Isaac, with an interesting peek into competitive gambling. It just fizzled out in the 3rd act. With an ending that was predictable, and with so little substance it felt frustrating. The final scene wasn't even worth watching.

Adrift is disappointing. It's not until the 3rd act, (and credits) that you realize you've been had (I'll explain later). The writers didn't have much to work with so they decided to heavily use flashbacks to pad the film. Two issues with that: It destroys tension and the feeling of isolation being lost at see. Second: the flashbacks are corny interactions of our leads shopping or eating dinner.

Neither of the leads were particularly good either. Shailene was like an angry toddler most of the time, Claflin was a little better, but felt more like a trust fund kid than a world traveler trying to make ends meet.

*big spoiler ahead

The most egregious hack the writers used was the "twist" however. Nobody hallucinates their significant other for days at a time, believing they are actually sat right next to them when they aren't. Treating wounds, feeding them etc. Not to mention the sequence where Tami rescues Richard.

That part of the film actually made me angry. It wasn't clever on the writers part, and it was clearly fabricated to add filler to the story because the either writers were incapable of creating a story that one person could carry. Or worse, the execs demanded a romantic love story.

As the credits roll, and you see the actual people the story is based on. Regular looking people. You will realize that just like the casting, this film was typical Hollywood fantasy and embellishment.

Much better "lost at sea" films: Abandoned, The Reef, All is Lost.

Great film about the true story of 3 miners who got trapped.

This wasn't "based on a true story". This was the story. With cleverly done splicing of media from the accident. The actors did a great job, with the exception some of the side characters who felt a little flat. As a viewer you get a small taste of how terrifying it must have been down there, you feel a sense of the pressure the rescuers were under. Not to mention the miners families.

If I had one critique; I wish the film makers had gone into more detail about the challenges of the rescue. It's obvious that they had some great minds making decisions and coming up with solutions, but days seem to pass when nothing was happening. A POV from one of the experts would have been good.

It's well worth a watch, touching and nerve wracking at times.

In this episode Kim explains to the mesa verde client that getting the account was the greatest day in her professional life. Meanwhile just one episode previous: she's mocking him and committing subterfuge while risking her entire career?

The inconsistencies with the characters is ruining this show. Saul evolved into a genius who can pull off $200,000 pay offs and work magic. His escapades are ridiculously far fetched. Kim has transitioned into a shyster lawyer, with a moral compass that is impossible to follow because the writers can't decide who is who.

This show is now almost like watching a cartoon. The side plot of Gus and Michael is the only thing keeping it on the rails.

The side plots of Kim and Jimmy gaslighting people were overboard on this episode. The writers give Kim and Jimmy the moral high ground, but this particular ruse was insulting to the viewers intelligence.

The writers have turned Kim into more of a shyster than Saul. It's a pity because the earlier episodes where it's clear she's struggling with whether she should be with Jimmy or not are gold.

Eye In The Sky is a film version of "the trolley problem". For those who don't know; The trolley problem is a thought experiment where the subject has to decide between pulling a lever and having 1 person die, or doing nothing and 5 die.

The film which is unfortunately too predictable, had a real sense of naïveté about it. The director brushed away so much of what would actually take place, that it made this film feel childish and idealistic. In real life drones can't hover in one place for 1.5 hours. The decision making process for drone strikes is as clinical as a triage doctor at an accident site. The specific (ridiculous) scenario in the film would have been green lit immediately. These strikes get approved before the drone even takes off. "Oh but if we could just get someone to buy the cute little innocent girls bread, who happens to set up shop inches away from a terrorist compound! Won't somebody please think of the children!"

As the end credits rolled I couldn't help but roll my eyes at how poor the messaging in this film was. It's watchable thanks to great acting by Rickman, Paul and Mirren.

The Mandolorian is the best Star Wars show since the originals. It's a wonderful and refreshing change from the latest batch of embarrassing prequels. Each episode has had stellar writing, fantastic characters, beautiful set design, and top notch CGI.

The finale was an unfortunate departure from the previous episodes. I don't understand why the writers make the "good guys" ridiculously over powered. There was a small battle between Mando & Gideon. Then a sequence of Mandos friends dispatching Storm Troopers like they were made of paper. Then some robots failing to portray any kind of threat while punching a blast door. Finally our savior swoops in and slices through these so called "Dark Troopers" like butter.

There was no real battle, epic crescendo, or face off. This left the episode underwhelming. The best episodes of The Mandolorian were the ones where Mando was in a real tough spot, and it was hard to see a way out. Even though we as viewers know the good guy is going to win, we don't know how. The fact there was zero sacrifice from the "good guys" made the wrap up feel overly saccharine and surprise surprise; very Disney.

Absence of Malice is a bit slow, but has a solid plot and fantastic directing by Sydney Pollack.

The high points of this film revolve around Sydney Pollack's natural ability to create tension, and make believable, interesting characters. The editing here is excellent as is the cinematography.

He captures the best from all of the actors, even the smaller roles such as those played Wilford Brimley and John Harkins. If you like a drama with some intrigue, and appreciate some beautiful locations, and great performances you won't be disappointed.

This mini series got off to a good start, but lost at the 3rd act. The writing was paper thin. It was obvious what the writers were trying to make the viewer think.

Some of the acting makes up for the writing. Donald Sutherland was fantastic, as was Noah Jupe (Henry). Huge Grant put in a good performance too. Nicole Kidman was awful, and I'm not sure if it's her poor acting, or the fact that her face looked strange and frozen. It was a little like the uncanny valley feeling of watching CGI characters look not-quite-real.

Aside from the usual, unrealistic courtroom shenanigans. The final episode felt rushed and on the nose predictable. The viewer is supposed to emphasize with Nicole Kidman, but all the characters lack development. Add to the fact that she doesn't seem to express emotion means the viewer doesn't really care about her. Her psychopathic husband garners more sympathy. In the end everything feels misplaced.

What an amazing premise; Starship stuck decades from home, trying to return.

The writers seemed to do everything they could to spoil it. Kate Mulgrew was miscast. She has an annoyingly shrill voice and cadence. The writers overcompensated, presumably because they thought people wouldn't accept a female captain, and turned her into a bit of a psychopath. Her decisions often defied belief. The crew would have mutinied multiple times. In fact one good episode explored that possibility.

Most of the characters are cookie cutter, one dimensional; Paris, Kim, Chakotay. Or one dimensional and annoying; Tores. Or annoying and saccharin; Neelix. Blindly following their leader from one questionable decision to the next.

The saving grace are a handful of good episodes, and characters. Such as Tuvok, who is well played, but again lacked development. The Doctor; easily the best character and actor. Seven of Nine, who picks up the show around season 4. She has great character development, and is played well by Jeri Ryan. It's a pity she was bullied on set by Kate Mulgrew but I digress...

After slogging through 7 seasons. Voyager didn't feel like much of a journey. Between the poor lead, bad character development, lack of real drama and tension between the crew, and a wasted story arc. You end up with a smattering of good episodes and some likable characters.

If you're a Star Trek fan, watching Voyager is a must. If you're just into sci-fi, skip this one and spend your time watching a less hobbled show.

This documentary starts off structured and interesting. Lot's of footage from the time of the murders, and some good interviews.

Like a lot of Netflix shows the srries is dragged out. This one is probably twice as long as necessary, with too much filler.

The bigger problem is that the documentary shifts narrative too much. The director focuses too heavily on preaching vs telling a story.

For a TV movie from 1975 this film is very good. The performances from our leads are solid, with a believable and interesting story. The pacing is off. It's is only 73 minutes, but feels much longer. It also is a little bit unbelievable having a character in her late 40s play a pregnant house wife. This film is worth a watch if you're stuck for things to see. It's a Sunday afternoon flick, and quite charming looking back 45 years. One interesting tidbit is how many of the actors are still kicking in 2020 in their 90s.

I have fond memories of watching this film with my mom when I was a kid. Usually around the holidays. I enjoyed it but didn't really "get" it.

It's only now that I'm much older that I feel like it understand it.

Huges was a genius, and this is his masterpiece. It's easy to get stuck on the escapades Neal and Del find themselves in, and miss the multiple themes. You can emphasize with both characters in different ways and see parts of yourself in each of them. Watching it a second time knowing the facts gives a different perspective and deeper meaning to the film.

Huges balances the perfect amount of comedy with situations that aren't too far from reality. He then measures that with wonderful, heartfelt drama. I don't think there is a director/writer out there that can do this. He brings the best out of Martin and Candy. Del Griffiths feels real because of John Candy is amazing, but because Huges was able to make the character fit the actor.

It's a beautiful combination of one of the best directors, and two of the best comedic actors of our time. Coupled with excellent cinematography, production design, and soundtrack.

I keep coming back to this film because of the bittersweet feeling it gives me. I smile when I think of my mom commenting on how she misses John Candy. I miss him too, and I think what John Huges did with this movie was to create a lasting memory of one of the nicest, most genuine, and funniest actors we ever had.

Perfect movie. RIP Huges, and Candy.

When Dexter first aired in 2006 it was fresh and exciting. Michael C Hall is excellent, his character is well written. So much so, that the viewer ends up rooting for him - a serial killer. The supporting cast is strong. With the exception of a terribly written, cast, and portrayed Debra Morgan.

On rewatching; Deb almost makes the show unwatchable. It's like they were pushing to see how ridiculous they could make her. It's a shame because the show would have benefitted from a little more realism. The constant sobbing, whining, and screaming gets really old after the first few episodes. If the writers had killed her in season 3, it might have elevated the show to one of the best of all time.

The seasons wax and wane. It's a pity they killed off Doakes so quickly. He was a fantastic antagonist to Dexter and they had great chemistry. Doakes was hilarious in his rude bluntness. Showing Jennifer Carpetener how it should be done.

Other high points were Det. Lundy, and of course guest star John Lithgow. Perhaps the greatest season in the entire show. The side story with Rita and her kids was often frustrating, but the writers fixed that - eventually.

The final season is the weakest, with writers clearly rushing to wrap the show.

If you can stomach Deb it's worth a watch. Great lead, with a solid supporting cast (Angel/Matsuka/Doakes). Nice backdrop of the sun bleached streets, and beaches of Miami. Some really nice arcs and characters.

Cassavetes and Falk are excellent in this film. Unfortunately the film is let down by poor pacing, and poor production.

Each scene is drawn out just that little bit too long. By the time we hit the 2nd act I was finding it hard to keep focused. It felt like the director was trying to string out a short into a feature. It's a pity because both leads gave excellent performances'. Cassavetes's character was getting incredibly annoying. I was rooting for him to get whacked after 45 minutes.

I don't using complain about production value of 70's films. It was a LOT tougher back then. Mickey & Nicky had a sizeable budget though, and it looked terrible.

There are much better Cassavetes films, such as "Gloria" & "The Killing of a Chinese Bookie".

The premise of The Client is great. The first act sets the scene for a really tense and interesting flick. Things go downhill steadily all the way through to the final act. The film has a great cast. Susan Sarandon is excellent as is Tommy Lee Jones. It's the plot and pacing that lets it down.

We go from a believable difficult situation into more farce as with each passing minute. The thing is it happens pretty slowly so it's at about the 2/3rd point that the wheels start to come off.

Pity as the cast are brilliant.

This film Force feeds the viewer with an agenda any reasonable person can see is ridiculous. The characters as cartoon-ish over the top stereotypes. The bad guy is rich and ruthless in his pursuit for victory. The good guy underdog is moral and just.

Rachel Weisz's character is a ridiculous concoction. Zero training but an expert in extortion, intel gathering, disguises, oh and she's 100lbs but can do a Jason Bourne on a hired gun twice her weight.

Hackman is excellent which is another problem with the movie. He's such a great actor that the viewer wants to see him use his wits and charm to win. The writers take care of that by having him make idiotic decisions.

The rest of the cast are cookie cutter stereotypes. From the right wing ex-army guy, to the noble everyman that is Cusack.

This flick reeks of idealistic, pretentious, and immature writing. I feel sorry for John Grisham his novel about tobacco was turned into propaganda by Brian Koppelman. For a true, incredible and believable courtroom drama check out 'The Insider'.

Narrow Margin has a good setup, great cast, and decent photography. The plot is the big let down. It's predictable and unbelievable. The dialog is terrible ' "You know what I like about you? You're tall!". This is a cheesy one liner Arnie wouldn't even say. But our protagonist is saying it at the climax of the film.

Gene Hackman is one of my favorite actors, and you can see him doing a good job with bad material. It's a pity that this film was let down by such bad dialog and boring, predictable plot. I actually feel this plot with some more gags and better one liners would have suited Arnie pretty well.

5/10

Jackie Brown is one of those films that captures the feel of a 90s LA expertly. Specifically the scenes in Ordell's apartment and the mall. The high production value helps with this. The choice of editing, sets, props, and cinematography pull you right into those scenes.

The plot tends to get a little too convoluted. It contains some big holes. i.e. There would be CCTV all over the mall. The store clerk at Billingtons would have been interviewed by the police. Not to mention the fact that people NEVER get handed a bag full of cash and just assume it's all there without checking immediately. Everything was just too conveniently tied up at the end making the heist utterly unbelievable..

The above issues pale in comparison to the films fundamental flaw. Our bad guy (Ordell) is a much more likable character than the good girl (Jackie). Even though we know Ordell is a degenerate criminal we still root for him. Jackie Brown is given the moral high ground to steal the cash. The viewer is supposed to feel good about her intricate back stabbing scheme. We don't though because it's much harder to emphasise with Jackie. We understand Ordells motivations in a much clearer way. This problem is compounded by the fact that Pam Grier is a mediocre actress surrounded by actors and actresses that steal every scene she is in. All of the other characters are more interesting to watch than hers.

Tarrentino overused 'Didn't I' by The Delfonics too. It got dreary hearing that song played in the final act.

Overall I give a 7/10. Mainly for the supporting cast and the production value.

The Giver shares an uncanny resemblance to Equilibrium, which in itself is a rehash of 1984/Fahrenheit 451/Brave New World. However at least Equilibrium had a real sense of danger and suspense.

This film is one of a long line of dumbed down teeny bopper movies that are dominating the cinemas as of late. They seem to follow a safe, homogeneous formula that most young people won't realize has been served up numerous times before.

I'm trying to balance my review with some plus points, and I'm struggling. Jeff Bridges certainly has a few good moments but everything else about this film is forgettable, and unremarkable. Even the CG is bland.

If you catch this film for free on Netflix, it's worth a watch, but don't pay money to rent it.

The trailer got me into the cinema and it wasn't even at the halfway point that I realized I'd made a mistake.

The premise is interesting. The outline seemed reminiscent of the dark and clever Cube. Unfortunately this film is squarely aimed at the younger, hunger games crowd.

Pacing is terrible. There's endless exposition and pointless dialog throughout. The characters are cookie cutter predictable. I feel like we've had variations on this story 1000 times. Instead of using a really interesting premise, the film went exactly where you'd expect. Right down to spelling out the sequel for us in the final act.

Uninspired garbage. It's the kind of film Christopher Nolan could turn into a piece of art. It's a pity the writers and director turned this film into derivative mediocrity.

Homeland has been receiving rave reviews and I can't see why. It's predictable, corny and incredibly slow at times. Our lead character is a troubled, stubborn, renegade agent who constantly disobeys her Superiors (she also can't stop shouting). This formula has been used in every buddy cop show ever made. Not to mention shows like The Shield, 24, etc. Although this time I found myself siding with the villain. Clare Danes makes for a very annoying and unlikeable Jack Bauer clone who over acts every scene with the same three facial expressions.

The middle east is portrayed in the usual black and white over the top Hollywood style. Then comes the slow pacing, with hollow characters going through predictable motions the viewer has too much time to realise not enough effort went into the story. 24 got away with insane plot holes because it was so fast paced, the viewer is on a roller-coaster ride.

Damian Lewis is a good actor but he has nothing to work with here. As is Mandy Patinkin, their talent is wasted on this shoddy 24 clone.

What incredible human beings.

Henry Marsh's attitude is astounding, as is Igor's. The dedication they have for saving and improving peoples lives is nothing short of heroic. They have to deal with a system that is in pieces; consultations with desperate patients who have been treated so poorly by the health system that their only hope is incredibly risky surgery. Surgery that has to be done with the most basic and primitive medial instruments. Most of which are provided by Henry himself. Patients have been treated so badly by the health care system, by the time they reach Igor or Henry there is often little to no hope, and huge risks involved if there is any hope at all.

Despite all this, Igor's own government has tried on numerous times to shut him down, rendering him unemployed for 2 years at one point in his career.

Yet both men are determined to keep pushing on and keep helping these unfortunate people. On patient Marian, who had to endure brain surgery with nothing more than a local anaesthetic is incredibly brave. I don't know how he went through such a brutal ordeal. The man was laying there with a pulse of 72 while they were boring into his skull with a cheap black n decker rechargeable drill. Astounding.

It made me feel so lucky, living in the western world with our comparatively luxury health care, and all because I got lucky by being born here and nothing more.

It also made me feel a huge admiration for these surgeons, both of which could have quite easily given up on the seemingly futile efforts of improving that part of the world, and move to somewhere like America where they could command outrageous salaries and live a much higher quality of life.

It's sad that here in the west we idolise singers and football players over truly remarkable selfless people like Henry Marsh.

This documentary really touched me, I hope that I can be even a tiny bit as altruistic as the people featured in it.

Rampage as the title suggests is a film about a young man who goes on a killing spree with the intent to cause as much death and destruction as possible.

A film like this which places almost all the focus on one person must have some character development. Rampage has non, we see our protagonist Bill in a few everyday life situations where he just seems like an asshole. The attempt at social commentary was ham fisted, and almost every scene had atrocious dialogue. The conversations between Bill and his parents felt particularly forced and unrealistic.

With all these things missing we end up with a bunch of scenes watching a guy blow up buildings and kill people, it's almost like playing a video game, but less interesting because there is no cause or meaning. The film becomes violence for the sake of it.

Bill is also portrayed as far too untouchable, he possess James Bond esq skills and gadgets when it comes to blowing people up. In addition to this everyone who comes against him is stupid. Police officers in real life know that their pistols are no match for assault rifles, they would not stand in open ground unloading clips on a man covered in armour. Towards the end of the film Bill creeps up on a sheriff in the forest in complete silence, predator style, and stabs him to death. Even though he is clearly weighed down with heavy, noisy metal armour.

On top of this there is the dreaded shaky cam. I really hate this fad of shaking the camera to try and make the audience feel on edge. How about using actors who can act and giving them something to work with instead of trying to force the viewer to feel a certain way?

I have bashed this film a lot so I will say that it's two saving graces are the scenes in the bingo hall and the chicken den. These scenes sparked some interest for me in Bill, and what the director was trying to convey.

The end of the film is undoubtedly the worst part; Bill seemingly gets away with framing his friend for all the murders, just before the credits roll some on-screen text tells the audience he was captured and sentenced. This kind of writing is what I would expect from a 12 year old.

4/10