dgl1199

So, I get it. The film is an absurdist thriller, dramedy, mystery and psychological head spin. I thought the acting and production value were great. But the story is overpacked with wine soaked neurotic moments of discovery, fear, loathing, highs and lows, bizarre incidents, and at times just general confusion. Combined together it made for a frustrating watch because I didn't understand what from angle the story was coming at me or what it was trying to be. I will say it gets better in the second episode as you piece together the clues scattered throughout the tale.

But what really turned me off was the ending which has to be one of the worst "Oh, come on!" endings I've ever seen. Again, I understand it was probably not meant to be taken seriously but still....seriously? Didn't work for me.

First, this is not some forgivable low-budget, post-apocalyptic thrill ride featuring aging, B-List stars. This is an alt-right, Republican Jesus, gun show. A societal breakdown happens, seemingly overnight and for reasons that are never made clear, a Midwestern family flees into the woods with their bibles and ammo. Then it becomes a heavily armed survival tale that relies on two things for virtually every scene: Guns and scripture. Oh, and yelling, a lot of yelling. The plot, such as it is, is a confusing, rambling, clumsy mess of different stories and events that often don't make sense. But the plot is just a necessary nuisance to call it a "drama" when in fact the point of this movie is to beat you over the head with an awkward, evangelical overdose of forgiveness, love, faith, and, most of all, firepower. It's a cringey, juvenile, sloppily constructed church/NRA fantasy straight out of the Kirk Cameron School of Christian Conservative Film-making. Nonsensical, preachy crap strewn with shell casings.

I'll get to the point, this episode was both boring and highly predictable. There was no real twist to it that we didn't already see coming. We have "players" introduced into a fantasy VR environment where they discover and explore alternate sides of their true selves. But haven't we seen this before ? San Junipero? Play Test? USS Callister? I thought the writing was 2 dimensional, the characters, particularly the women, were poorly developed, and the technological conduit to the story's moral and social reflection was recycled and unimaginative. Also, it just dragged with too much concentration on making the characters deep or introspective, or troubled but it all just across as dull and unnecessary. Just overall a lackluster effort. C'mon Charlie Booker, don't get all burnt out season 5 Rod Serling on us.

I really enjoyed this film. As so many others have previously remarked it has a retro feel to it harkening back to 1980s thrillers complete with campy, synthesized music. It is also unmistakably inspired by Halloween as the holiday is the backdrop of the movie with tacky decorations in nearly every scene. But the film isn't about the style or the inspiration, it's about the mystery and the tension. David Collins is a recently discharged soldier who suddenly appears at the home of his army buddy, Caleb Peterson, who died in Iraq. Collins explains to his Caleb's mother, Mrs. Peterson, that he promised Caleb he would check on his family should he die. With his affable charm and simple, direct yet respectful way of communication David is taken in by the Peterson family and soon treated as one of their own. Even though there an enigmatic vibe about Collins he also demonstrates a protective nature for the family. However, a series of strange events and unsolved deaths in the small town slowly (and I do mean slowly) ensue which catch the attention of Caleb's sister, once a potential love interest, who grows increasingly alarmed about Collins's activities. There are also several clues dropped that Collins is not who he says he is. Her suspicions inspire her to makes some inquiries with the government about David Collins. Once his location is made known to a certain shadowy organization within the military they mobilize to apprehend him. From there all hell breaks loose.

Dan Stevens was fantastic in this. From the start you don't know whether to like him, fear him, trust him, but he does capture your attention and keep it throughout the film. Because you know he has a secret. I think of him as Michael Meyers with dialogue and without the Shatner mask. I have two problems with The Guest. First is the pacing, it is at places very dull and unmoving. But the real problem I have is the development of Collins. By the time it is established that he isn't David Collins but rather an escaped participant from a military project gone awry we want to know more but are denied. We are given only scraps of supporting information about his past and his motivations. For example, it is never really made plain why he appeared at Caleb Peterson's home to begin with other than a passing line about his mission, whatever that means. Other plot and character developments are left hanging such as his plastic surgery, who was the real David Collins, and who is he really? What is HIS real name? Who is the guy he now looks like it in the photo with Caleb and his unit? It's all very confusing and frustrating. I understand it was deliberate choice by the director to leave his character to a certain extent ambiguous but it seems to go too far. Whatever happened to Collins, or whoever he is, during this military project is tied directly to the actions in this film. It doesn't make a lot of sense to deprive the viewer with at least a decent amount of cogent knowledge to support what's happening in the plot.

Anyway, it is a decent thriller. Not perfect, not entirely satisfying, but good enough that I watched it twice to see if I missed anything about who Collins really is. Nope, still in the dark about that.

Have you ever sat through a film you were convinced would pay off eventually only to find yourself cheated out of two hours of your life? Well, that's The Open House. This script wasn't just bad, it made no sense with an ending as confusing as it is unsatisfying. A mother and son move into the mother's sister's house located in a remote wooded area; the house is unoccupied (though it is an awesome house and lavishly furnished) and currently on the market. There is an open house conducted every Sunday so the pair have to clear out during the showings. When they arrive a series of odd events and even more odd supporting characters make an appearance. I can't even begin to describe how the plot develops beyond that because it was an unpalatable mess. There was no real structure to it, people come and go who you think are part of the story and then are never seen again. There is no sincere attempt to explain anything. Just weird, unconnected plot points that add up to dead ends. Acting was ok if not phoned in. It was as if the writers just threw together a loosely connected series of scenes without any plot development and topped it off with a cheap and nonsensical ending.

Netflix has produced some good work but this film is a mangy dog. It sucks because it doesn't care. Netflix just wanted eyeballs on it to enhance their ratings. Sad that they dispensed with quality to increase their market profile. Don't do them any favors, don't watch this garbage movie.

Twilight Zone was all over the place when it came to the unexplained and the supernatural. Time travel, lost identity, lost airplanes, guardian angels, alien invasions, on and on. Some worked, some were dogs. What makes The After Hours stand out is it's one of the few genuine thrillers produced by the show, with a twist ending that works superbly. Anne Francis was positively amazing as she tries to sort out the mystery in the empty department store. No music, no punchy chords, just a tense walk around of the floor, trying to find her way out before she discovers her real destiny. A few jumpy moments that will make you gasp. Truly one of the best directed episodes and dare I would say inspired by Hitchcock.

It starts off as a "rather prosaic" story of a young woman who visits a major department store to purchase a gift for her mother. Told by the elevator man that what she's looking for can be found on the 9th floor, a floor that turns out to be completely empty. Later we learn the building has only 8 floors. Yet, she finds the gift she was looking for on that floor anyway. Later through a trick of fate she finds herself locked in the store after closing time. And her nightmare truly begins.

There are many unanswered questions, too many to list. As well as an abundance of logical conundrums replete in this episode. The thing about TZ is we have the benefit of 60 years to pick apart episodes and ask why, how, yeah but, and that makes no sense. But for a 30 minute time slot, there just wasn't time to answer them all. And in After Hours, you don't really care. Because the payoff was worth it. One of the top 10 episodes.

This is one of eighteen episodes from season four of the Twilight Zone, the only season of it's five season run shot in hour-long lengths rather than the customary 30 minute episodes which made the show much more compact and appealing. This story was crafted before Rod Serling and the network chose to experiment with longer run times. As a consequence, it was necessary to re-write the story to fit it's hour length which meant padding it with extended scenes of chatty, dull, unnecessary dialogue. The story was meant to me told in a much shorter time and as a result drags endlessly in places and loses some of it's haunting atmosphere and thriller moments.

The Thirty Fathom Grave, otherwise, is a well conceived and interesting ghost story at sea. A U.S. Navy destroyer on routine patrol in the south Pacific in 1963 detects an unusual underwater contact, the sound of clanging metal, almost rhythmic enough to sound like Morse code. The Captain, his officers and crew, are befuddled by the incessant sound, although based on the sonar signature they have have determined it's likely originating from a motionless submarine on the sea floor thirty fathoms (180 feet) below them. Beyond that they have no answers, and all attempts to contact the vessel have gone unanswered. A diver is dispatched to investigate. He finds the submarine is American, and eventually they are able to identify it as having been lost in a sea battle in 1942 with the loss of all hands. But the mysterious banging sound from inside continues.

The destroyer's Chief Boatswain's Mate, a career Navy vet, is inexplicably afflicted by the odd encounter. He suffers crippling physical effects, sees visions of the dead crew, and is increasingly guided by a supernatural force to join the submarine below. He reveals to the Captain, who has grown intensely concerned about his erratic behavior, that he was the sole survivor of the doomed submarine below in 1942, whose sinking he blames on himself due to an an error in nighttime concealment, for twenty-one years he has carried the guilt inside him. He must join them, which he finally does.

A great and haunting story. Yet poisoned not by poor writing or acting, but by misguided television executives who knew nothing about science fiction and everything about the ad revenues they could reap from hour long episodes. It was a bad idea, but the story of the ghost submarine never was. It just should have been told in a shorter tale.

This episode had potential and some great moments, but ultimately goes down in flames. Flight 107 arrives at a major aiport (unspecified which) from Buffalo, NY but there's one snag. Flight 107, a DC-3, arrives with no one aboard yet mysteriously lands, taxis, and parks on it's own. Grant Scheckly of the FAA arrives to investigate. It's established that Sheckly has a formidable reputation during his twenty years with the FAA and openly speaks of his stellar track record solving plane crashes. But this one is a stumper. Sheckly confers with aiport PR man Malloy, AP Operations manager Bengston, and a handful of others to try to sort out the mystery of the self landing airliner, meanwhile expressing "something familiar" about the passenger and crew names. After exhausting any logical explanation Sheckly realizes the men have pointed out details about the plane that only they can see (different color seats, different tail numbers). Sheckly deduces this can mean only one thing, the plane is not real and sets off on an experiment to prove his point; theorizing the plane is only an illusion he walks directly into one of the spinning props and the plane vanishes, along with all the other men in the hangar. But this is where the episode loses me.

Sheckly finds his way back to the AP Operations office and confronts Bengston and Malloy about what had just happened to the plane. Neither of the men recognize Sheckly or know he's talking about. However Bengston does recall Scheckly is with the FAA it's soon realized that Scheckly was the investigator of the real flight 107 some 18 years earlier, a plane that vanished without a trace and ostensibly the only airline disaster Scheckly was never able to solve. Given this, we must assume Scheckly has just experienced some sort of alternate reality or grand delusion of which only he has memory of the events.

My problems are logic based. How does Scheckly remember Malloy and Bengston after the illusion vanishes but neither of them know Scheckly? All three met for the first time when Scheckly arrived. This doesn't make sense. Also, what was Sheckly even doing at the airport if all of this was a supernatural hoax? That's never really resolved. And neither is it ever established the timeline for this event, why an 18 year old plane crash matters at this point in time. Except that Sheckly has perhaps been obsessed with the "one crash he could never solve" all these years, still doesn't explain why now.

Rod Serling wrote most of the TZ episodes, some better than others. But he wrote enough that you can see patterns emerge in his plots, particularly airplanes and space travel. One of his favorite themes is time travel which he combined with airplanes in two other episodes (King Nine and The Odyssey of Flight). The Arrival also combines these elements but the purpose for which is unclear. It's part ghost story, part mystery, part cosmic lesson in redemption or maybe forgiveness or maybe torment, I'm not really sure. The ending is long and unsatisfactory and episode doesn't provide the viewer enough information to really understand the point of the tale. Overall The Arrival had some good ideas but I think it's also a sloppily written episode that leaves the viewer confused.

There's bad films, and then there's films so atrociously awful it should bring criminal charges. From the opening scene it's readily apparent they cast whoever could fit the costume. Absolutely no one in this film can act. Anachronisms run amuck, historical accuracy is treated with the same reverence as a $10 hooker, and everything is shot in very annoying close up. That's just for openers. What's supposed to be Normandy, shot entirely at night, looks like it was filmed in a backyard using a spotlight. The sound is horrendous, the editing is horrendous, and the cinematography is full of some strange and inexplicable angles. And finally the dialog is positively laughable as if that's how they really spoke. I mean this film is terrible beyond words. The only positive I can say is that it is a good story but not after these clowns were through with it. With a bigger budget and talented actors and a director who doesn't look like he learned his craft by watching YouTube tutorials it might make a decent film. Otherwise stay far away from this one.

Found this series on Netflix a few days ago and have sat through 6 or so episodes. It is filmed exclusively in Canada and follows a team of investigators as they try to establish or debunk the presence of spiritual activity within private homes and buildings, very similar to Paranormal State and Ghost Hunters. The core team consists of a researcher, a home inspector, and "spiritual healer" who connects with the paranormal entities, in addition to several other production assistants. While I think bringing in a home inspector to rule in or out any possible explanations for reported phenomena is a good idea (loose door locks, banging pipes, etc) it really doesn't make the show stand out from Paranormal State or Ghost Hunters. His function actually appears to be more of a professional skeptic with a flashlight as he seems to think everything the residents report can be explained, often with some pretty ridiculous explanations. From there the show is otherwise generic and uninteresting. A psychic who always walks in a home and predictably "senses a presence". And a researcher who's job it is uncover the dark, tragic past of the property because, apparently, every property has one. A small team stays the night in the property with lights off and calls upon the alleged spirits to make a noise, flicker a candle, deal a deck of cards, whatever. Always "did you hear that?" or "was that you?". This sequence, like paranormal State, is overproduced with annoying filler music and punchy vamps whenever something is heard or seen. Overall the show doesn't seem to come together, there's an awkward flow to it and the experts are never together at once which I think is odd. The whole production value seems rushed and compartmentalized. Not a show I'm going to keep watching.

The fact that Shakespeare remains the most studied, influential, and produced playwright in the modern world is testament to the genius of his storytelling and it's transcendent, universal narratives. His plays remain timeless for this reason. Coriolanus, however, one of the last composed by Billy Shakes, is not one his more popular plays and consequently doesn't see the stage time of his other Histories. There are really four reasons for this. The title character is lacking the emotional range, depth, and just plain interestingness of say a Hamlet, Lear, or Macbeth. He is pretty much single minded and predictable. Reason two is there is no love interest to speak of, although he has a wife, she does not play a compelling influence on his life or events of the story. Reason three, the topicality emphasizes the political rather than humanistic. Reason four is it's an intense, humorless, dark play. In essence, Coriolanus is a heavily flawed man who doesn't know it and for many that makes him boring. There are no internal conflicts, only external. The play is really a commentary on the bearing of social class on the general welfare of any given nations citizenry and the toxicity of political privilege and hubris. Many theater goers, even in Shakespeare's time, were uneasy with the subject matter. Aristotle asserted that theater should serve two functions, entertain and instruct,but do so evenly. Coriolanus does more instruction where an escapist audience wanted to be entertained. Let's call Coriolanus, then, a Shakespearian political PSA.

But...this re-imagining of Coriolanus is spectacular. Like many modern adaptations of Shakespeare it has been modernized to suit the times, making it more accessible to audiences unfamiliar with the Elizabethan English or even the story itself. There are no robes, tights, or rapiers. There are instead tanks, helmets, and helicopters. There are suits and ties and cars and televisions and a contemporary cultural backdrop that could be literally any one of thousands of locales in our present time. Ralph Fiennes direction really drives home that this could be you, which I thought worked exceptionally well. The use of modern media, such as television talk shows and news broadcasts to deliver dialogue originally intended for an ancillary character was both clever and useful in keeping the flow of the story as well as staying true to the spirit of the original work.

Coriolanus is a general, a politically valued but socially inept political figurehead central to the corruption of the Roman government and the chief architect of that government's subversion of civil liberties and basic needs among it's population. For that reason he is despised by the people and feared by the politicians. Yet he is also a prized component of this society as a fearless, ruthless, and brilliant military commander. The built in irony for Coriolanus lay in his professional conduct as a soldier defending his nation, advancing it's interests through conquest, and all the while expressing utter disgust for that nation, the common man especially whom he regards as interloping rabble or a distraction to his ambitions. He is what we would call a megalomaniac. Serving only himself and those that can benefit him. Really, he functions as guardian of a status quo for himself, and no one but himself. As a side note, can't imagine that Coriolanus wasn't an influence for Aaron Sorkin when he crafted Colonel Nathan Jessup in A Few Good Men.

One should familiarize themselves with the story before embarking on Coriolanus. It should be said more often that production value, costumes, and theme will never replace an audiences need to understand what is going on. Let's face it, there's a language barrier with Shakespeare and nothing will substitute for an audience member who doesn't know that musty superfluidity means weakness. And perhaps that's why Shakespeare on film doesn't have the reach it should. But I do love this effort and the attempt to advance a 400 year old tale of a dysfunctional system and make it real for anyone living it today.

Nuts and bolts of the film. I loved the action sequences, the editing, and the brevity as much of the script was deleted to streamline the film. Gerald Butler was in his element as Aufidius, the foil to Coriolanus. Ralph Fiennes exploded as Coriolanus and gave him an unspoken internal dialogue; I hated this guy and then it occurred to me that I was supposed to, and when that happened I know they did it right. Some things I did not like. The overuse of shaky cam as if this were live footage was not all that convincing. Thought some of the combat scenes were pushing too hard. And at times, for reasons I can't really explain, felt the whole this is modern times and we are making a point of that fell flat. Maybe it was all the shots done in TV studios and board rooms.

Overall an excellent film, and a very relevant story to modern times. Both entertaining and instructive. Evenly.

Chaz Bono, formerly Chastity, is the sole child of 70's TV stars Sonny and Cher. In 1995 she publicly announced she was gay after having been outed in the tabloids, and I don't think anyone was surprised by this news. This film, produced by Chaz Bono himself and financed by Oprah Winfrey and other entertainment power brokers, documents her physical and psychological transformation from female to male, culminating in gender reassignment surgery in 2010. The production value is quite good, the subject not so much, which I will get back to. Gender transition is arguably a topic most people know little to nothing about. The steps one must take to invert his or her gender, legally, financially, socially, and psychologically, speak to the need for this transition, not the want. The film does a good job to inform the viewer that yes there are those of us who never fit into the gender in which they were born and that this phenomena is quite real. Chaz was one of the lucky few to have the means and support by which to surgically alter herself into a man, at least as close to a man as current medical techniques can confer. We are given intimate insight into how this transition, from hormone therapy to scalpel, impacts relationships for better or worse. Chaz's mother, Cher, lends the lone dissenting voice to her daughter's decision to switch. I was actually surprised to see her agree to be interviewed in this film and her narrative was unmistakably vague and evasive. Otherwise the film is crafted to showcase Chaz as both a heroic and tragic figure, even something as a victim of cultural indifference to her struggle for acceptance both socially and personally. But I just wasn't buying it. Chaz ostensibly made this film to lend a voice to the LGBT community as well as PSA for transgender equality. I suppose his celebrity status was supposed to propel that message. Yet I found him boring, uninteresting, untalented, and something of an attention vampire. I really struggled to like Chaz. What I felt was here is this person, with this problem, and without the last name would be a forgettable nobody, who creates a film for himself and demands we celebrate him. While I do not dismiss the struggle in the abstract, the film did not compel my sympathy for a privileged "famous for nothing" person suffering from internal identity issues. The world has real problems and Chaz Bono does not deserve 90 self- congratulatory minutes of veneration.

I first saw The Crossing in 2001, shortly after it was made, and loved it. Although I couldn't help thinking there were some inaccuracies to it, or certain things that were simply imagined. I had a chance to watch it again just recently and my opinions remain largely unchanged. For a made for TV film the production value is tremendous with a skilled cast and compelling direction. The film drives home the brutal reality of the war in the winter of 1776; Washington's army is depleted, down to perhaps 6,000 or so. He has virtually no support or leadership from Congress, dwindling supplies, and after a string of stinging defeats has been pushed across the river in absconded boats to Pennsylvania escaping the relentless British pursuit. In short, the American army is on the brink of collapse and with it goes any hope for Independence. The Crossing dutifully articulates the desperate struggle for GW and his army, the brutal winter in particular, which can be argued was their bigger enemy. Washington's gamble to divide his forces and attack the 1200 strong Hessian mercenaries camped at Trenton on Christmas Day 1776 is a remarkable feat of military/logistic heroism and human endurance. The film really does capture the misery those men must have suffered, freezing, sick, wet, just to get to the Hessians, and then fight them. Visually a great film with a nice pace and flow to it, and moments of real tension. I was actually surprised at the level of violence portrayed in the battle scenes but that's the way it was mostly fought; hand to hand. There are elements in the film that some have questioned as inaccurate or fabricated. Jeff Daniels characterization of GW infers a man with a short temper, rigorously demanding, and with utter contempt for his enemies; this persona is incongruent with what we know of Washington's character as somber, conservative, respectful, brilliant yet somewhat colorless man. GW was a professional soldier for most of his life but I thought Daniel's conceptualization of him rendered him as something of a hot headed rustic amateur. I also took issue with the portrayal of Horatio Gates as a seething fifth columnist. Gates, a former British officer who sought greater personal fortunes in the colonial army, was a poor battlefield commander but a brilliant quartermaster and administrator. Nevertheless, he held GW in low regard and felt himself better suited to lead the army. His contempt for Washington isn't in question. It's the confrontational, combative, nature of his exchanges with GW who naturally dismisses Gates for his insubordinate attitude. This too is in conflict with what we know of Gates. An opportunist, yes, but not a traitor and certainly not inclined to personally attack Washington as he does in the film. There are other historical facts simply left out such as the Hessian's foreknowledge of an imminent American attack, the fact that the army was actually split into three armies, and that the crossing was actually one of three crossings, not a singular event. However, all told a wonderful film with an engaging cast and few dull moments. Very well done.

First, anytime a film's tagline includes the five words "based on a true story" prepare for anything but the truth. This film is loosely connected to the real John Wayne Gacy and his rampant mid 1970's murder spree. However the story bears little resemblance to the actual events nor does it deliver an accurate portrayal of Gacy. In essence, most of the script is fictional. Once I accepted that then I had to accept a story line and direction style that I found quite frustrating. The tale sort of jumps around and introduces plot points, people, and events, that don't have any explanation or get fleshed out. These things just come and go throughout the film. It didn't seem to have flavor or focus, if I had to pick a word to describe this viewing experience it would be flat. There's not a lot of scary moments, thrilling moments, highs or lows, it's just sort of bland. I will say Mark Holton was believably creepy and disgusting in the title role. Otherwise this film serves no purpose historically, artistically, or otherwise. It just makes you want to take a shower after watching it.

Excuse the pun but I was turned on to this how just a few days ago and have put away a few episodes on Netflix. It has my attention for now but unless it evolves into something more interesting than Jericho meets the Hunger Games I'm turning it off. However, it does show promise. A post cataclysmic world after the sudden and unexpected loss of all electricity on the planet. It does give you pause to really consider this idea. The show takes bold and often absurd assumptions on what this would really do to once ordered, civilized nation. Some assumptions are quite plausible such as the breakdown of civil order, loss of government, and rise of militant factions competing for control. But the conceptions offered to us of a once energy dependent society suddenly forced to revert to a primitive, agrarian way of life are equally fascinating and ridiculous. Candles, gardens, and crossbows, OK, Muskets and Civil War tents are asking too much. Everyone is suddenly a martial artist or expert archer while not getting their hair messed up, uh uh. Telemundo grade acting and clunky plot mechanisms, to be expected. I understand the show is similar to Lost in that the payoff is the ultimate revelation of a secret being kept from us. How is this possible? How did the power go out and why can it not be restored? That's the secret and it demands an answer, a good answer. Because what this show is asking us to accept defies not only logic but the laws of science. It's not possible to manufacture even a crude generator? Electricity is just enigmatically eradicated from the earth? How about lightning? How about static electricity? Bio-luminescence? They better have a damn good reason for this. Give us enough clues to keep us going but please make the characters more likable and please give them some depth beyond the tired angry emotive adolescence we've seen way too much pretty much everywhere. They should also be careful not to grow too impressed with themselves or too in love with the puzzle. That's the mistake Lost made. And that's why by the time it ended, the secret was out, I didn't care because I was no longer watching.

A stunned silence fell over me as the credits mercifully rolled. I actually watched that crap, I did it, I committed myself to seeing it through despite the urge to douse my self in gasoline and self immolate. If you actually make it all the way through this steaming river of sewage you deserve a medal for movie watching valor. I can't express enough through words alone just how breathtakingly, mind numbingly, horrifyingly awful this movie is. No one must be allowed to see this. It's too late for me but others will be spared a slow agonizing death only if this film is sealed in a titanium vault and dropped into the Marianas Trench. It isn't the childish production value, it isn't the laughable inaccuracies or the plot holes large enough to suck light and matter out of the room, it isn't the community theater acting, it isn't even the use of the wrong battleship for filming, it's the fact that this movie doesn't know it sucks. It actually thinks it's a decent movie. It says to you hey dig me I'm an awesome, edgy, action flick based on a legendary battleship (USS Iowa)and you're just going to love me. What it doesn't tell you until it's too late is yeah I forgot to tell you I'm using washed up hacks in a poorly thought out script and pretty much just throwing in whatever costumes and I can afford along with special effects some 12 year old created on his Mac. Oh and I was also filmed in my neighbor's pool. It isn't a movie. It's a war crime. Those responsible must be brought to justice.

I have to say I didn't have a lot of hope for this one. It was a Netflix on demand suggestion. The topicality, online sexual predators, is highly charged and I took a chance that it might translate into a decent drama. But could also easily have translated into a clichéd fluff piece. David Schwimmer is a surprisingly good director; I say surprisingly because honestly I never knew he was directing now. Trust turned out better than I expected but not without some predictable conventions and plot turns. And a touch of over acting.

The story is told from the perspective of a 14 year old girl from a prosperous, upper middle class family, who falls for the lure of an internet child predator. At first all communication is conducted using chatrooms, a computer, and a smartphone all under the radar of her family. The interaction evolves into phone conversations, and eventually a physical encounter with the predator, who of course uses an online persona radically different from what he is revealed to be. The encounter is also revealed to her family and the authorities initiating a series devastating psychological and emotional events for the girl, her family, and the world she once knew and understood as best as a 14 year old can comprehend it.

Schwimmer's direction has a nice flavor to it. But this film does have areas where it arcs dangerously close to a stereotyped, Lifetime Channel style. The subject matter, and the manner in which it is filmed, is very uncomfortable to watch at times. But that is not a bad thing, to me it means Schwimmer was unafraid to use shock value for the right reasons, and it means you are invested in it. Some scenes are graphically filmed and makes one uneasy to view them. At times it drags, then picks up, then inexplicably drags again. One or two plot developments make no sense or are not adequately explained. Some dialogue is hard to understand. Nothing is more aggravating while watching an otherwise decent film than the need to back up and relive the scene twice because you didn't understand it the first time. Some moments walk a fine line between superb acting and over acting. I found this especially true with the mother. But mostly, it is indeed superb.

Trust is otherwise a film I do recommend. It treats a very real and painful subject with compassion, sensitivity, and respect while maintaining respect for the viewer. It does not become a PSA or an otherwise self-pitying rant. Indeed the chemistry between the family members is artfully directed and there are times when you genuinely forget you are watching a movie. But the there are times when you may think you have seen this movie before. It does not come without a formulaic pattern. But this is truly an actor's film, that is what makes up for it. And the ending, which is unexpected.

A solid and respectable effort by David Schwimmer.

Calling this movie crap would be doing a disservice to crappy films. This is horrendous. From the very beginning you just know it has no direction and no soul. This is right out of the Chuck Norris school of unbearable, right wing, good v evil machismo movies. This makes Delta Force look like Saving Private Ryan. Illogical and poorly constructed plot, type cast pretty boys with no acting skills (but fit the costume), a hot,tough, woman who shouldn't even be on a submarine (with an even worse bad girl counterpart), bad accents, and models of submarines that looked like a 13 year old built them. This piece of (rhymes with hit) screams direct to video low budget where silk stalkings production value meets ridiculous and inaccurate military "thriller". Boring, dumb, formulaic, nonsensical, idiocy. Oh and great title, Submarines, really well thought out. No amount of weed or alcohol could make this trash watchable. Periscope up, thumbs down.

Not much I can add to the battle's decisive outcome and how it altered the course of the Pacific war. So I guess I'll recap. What was stacking up as another in a string of decisive Japanese naval victories in the Pacific was turned on it's head through masterful intelligence, leadership, instinct, and luck. Just six months after the humiliation of Pearl Harbor, cryptologists of the outnumbered American navy break the Japanese code and decipher their plans for their coming invasion of Midway Island; a tiny, isolated U.S military outpost hundreds of mile northwest of Hawaii and the perfect staging site for a Japanese invasion of Hawaii. Bringing four fleet carriers, 260 planes, thousands of troops, and dozens of support ships the Japanese intend to lure the remaining American carrier force into battle and destroy them. But armed with forewarning of the attack the three remaining carriers are staged for a surprise attack of their own. Having no idea the American carriers would be waiting for them, the Japanese commanders are suddenly forced to make new tactical decisions to deal with a sea battle they had not yet counted on. And some of those decisions would alter the course of the war and lead to the slow death of the once unstoppable IJN.

This movie had a fantastic cast and I have to say was artfully directed. I had two major problems with it. The overuse of stock film footage, most of which comes from other Pacific battles or even other films. A lot of footage is taken from Tora! Tora! Tora! and John Ford's Midway. I'm not sure if the footage was intended to preserve the film's budget or was added in as an artistic choice to press home the fury of real combat. In either case it came across as hacked together and cheap. There are inaccuracies and anachronisms everywhere, seemingly unapologetically so. The second problem was the use of English speaking Americans cast as Japanese officers. While it may have provided a different angle to connect with the Japanese perspective it just didn't feel right. I never stopped thinking of them as actors. Toshiro Mifune, conversely, barely spoke English and his dialog was later dubbed in. There are fictional characters, Charleton Heston's Captain Matt Garth is fictitious as is his brooding fighter pilot son and his boring Japanese love interest. But it's a film crafted to entertain as well as instruct. Otherwise if it followed facts only it would get dull very quickly. That's why it's called a dramatization.

But what works is the painstaking historical veracity and an excellent cast chemistry. It takes an otherwise complex and confusing set of events and present them in a way that makes sense and draws you in. Midway was without a doubt one of the most stunning military upsets in the history of modern warfare. In an era before satellites and long range radar the battle's outcome depended on who found who first followed by the right (or wrong) decisions. This film allows you to walk way understanding just how the mighty IJN lost all four of it's carriers at Midway. It doesn't cover everything, there are holes and questions left unanswered, but it does it's job in paying homage to the men who won the battle while also paying it's respects to their Japanese counterparts. I do think this film needs a remake, it was that important a battle, it arguably saved the U.S from defeat in the Pacific theater, and it's legacy should never be forgotten.

To call this film "The Donner Party" is misleading. The events portrayed are mostly fictional, loosely based on the actual tragedy, and do a great disservice to the historical truth behind what really happened. The scope of the film encompasses only a handful of the party who attempt to cross the Sierra Nevadas to California in hopes of bringing back a rescue team for the remaining survivors, which is based on an actual attempt. But there is little coverage of the events leading to their predicament in the mountains, only passing references and incomplete pieces of information. Although the direction does nicely capture the brutality of their circumstance it also portrays people numbingly boring and cartoonish. The dialogue is dull and awkwardly delivered with a multitude of intense, soap opera close ups. Long stretches of yawning wide shots and wordless scenes of boots plodding inch by inch through thick snow. But my real problem is the focus on cannibalism. Once the food runs out they decide someone needs to die so the others may live. Aside from the glaring historical inaccuracy, the film seemed to become about cannibalism. It's known that the Donner Party did eventually resort to cannibalism, but not to the extent outlined in this film. It was more like a cheap and overused plot tool to gross out the audience, albeit not graphically. But the lifeboat mentality over who was next became practically comical. The only bright spot in this was Crispin Glover as the transparently weak minded, pious, self preservationist. His character was the only one I found believable as a figure from the Donner Party. The remaining cast were two dimensional pretty people slathered in fake dirt and period costumes. I don't recommend this film but I particularly advise anyone who may be looking for anything to do with the real Donner Party to prepare for disappointment. YouTube has plenty of documentaries. This is fiction.

Not a perfect film, and not the greatest acting, but clever and interesting nonetheless. Humphrey Bogart is Lt. Commander Queeg, a career officer who assumes command of an aging WWII warship, the USS Caine. Caine is a rusty, combat fatigued, holdover from the previous war. Built as a destroyer and converted to wartime use as a minesweeper. Queeq replaces his predecessors competent yet relaxed style of cammand with a by-the-book, structured, attempt to re-affirm military deportment, efficiency, and morale. It gradually becomes evident that Queeg is not wrapped too tight. His rigid, officious nature reveals quirks in his personality readily identified by another officer, an amiable, aspiring author, and by extension self-dubbed "judge of human nature", as characteristics of mental illness. A hasty retreat during a combat operation, a ship-wide search for the fictitious perpetrator behind a quart of missing strawberries, and the Caine's severing of a tow line during target practice deepen the crew's doubts about the new captain's competency and mental solvency. It all comes to a head during a Pacific typhoon after Queeg is paralyzed with fear and indecision, ignoring his XO's pleas to make maneuvers to prevent the ship from capsizing. He is relieved of his command by his XO who, backed up by the young OOD Ensign Keith, once a staunch fan of Queeg, immediately issues the necessary orders to save the Caine. Upon return to the states a court martial is ordered, charging the XO and Keith with conspiracy to commit mutiny.

The screenplay obviously struggled to translate the story to film. It is replete with staggered logic and unclear motivations. Why does no one mention during the court martial that Queeq froze like a Popsicle in the storm? This was the cassus belli of the mutiny. Casting was hit or miss. Bogart speaks of his days as a "lowly ensign" a mere 7 years earlier, yet by the time of filming the man is clearly old enough to play an admiral. Queeq is supposed to be around 30 years old. Although Bogart had some memorable moments, his casting choice remains bewildering. However his breakdown on the witness stand remains one of my favorite moments in any film. Fred MacMurray was a great choice as the duplicitous Lt. Keifer, the author and antagonist behind Queeqs dismissal, and who like Peter to Jesus, denies later he had anything to do with it. His intentions are crystal clear, to punish the Navy whom he hated. Van Johnson's portrayal of Lt. Maryck, the XO, was excellent although he tends to vacillate from loyal, competent, naval officer to intellectual twit a little too much. Robert Francis played a respectable green Ensign Keith. His character makes a nice arc, albeit wooden, from a freshly frocked officer eager to please Queeq to secondary mutineer. Francis died too young. He might have developed himself into a more nuanced actor with a bit more range and depth. The romantic subplot involving him and May Wynn was useless, unnecessary, and boring as hell. The best actor in this film is Jose Ferrer, the naval lawyer who defends Maryck and does so magnificently. His blend of starch and humanism was the most real of any of the characters. His performance in the post trial scene as he drunkenly confronts the "man who should have been on trial" was absolutely spectacular.

Overall the film is very viewable and entertaining. It does have a nice flow and pace to it. The fact that it was largely filmed on actual U.S. navy warships makes it even more watchable. Although it does not do justice to the original tale in terms of character development or dialog. Caine Mutiny does pay off in the end as all roads lead to Keifer. Highly recommend to bright boys everywhere. Kay?

If you knew absolutely nothing about the American Civil War you might come away from Gods and Generals believing something like this: A sociopath named Lincoln decides one day in 1861 to raise an army to invade the south because he just feels like doing that. The people of these south, having absolutely nothing to deserve any of this, start their own country to defend themselves and a polite, bearded, General named Lee leads them and this other polite, bearded, General named Jackson is his second in command. Because God is on their side, the kind, virtuous, heroic, men of the southern army prevail in several combat engagements against the godless, sex-crazed, murderous barbarians of the north. Jackson and Lee deftly direct the outnumbered army of Jesus against the unwashed Yankee heathen and wins the war except that he got shot by one of his own men by accident and dies otherwise the south really won.

Yep, that's just what you might believe. If you took history from this film.

Gods and Generals is a confused, heavily pro-Confederate, train wreck. It attempts to span two years of the war though the perspective of General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, arguably one of the most brilliant field commanders West Point has ever produced. Like it's antecedent Gettysburg it is of epic length except that Gettysburg actually made sense. This film is all over the place. Focuses on non-pivotal battles and is bloated with nonsensical dialog and close ups of men talking to themselves in archaic,sanctimonious, soliloquies. There are no issues, there are no cassus belli,no internal conflicts, there is only a clumsy even bizarre celebration of the confederacy; depicted as an embattled yet righteous society defending their way of life against their tyrannical northern overlords. There is one mention of Fort Sumter, a passing nod or two to slavery, and the rest is the Lee/Jackson traveling show. Overall a sloppy production which screams lousy direction and lack of focus. I felt the book told the story of Jackson in much more coherent style than this mess.

To it's credit, it does have very graphic and disturbing battle scenes where both sides are, at times, honored and portrayed with equanimity.

However, G&G, like Gettysburg (a MUCH better directed film), had potential to evenly instruct and entertain. That's where the similarities between the two films ends Gods and generals is a ponderous, rambling, confusing, tribute to the CSA. Aside from it's endless length it jumps around way too much, lacks proper character development and historical veracity, which is far too extensive to get into for the purposes of a review. I will say that Stephen Lang was magnificent as Jackson, but I wasn't terribly impressed with Robert Duvall as Lee. It is no wonder it bombed at the box office. It's just not very watchable, at least not in one sitting. It might be of interest to those, like myself, who are interested in civil war films. This one is a grave disappointment.

This is beyond bad, it's offensively bad. Taking a classic horror movie like Halloween, stripping everything that was good and worked well from it, and replacing it with cheap sexiness, horrible dialog, irrational motivations, and stupid plots should be a criminal charge. I never liked Rob Zombie's work. Frankly I NEVER understood this guy's appeal. His scripts sound like they were written by an angry biker with a 9th grade education. Everything is about raunchy language and lots of T and A shots. The constant, endless, use of the F bomb cheapens it. Using foul language is fine, but not like this. The swearing was just annoying because there was no reason anyone should talk like that except if you're going merely for shock value. Malcolm McDowell, a tremendous actor, was way too old for this part. The acting was phoned in, the camera shook too much, no one had motivations for anything they did except to look sexy and sleazy, and the gore was over the top and really just laughable. Screw you Rob Zombie for desecrating a fantastic film franchise with this worthless crap.

I sat just over halfway through this film waiting for it to get better. Finally I just had one lighthearted, humorless, family friendly gag too much and hit the stop button. This movie is nauseatingly bad, I mean bad. It has good actors, I mean Danny DeVito can do humor certainly, which is why I was waiting for it to pick up. But the script is terrible, the direction is flavorless, and the plot is hopelessly clichéd and predictable. Mathew Broderick phones in his character and is grotesquely miscast in this, in fact this is probably the worst thing I've seen him do. The dialogue was so bad it looked as though he was actually embarrassed to be in this movie. Deck The Halls uses just about every feel good holiday movie convention there is: Campy music, stereotypical and quirky small town people, illogical stunts and sight gags, exaggerated moral motivations, bratty insolent children who learn the true meaning of family, destructive animals, a token ethnic person or two, and lots of fake snow. I didn't need to see the ending, I've probably seen it a dozen times already. I advise you not hit that play button.

Visually this is a great film, musically it's a better film, authentically it sucks. I like Oliver stone's style, his rapid and intoxicating sweeps intended to not just entice you, it enshrouds you. But as with JFK, he takes dangerous license with real people and events. Val Kilmer's Morrison was spot on, that is before Stone got through with him. The Doors is told through the perspective of Morrison, but in this film Oliver Stone makes him out to be a dysfunctional poet in a cloud of perpetual haze, so stoned, so drunk, so wasted, he can't even stand up straight. That's not the real Morrison. It was a part of him, but the film makes it about him. Jim Morrison was much more cogent and functional than Stone's caricaturization. The entire movie, in fact, became more about Morrison's drug induced neurosis than about The Doors. I felt Stone was pushing too hard to deliver his message through a prism of false perception and amplified through a distorted, almost irritating, cosmic psychedelia. It lacked anchors and believable people. The film is a buffet of hyperbolic drivel punctuated with some really good scenes and awesome concert footage. The Navajo were quite cool, however. Overall I can stand this movie in segments, as a whole I think it does a great disservice to one the best American bands ever.