vukaroo

I'm from the "never seen the series" camp. Clearly, I'm familiar with its existence and with Idris Elba in the role of the titular character; however, I'm not familiar with any of the backstory, so when Luther is incarcerated, I'm not really sure on what grounds he's being detained.

Without giving anything away, my takeaway from this film is that this detective, sort of, lives in a Nolan-Batman/Craig-Bond kind of world. The use of technology to make the film/its use within the film is the crutch on which it relies, as so many films do nowadays.

Andy Serkis portrays the nasty villain, who is reminiscent of Silva from Skyfall, a mild Heath Ledger Joker and some other forgettable Craig Bond baddie. Serkis' character is a sadist who exploits and preys on the emotions of vulnerable people. DCI Luther, of course, is any victim's only hope. Elba has an irrefutable coolness, but he might be a little too cool, which affects the character's dynamism a bit, in my eyes.

I respect the idea, but between the suspension of disbelief and cliches, there's a mishmash of uniqueness and banality; mostly the latter. So, to sum it up, it's an alright time passer, but the cinematic scale of the villain's plan and executions (no pun intended) take you from a detective story to modern-Bond campiness, which dilutes something that I hear is of really good quality -the series.

This film definitely keeps your attention, which is important for any film; however, I'm a viewer who often looks for a greater theme.

I really enjoyed the fact that the film takes place in the 70s, establishing a particular tone. Also, the setting, which is supposed to be Colorado, is in fact North Carolina, and adds to the eeriness in Stephen King fashion.

In short, the plot revolves around a brother and sister who are in middle school and live with their alcoholic father. One day, a classmate goes missing and it's correctly presumed that he's been kidnapped. Shortly thereafter, other kids begin to disappear, including the protagonist brother. The kidnapper is a mysterious masked man, who lures the kids with "magic tricks." While Finney, the protagonist brother, is held captive in a basement, he uses a disconnected phone to supernaturally communicate with the other victims. Will the ghosts on the other line help him escape? Watch the film to find out.

I'd like to know if other viewers at least expected the kidnapper to provide a motive, or some kind of moral to the story was supposed to ultimately be revealed. Honestly, I kind of wanted a bit of both. I think King and Shyamalan would have at least sought out some deeper theme, but hey, maybe there is one, and I just happened to have missed it. Maybe it's all pretty clear and I just felt a little underwhelmed.

Nonetheless, if you're looking for an engaging horror/thriller, I'd give it a watch.

Funny at moments, but all in all, just another modern time passer. Let's go hight tech to take the whoddunit to the next level! Yeah, whatevs.

All it really is, is an excuse to throw in pop culture references and faces you'll recognize for 2.5 hours. The only reason it even keeps your attention is because you want to see how remotely clever or banal the writers can be at the end of it all.

Just another reminder that we're hard pressed to find something with a high re-watchable factor in today's day. I won't dig into this too hard, simply because it feels like a 'no harm, no foul' kind of movie.

I have yet to sit down and watch The Sopranos; yeah, I know, I'm late to the game! That being said, I decided to see this film as a prelude, before delving into the show. I must say that the film was awesome! The whole cast brought their A game, the directing was great, and the soundtrack was killer!

If the show is even remotely as good as this film, I'll be elated. Great stuff. I also think it's touching that Gandolfini's son was cast. Really looking forward to The Sopranos.

Definitely check this film out!

Daniel Craig's tenure has been, for a lack of a better word, awkward. He started on a fairly high note with 'Casino Royale,' wowing the audience with a fresh new take on a close to 50 year old legacy -at the time. The subsequent release, 'Quantum of Solace,' suffered from a writer's strike while trying to ride the coat tails of the successful 'Casino.'

'Skyfall' came along at the 50th anniversary mark and employed the misappropriated talents of Sam Mendes; a man who previously had 0 experience with big budget action thrillers, let alone any budget action thrillers. The result was a plot cratered mess that tried to substitute logic with poetry; yet, it was somehow successful enough to confound viewers into thinking the film was a brilliant and classic entry in the series.

After the success of 'Skyfall,' the producers thought that they could reclaim the glory of sed film and create a "sequel" to it. Due to the lack of inspiration and direction for the future, the producers rehired Sam Mendes, gave Daniel Craig an additional production role, and reemployed the plot hole laden writers, Neal Purvis and Robert Wade, to attempt to create 'Skyfall 2.' Everyone involved was clearly aware of the fact that they did not have a clear picture of the future, post-'Casino Royale.' For that reason alone, Bond is already a dinosaur by 'Skyfall.' Around or after the production of 'Skyfall,' the producers had regained the rights to using the name of the famous criminal organization, SPECTRE. Instead of methodically reintroducing the legendary megalomaniacal entity, the producers decided to make SPECTRE the root of all of Bond's problems; from the beginning of his run to that moment. And by the use of sheer and utter stupidity, 'SPECTRE' is the Craig film that's supposed to sum up his run. That clearly didn't fly as Craig's swan song; hence, the existence of 'No Time To Die.'

I write this review on June 1st, the birthday of the late DS9 actor, Renee Auberjonois. By complete coincidence, I finished watching the series for the first time today. Although I could say it's a sign from the Prophets, I'd rather not spoil too much about this glorious and heartwarming series and resort to giving it praise and recommendations.

For the sake of convenience, I'll refer to the show as DS9. As a lifelong (healthy and non-zealous) fan of Star Trek, I had always known about this series, but for one reason or the next, avoided it. I suppose the long commitment and lack of big character names such as Kirk or Picard kept me from welcoming DS9 into my life.

I had always stuck to TOS (The Original Series), TNG (The Next Generation) and all of their respective films. I had seen bits and pieces of Voyager and attempted to get into Enterprise, but over the years, my interest in possibly watching DS9 began to increase. I happened to meet more and more people who hailed the show and I even had the chance of seeing Avery Brooks (Captain Sisko in DS9) at a table reading at my university -years before seeing the series.

It was astounding to hear Brooks' deep, dignified and marvelous voice in person. I suppose that remained in the back of my mind for a long time and contributed to my decision of watching the series. As mentioned, beginning and sticking to a series in the Star Trek canon is a commitment, albeit a highly enjoyable one. I decided to give in while the world was still in the pandemic, and it was a great companion during those times.

Fans of Star Trek would be the first to attest to the mixed bag nature of the series. There are episodes that people swear by while there are others at which people swear. DS9 may easily be the most consistently satisfying of all the Star Trek series, and I comfortably say that without seeing all of the episodes of Voyager, Enterprise or Discovery.

So, now you ask, what's so great about it? I hate to use such a generalized word, but I can't find another to define it: everything. Very early on, you see that the writers, directors and all involved really cared about the work that they were doing. The clear intent was to make a Star Trek series that was familiar yet different. It was also the first Star Trek series to REALLY push the allegory of our own lives and existence. I've heard some friends criticize the show for the endless spiritual/religious elements, but I believe that only contributed to the depth and theme of the series. DS9 has it all: love, loss, war, humor, you name it.

Gene Roddenberry gave his blessing to the creation of DS9 before passing away, and that was a hell of a gift to leave to the audience. The series boldly goes where no Trek had gone before, and even shows sides of Trek that one had always dreamt of seeing. Believe it or not, I loved the fact that the majority of the show happens on the space station, because it puts you in a comfort zone. Each time you return to a familiar place, replete with a new set of challenges. It's also very important to note that the main focus of the series is the interaction and conflicts between various sentient beings, so there was no need for constant location hopping.

Over the past several months, I have laughed my ass off, teared up and cheered on, what I now consider the best Star Trek series of all time: Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (1993-1999).

There are moments in Trek that are so touching and human, that episodes like "The Muse" validate the beauty and ever-present relevance of the various series. I suppose that Majel Barrett's (the first lady of Trek) involvement in the writing of this episode had to do with it's touching nature. There were moments between she and Odo that had me reeling. Then there's the whole bit about Jake and his writing Muse which is also so poetic. This is one really heartfelt episode.

Recently, I decided to take a look at 'Man on Fire' (1987), which is apparently the inspiration for the film of the same title with Denzel Washington. The selling points to see it include the fact that it's from the 80s, it's a thriller, and Scott Glenn is in the lead.

What I found fascinating about this film is that it takes place by lake Como in Italy and that it's supposed to feel "European." On the other hand, I found the script to be incredibly underdeveloped with underused actors. You nearly have an all-star cast with names such as Brooke Adams, Joe Pesci, Danny Aiello, Jonathan Pryce and Paul Shenar, yet it's if they're not in the film at all. I can't believe all of those actors were cast, just for the film to revolve around Glenn and the girl who gets kidnapped.

The kidnapping doesn't even take place until it's halfway over, so it feels clumsy. I get it, Glenn forms a fatherly fondness for the girl and we're supposed to see how that develops, but all in all it's just underwhelming. There's also no twist and very little suspense, so I'm not certain what the director wanted to accomplish.

All in all, the movie is simply okay and very straightforward, so if you're looking for something quite special, you may want to skip this one.

This is if Zack from yesteryear had one of his dreams in which everything was upside down, inside out and basically like hell. What's even worse is that the experience of watching it is like swimming in a cesspool of vapidness, synonymous with our times. It's a parody of a parody, constantly reminding you that any semblance of intelligence and hope is rapidly fading, allowing for a straight dive into a seemingly inevitable "zombie apocalypse."

Talk Radio (1988), directed by the ever-relevant Oliver Stone, offers a thought-provoking view of life behind the controversial mic. Eric Bogosian delivers an Oscar worthy performance with a jaw dropping radio voice. The greater part of the film takes place in the studio, which is more than appropriate for the subject matter and helps immerse the viewer into a world where one man has the power to wield the emotions of a radio crazed audience.

The genius of the subject matter lies in the question of integrity. Does Bogosian's character Barry Champlain mean what he says, or is he simply a sensationalist who basks in the success and has lost his sense of reality and what really matters? Watch the film to find out.

A merely passable late 80s flick, starring Rutger Hauer, as a blind Vietnam vet in search of an old friend. Cliched and completely unrealistic in every sense of the word, but somewhat entertaining if you've had a few and it just comes on. If you want a good late 80s Rutger B-movie, check out Wanted: Dead or Alive (1987).

If there were one cliched adjective to use to describe this film, that word would be perfect. And with that same word, we can apply it to the life of Jim Carrey's character, Truman Burbank. If you've noticed, I referenced the perfect life of Truman Burbank, but not the character himself. The fact that we as humans are imperfect is what makes us...human. It's with that very same humanity that our protagonist questions his existence and the perfidious "world" that surrounds him. It's that humanity which will ultimately...

'Wavelength' is an alien sci-fi film, filmed in 1981 and released in 1983, starring Robert Carradine and Cherie Currie. It was a surprise discovery, as there are very few alien films from the 70s/80s that aren't schlock and aren't about some bloodthirsty and monstrous alien races looking to take over the planet. I've read that this film is a low-budget rip-off of E.T., but I beg to differ. Yes, it doesn't have the production value of E.T., the story does have similarities, and it's quite simple, however, there's something original, alluring and charming about this film.

Also, I don't think that the fact that children play the aliens detracts from the film. If anything, it adds a certain realism and makes you think that's it's possible that there is a species of small humanoid like beings. I mean, I'd much more believe that a kid-like alien being would pilot a spacecraft than something that looks like an arachnid or cephalopod, even though I liked Denis Villeneuve's Arrival. Anyway, I digress...

The film needs a bit of restoration, but it's still watchable. Not even the recurring appearance of a boom mic detracts from the quality. Ultimately, this film offers an interesting take on extraterrestrials, and successfully compels you to ponder the possibilities in regards to E.T.s, galactic travel, UFOs, energy, and interaction, while a 'Tangerine Dream' soundtrack plays.

How ironic that the characters try to make out the sounds that come in on the radio frequencies, yet their own dialect and speed of speech makes what they say nearly indiscernible. And so there's a lot of drivel for the good part of the film and it becomes tiring.

In terms of the actual film, it's a nice attempt at a recreation of an old 'Twilight Zone' episode or 'The Outer Limits' as other viewers have pointed out, but it's nothing we haven't seen before. Maybe that's the point. This one goes along with the conspiracy that perhaps most of these terrible world events that we are subjected to are linked to some extraterrestrial force.

The ending's kind of cool.

There are some films that begin in a visually alluring way which you hope will fully immerse you. In the first portion of the film, the visual splendor of Cozumel and the Caribbean along with Larry Carlton's guitar are a promising combination to merit a look. You'd also think that a great cast with actors such as Rachel Ward, Jeff Bridges and James Woods would be a no brainer in deciding whether to buy a ticket or not. I'd say it's worth half of the ticket price.

Although it seems that the film will develop into some big mystery, it clumsily turns into another 80s blackmail con affair that's void of any true urgency, danger or excitement. Although it's not a complete misfire, it feels all over the place and clumsily written. As mentioned, the soundtrack and cinematography are great, but the story is a bit all over the place and the character interaction is strange.

If you're a fan of slow cookers and don't mind visually appealing 80s films with flawed screenplays, then I'd give it a try. There is a bit of a Miami Vice flair, which I happen to like, but all in all the film seems to lose direction and simply feels uneven and underwhelming.

I had never heard of this film, but found it after reading the premise and seeing that Cleese was in the lead. At first, I thought it would be a calm English comedy taking place at a school, but boy was I wrong! The twists and turns were so fun and hilarious that the film turned out being an absolute joy at a classic level. A must watch for fans of good quality comedy and definitely excellent British humor!

In a nut shell, 'Split Image' from 1982 provides a look at being brought into a fanatical cult and becoming programmed by a master manipulator. That being said, the film addresses our vulnerability and questions our sense of purpose.

Our protagonist Danny, played by Michael O' Keefe, is at an impressionable age where his hormones are raging and he's trying to grab the reins of life. All the while, he's a part of an upper middle class family that comfortably lives up to their tier on the social ladder. After he's lured into the cult by Nancy Allen's character, "Rebecca," he begins to submit himself to the verbal persuasions of the cult's leader, Neil, played by the late Peter Fonda.

James Woods' character, Charles, is somewhat of a professional deprogrammer of people who have become brainwashed by the cult. Woods is very entertaining in the role, but his character's demeanor is so unrealistically sensational that he's a borderline caricature of a "spell breaker."

During the "breaking" process, where Charles is trying to bring Danny back to his senses, he tells the parents that he'll need to find a purpose in life after it's all over. It's at that time that Charles asks Danny's little brother about what he'd like out of life. The boy's response is essentially wrapped in the same affliction as his older brother; he's been proverbially brainwashed by his parents and their view of class and middle class life, and says that he'd like to live in clean air and in a high rise away from everyone, after which he gets up and runs out of the room. That moment essentially sums up one of the main themes of the film: conditioning takes away choice.

Ultimately, both Danny and "Rebecca" manage to see through Neil's manipulation and defy the odds of conversion. The romantic notion lies in the message that love conquers all, and no opposing views, money or religion can get in the way of that. This, however, leaves us with a bit of a cliche which was not foreign for films of the time. Regardless, worth taking a look.

Charles Laughton's 'The Night of the Hunter' may be one of the greatest films I've ever seen. It's so gripping, relevant, and timeless. The story of good and evil is told here through the poetry of the screenplay, the breathtaking cinematography, the acting, the chilling sounds of the soundtrack, the directing...

It's an unforgettable viewing experience that's plain and simply timeless.

A waste of time is an understatement. This is such garbage, that you have to question the morals of the actors for accepting money for this. The first 'HTTM' wasn't amazing, but it had some moments. This on the other hand, has absolutely nothing. Time to plunger myself like Ace Ventura.

Plain and simply, wow! No one deserves to know a damn thing about this film (as in spoilers), so just watch it! Christopher Plummer is absolutely phenomenal in this. The film is not difficult to follow, but boy is the payoff big!

Stephen Frear's 1984 film, "The Hit" reminds me of a film like William Friedkin's "Sorcerer," in the way that it deceives the viewer. In both films, you are convinced that the initial scenes will add up to something pretty big and then you're ultimately let down. "The Hit" is the kind of film which leaves you guessing as to what the certain themes may be, but then you realize that it's not done with conviction. If I had to sum it up, I'd say that the film was about an ex-mob member, who is found while in witness protection, in Spain, by an emotionally confused hit man and his inept and naive young sidekick. During the kidnapping occurs some pontificating regarding life and death and how you really just go "somewhere" else when you die.

Terence Stamp's coolness and erudite like presentation makes you think that he really has something up his sleeve -the whole time- and that he will remain smarter than the gangsters that want him dead. The only true redeeming qualities of the film include the hot, busty, kidnapped Spanish woman, Stamp's "seemingly cool" nature, the beautiful Spanish locations and the lovely score by Paco de Lucia. Otherwise, the film should have been titled, "The Miss."

This isn't a film you like or dislike. It's a chronological overview of child molestation. In my opinion, there's no reason why this fiasco should have been assembled as a 4-hour documentary, but I guess that added to the dramatic effect. I will say that the details behind the stories sound absolutely insane, but it's very possible that they took place. I just can't believe that something can go on for 7 years without coming out. It's even more twisted to see the boys still professing some kind of love toward MJ even after it all. If it was true, MJ was so sick in the head that he got the boys to enjoy delving into the "acts." Ugh...

Show what the L.A. club scene looked like in the 80s. I'm sure the film would sentimentally appeal to anyone who was around there at that time. All the things that fall into this category include the fashion, the clubs' themes, and the music. Aside from that, this film is pretty much about nothing in particular. In a way it reminds me of Scorsese's "After Hours." Not really surprising, as the aforementioned film is from a year earlier, and about an all night 80s night. "Modern Girls" really feels like a background movie, that you would ever really watch if you wanted a potent dose of 80s aesthetic.

I've been hoping that somewhere, caught in oblivion, or in a discount bin, there'll be a gem of an alien film that I somehow overlooked. In terms of XTRO, that wasn't quite the case; however, the film certainly had some pretty interesting ideas, which give it enough merit for a light review.

It seems to me, that the director obviously sought out to make a horror film, but along the way, tried to come up with an original take on alien abductions. I think he would have succeeded in creating a memorable classic, had he resorted more on developing the alien story, and less on the guts and gore.

The film is essentially about a man, who is abducted by aliens, while playing with his son, in an English countryside, and is returned to Earth after 3 years. He returns in the form of an alien creature, but through "insemination," is able to come back to his human form. It'll be even crazier looking, if you decide to see the film, but the bottom line is that it was a cool idea for a human to be transformed into an extraterrestrial. It was not clear if the aliens wanted to leash out a full fledged invasion, but the dad's goal was to take his son with him, back to the alien planet. If this little synopsis seemed interesting enough, check it out, but the "horror" bits, and the psychedelic nature of certain elements didn't particularly help its case.

This film could have very easily been realized in an episode of The Twilight Zone, Outer Limits or Amazing Stories in about an hour. The 80s had a penchant for McGyvering something into a film and 'Dead End Drive-In' is absolutely no exception. There's truly very little to this Aussie flick in terms of story or expectation.

Ok, so it's Australia, the near future and things are decrepit. Let's just say the environment is "Mad Max-like." A young man named Jimmy, who has no particular goal or interest, definitely has a drive (no pun intended) and wants some purpose in life. Jimmy and his older brother live with their Italian mother who looks down upon Jimmy as a runt of the family. The older brother works for a towing truck service, which seems like a fairly active enterprise in the broken down, near future scape. Jimmy is intent on becoming physically strong and has a steadfast attitude at that.

One night, Jimmy and his girlfriend Carmen end up taking Jimmy's brother's 56 Chevy to a drive-in movie theater. Little do they know, that this theater is essentially a prison camp, where the youth "hangs around" until being processed. Jimmy being the self righteous and determined lad, decides to take matters in his own hands by finding a way to escape. That is the film, in a nutshell.

So, what's the point, you may ask? I'd say the film is a tame comment on oppression, governmental control and expected obedience. If there is something, that's even remotely unique about this film, it would be the social commentary regarding misguided youth. The young people at the drive-in do not seem to particularly mind being in that enclosed environment, as many were lost in their lives before entering, and are seeking some form of guidance. Essentially, those who want to be free are the enemy, whilst those who are accepting enslavement are the innocent. That's pretty much the point of the film...