wpirotte

As a less than fanatic fan of the Lethal Weapons movies, I discovered the TV series very recently and certainly by accident. The original movies always struck me as trite, and both Gibson and Glover lent a kind of star power which got in the way of the plot. I always found Glover's raspy delivery to be quite irritating. Off the top of my head, I can think of no other actor with a similar impediment. So...the TV series is radically better, at every level. Wayans and Crawford create a better team. Surprisingly, they are better at both silliness and drama itself. I am basking in this discovery, and, after viewing a mere two episodes, I find out that they chopped off their own arm by firing Crawford. Why, you ask? What little I can garner only serves to convince me that the real story is not even close to the official story. So either Crawford is many tons worse than we have been told, or he was railroaded by other people. In either case, the true lethal weapon is ego. We just don't know which ego.

First, I have to admit than tubby Brendan is disturbing to watch. Along with his weight gain I see a tangible decrease in energy and depth of effort in fulfilling a pretty un-challenging role. But all my conventional analysis ends there. The show is weirdly engaging, but not well written. The violence is deliberately muted, and the gorgeous girls (several of them) are modestly dressed. So sex and gore are barely on the table at all. But the biggest surprise is that we are transparently set up to think that the billionaire is Musk...and then, nothing happens related to that effort. I can't tell you whether Hollywood hated Musk as far back as 2020 like they hate him today, but there is no actual attack on him in any case. I digress. In essence, this is a low key low stakes spy show with some interesting new faces and one bloated old one.

It is a matter of fact that HG Wells' novels have given rise to a very large number of movies and remakes of movies, some faithful, some not, and with a generally high level of appeal and financial success. This particular movie starts with a very firm framework, adds some cute modern tweaks, smashes through with spectacular special effects, and, ultimately, fails. There are logical, technological, and common sense reasons for this, but each of them comes back to bad writing. How did the 19th century artifacts remain pristine for 800,000 years? How did the overloaded machine destroy all of the monsters and not all of the victims? Why are there sweeping accusations that the time machine itself, or its inventor, led to the bad stuff? Did the protagonist need food and a porta potty during his travels? The first hint that the movie was in trouble was multiple directors resigning. Even the potentially good writing fell short since there were certainly some possibilities of explanation which were not exploited. No, ultimately, it was just like a Bond movie, or a super hero movie, where the last several minutes are just explosions, fire, and mayhem. To its credit, these minutes were not excessive.

Like most people, I have never been a fan of this particular installment of the original movies and fully believe the rumors that Shatner blackmailed his way into the writing and directing. Still and all, in comparison with a myriad of bad writing and directing of Star Trek products, including the rebooted movies and the multiple debacles of the multiple recent TV series, it is curiously refreshing. Kirk is thoroughly Kirk, and the mild if irritating blasphemies of the movie are more like listening to an immature teenager than anything else I can think of. Considering how far our culture has since fallen, and, indeed, how completely Star Trek has since fallen, I have elevated my rating to a whopping six points. It is a weird thing to praise this movie, since it may well have been a sign-post on the way down to where we are today. But maybe it was just the opposite - a well meant but weak commentary on questions of its own day.

Let me begin by confessing that Simon was a source of tremendous comfort during my adolescence, my primary guitar teacher, me being a self taught guitarist, and the single most direct influence on my own musical creations. I can do a few things on the guitar because of learning by ear (no tabs, no internet) that few guitarists can do. And the backdrop to all of this was what I believed to be a strongly human ethic as evidenced in at least a few of his songs. Alas, the fire disappeared over the years. No one writes anything like the protest songs of old. Remember that Scarborough Fair had an antiwar counter melody? I will refrain from reciting the obvious reasons for this. However, there is still a weird thing that is bugging me. The transformation of Sounds of Silence from a folky niche piece to a gigantic hit is covered in this documentary, and it is covered wrong. Simon did not know they were doing it, he sure as heck did not give anyone permission, and the entire coverage discounts the massive luck or divine destiny which he was blessed with. There are also bizarre issues regarding Simon's recognition of the inspiration for the Seven Psalms, but, hey, we all get old. Why am I being so hard on Paul?

To whom much is given, much is expected.

Years ago I watched this entire series at the behest of a relative. Revisiting it lately is a sort of unexpected journey. On the one hand, we see one of the intermediate waves of the Hollywood agenda, such agenda now in the process of completely destroying Hollywood artistically, financially, and professionally. On the other hand, virtually every episode has a little morality play, and reworks tried and true tropes like a carnival barker. But the thing I totally missed back in the day is that this is another Sex In The City series, presenting vacuous characters with such skillful charm that most of us dupes mistake them for brave, glamorous, beautiful, and intelligent. This kind of deceptive technique is, literally, writing at its best and deepest, or a complete accident because the writers are so bereft of self-awareness. But, alas, I do have an actual gripe. Kerry Washington and her writers/directors fall into this bizarre sing song rhythm in the dialog of most of the shows which can only be appreciated if you binge watch, fall asleep, and then half wake up. It is at once hypnotic and sophomoric, and ultimately so annoying it feels like a cheesy laugh-track. Okay, I just had to get that off my chest. Lastly, and finally, the guy who plays the Prez, who ALWAYS plays a slimeball or worse, does an excellent job at being a despicable cowardly horn-dog. My only question is why he would allow this typecasting, since his family is Hollywood Royalty.

All things considered, the sub plots are what carried the movie. Or should I say the supporting actors' contributions far exceeded their apparent importance to the plot. We have at least a half dozen self important windbags and, get this, not all of them are men! William Atherton delivers his usual brand of arrogant moronity, and the whole movie is peppered with potshots at dumb law enforcement, but it is the leadership which is being targeted, not the organizations per se. Still, the FBI is an object of contempt, with no love lost when a couple of them meet their doom. Of course, the modern FBI practically defies parody, having lost its way so utterly that even good intentions have disappeared. And, like 95 per cent of movies made in the last 50 years, the super masculine guy is required to acknowledge his toxicity. Anyway, the most fascinating aspect of this fairly predictable movie is that Willis was not even in the top 15 choices. But I watched it for Rickman. We all miss Alan.

In a field over-run with cliches and overworked tropes, most of us consumers just lower our expectations and have a good time. The Wick movies are almost devoid of plot and everyone adores them. But for reasons I can not even make a good guess at, THIS movie ran afoul of not only the imdb crowd, but the rotten tomatoes crowd, who gave the movie low scores, AND the audience and pre-purchased critics pretty much agreed with each other, a rare occurrence when the hate is flowing. I feel like I have walked into a country club where the busboy got fired and everyone knows why except me. So...let's look at the movie - fine performances, famous names, consistent writing, great production, and no plot holes at all. I will admit that Common let me down a little. The only other thing worth mentioning is that even on imdb, the views and opinions are very very small.

Jessica Chastain was a household word for a while, and starred in two different space movies which did very well (and were practically made at the same time). Has she fallen out of favor? This movie score is not a hill to die on and I am not even a fan of hers. Still, in an industry which is currently (last 8 years?) renowned for bad products, AVA is professional and entertaining.

If this movie was EVER promoted, I guess I missed it. Its very existence was a surprise, as was the use of many extremely familiar actors. The acting, directing, production were strong to very strong. However, there was a plot twist at the end which was absolutely amateur, with no foreshadowing, hints, or consistency with the entirety of the rest of the movie. Spoiler rules dictate I not name the offending thing. Okay, apart from that, we have the obligatory ridicule of Christianity and Christians. Hey, THAT'S not a spoiler since it is worked into every movie possible, and a few where it has to be glued in (like the second Zoolander). But making Paul adhere to John 15:13 creates an interesting question: do these Hollywooders even KNOW where their source material comes from?

Perhaps it is an indictment of what I have become or maybe just the fading of memory, but I remember the Patrick Swayze movie as being excessive and sophomoric, and the Jake movie seems curiously well balanced. Of course the big shock of the Schwaz movie was that polite and reserved girls liked it at all, let alone the fawning that it got. Obviously HE was the big draw, and if he had been hellraiser himself, the girls would have liked it. So.. is it possible that Jake's movie IS less violent?

I think it is the constant banter of jokes and the fact that ALL of the villains are intentionally funny that makes the whole crazy thing somehow mild. Anyway, I loved it, and the pacing is perfect. The negative reviews add to my enjoyment. They all raise perfectly good criticisms but seem to entirely miss the point of the movie.

My initial reaction to this movie was that it had a clever opening, a weak second act, and an emotionally powerful ending which lacked the intellectual punch we expect from Monk. It was a tear jerker crime story, which is odd if not unique. Then...on further thought, and after reading reviews by smarter folks than me, I realized that the incurable disease of sequel milking was thriving right before my eyes, complete with the same disrespect for continuity which has crashed at least half a dozen powerful franchises in the last couple of decades. Still, seeing the original Nurse-lady (who also reminds me of my wonderful late Aunt in many ways), and not having to listen to Randy Newman's obnoxious theme, made this entire experience quite pleasant.

I was 8 years old when JFK was killed so it would be ludicrous to pretend that I always suspected the treason. However, within just a few years I knew that that Warren Commission was pure nonsense. A few years after that I became versed in the why and how of assassinations (for instance, always kill the assassin). Over the years I have read or watched at least 4 exhaustive investigations. Strangely, US News & World Report, a respected conservative magazine, published a childishly amateur support of the Warren Report in the mid 90's, after it had already been discredited from both public and private sources. So I have been, for decades, aware of everything in this special: lies, fabrication, suppression, coverup, legal violations, planted evidence, Media cooperation, the entire inside job uniparty treason - except one thing - the accusation that the Russians did it. Wow....it seems like the News never actually changes. But there is a more important issue - whether you have absolute corroboration, like the Gulf of Tonkin fraud, or merely overwhelming evidence, like 9/11 stuff, the American people will never trust their government or media on any major issue again.

Never a big fan of Grisham's accuracy, I was still irritated that he thinks the FBI is in charge of SCOTUS security and that this silly and unnecessary lie is repeated multiple times. But generally the movie is wonderfully written and flawlessly performed. I am not sure Denzel has EVER made a bad movie, and Roberts has her own magic. I was amused that three of the government villains are played by those guys with traitor-liar faces (Goldwynn, Atherton, Heald) who usually play slimeball roles. But where the movie really hits home is the killing of various crusaders, witnesses, and inconvenient folk. Inexplicable arkancides, muggings, etc were far from over in 1993, when the movie was made. But perhaps more importantly, the utter corruption that we see in modern day DOJ agencies was hanging around 30 years ago. Still, I doubt that Grisham would ever write a novel where the FBI identified concerned parents as terrorists.

One of the ongoing burdens of a genre, any genre, is that copies, sequels, and assorted imitations are expected to do everything the predecessor(s) did, and then to make improvements. Of course, strict adherence to this concept would produce virtually identical movies - but sloppy adherence has produced nearly identical movies, for which there is an abundance of evidence. Enter Anna - using two primary tropes, 1. The Nikita syndrome and 2. The wobbling time step - where you go 3 years ago, 12 months ago, etc and then bounce back to the present, sometimes with a huge twist in the middle.

Anna performs flawlessly, with extreme attention to wonderfully violent fight scenes and nicely acted interludes of lust, depression, anger etc. Of course, Helen Mirren is beyond perfection in her own little hobbit-like character, dragging on cigarettes behind a wall of absolute stoicism.

All in all, a masterpiece, which reeks of originality by the very fact that no part of it is original.

With a truly stellar cast, a nice soundtrack, great production values, and perfect acting, what else could you want? There is something missing. Is Viggo too noble? Is Renee too predictably wayward? Is Ed too naive? I think maybe it is the pacing. Stuff happens at a steady walk. There aren't any gallops, or even fast trots. But there is a secondary issue. The plot is absolutely bereft of surprises. Part of the charm of the old westerns was that we saw various plots play out for the first time. So Westerns which come after the old ones can either borrow, steal, or improvise new plots. Despite the fact that I adore most of the cast and have my own private hostility towards Renee (which is deliciously justified by her character in this movie) I find myself feeling subtly disappointed. Oh, well, subtly disappointed is not really even a bad thing.

Yeah, I get it. Famous actors. Famous writer/director. But 47 minutes in, I find myself struggling to explain plot line after plot line. The Mexican bad guys in the first two slaughters are like comedy teams of ineptitude. The second group of three are both gullible and dull. Then a revolver in the scene turns into a 45. Then a very interesting and rather long sequence of stringing long amounts of dynamite wire is demolished by a speech in which we are told that a couple feet of fuse are all that need to be lit. With a match. WTF? But the next scene of unbearable contradiction involved the Colorado's, a group of apparent Mexicans who killed a bunch of townspeople. This story leaves us wondering who the government force was, who the rebels were, whether the rebels were in fact total cowards, whether the government was in fact American. Since Jack Palance's guys kill the Colorado's, and since the Colorado's are bad, this appears to make Palance, aka Jesus, a good guy. And yes, each of these crazy writing gaffes made me rewind and review (something not available in 1966 to the consumer), so I am positive they are just tragically bad editing or writing. I am debating at this point whether to fast forward to where the inevitable wife left husband she was not kidnapped point comes in for a landing. But the best use of this movie is the basis for a mystery science 3000 episode.

As a long time student of history in general, and British naval vessels from the age of sail specifically, I am usually disappointed with the accuracy and thoroughness of movies, documentaries and even TV series. I remember the History Channel used to make valiant effort, and its demise into mere episodes of modern fisherman and truckers was literally preceded by a descent into amateurs and hacks, which must have been evidence of some gigantic political agenda in which budgets were slashed. There were a few bright spots over the years, like Monte Markham's series, but people like Michael Hirst sold us out with apparent enthusiasm. So...this series not only reviews the best stuff I have ever seen or read, it explores alternative theories, and is simply bursting with professionalism. And yes, I learn a lot of new stuff with every episode. It's enough to reduce my ego. Which is a good thing.

As a long time fan of ScarJo's unique beauty and acting, I have been angered and outraged at the length of time it took for her to get the BW solo movie, and then more outraged at how badly they messed it up. In the middle of all of this, I had zero awareness of Lucy, which says to me that Hollywood did no marketing at all, which is, admit it, another outrage. As we currently sit and watch Hollywood devour itself, I can't help but rejoice, even though I generally disagree with ScarJo's politics...or whatever she has been assigned to say. Okay. Oh, yeah, the movie. Full of so many missed opportunities in the science that it seems reminiscent of ScarJo's actual career, and full of so many ludicrous fabrications of pseudo science that a person wonders if the writers were taking the blue powder (which is not a powder at all, but rather chunky particles), every part of the movie seems like it is a parody of the real world of ScarJo, including time running out. But I need to give a nod to the special effects which are very nice. In general, the movie told a story, and stuck to it rather well. The acting is solid. A movie to recommend, but don't provide any detail when you recommend it.

From the start of the movie, I was full of bewilderment and irritation that the rotten tomatoes scores were so low. As I watched it, a couple of things occurred - further irritation that the movie felt compelled to take some pretty offensive pot shots at Christianity, and further bewilderment that the plot and dialog would skim along cleverly for minutes at a time and then just completely collapse, as if 3 pages of script were left on the copier floor. Then it would pick up again. Then collapse. Whether this is bad writing or awful editing is irrelevant. At the end of the day, a number of talented actors wasted their time. I suppose, at one level, the movie made no sense in one of its primary plot anchors - that a person could challenge a Will based on the competency of the beneficiary. Not the deceased, but the beneficiary. I also think there was some kind of attempt at deep meaning about what true co-dependency is. I think the whole movie suffered from its own characters' faults - the writing was done with way too much in the way of drugs.

The entire set up of the show is basically preposterous. The acting is consistently substandard, and the plot is a maddening compost heap of mostly one technique - something happens which should be communicated amongst most of the characters, but it is kept secret from the people who have a right to know because of the pride of the victim or the duplicity of the perpetrator. There is also the tiniest bit of suspense as to whether the perpetrators are perfectly evil or whether their foils are perfectly gullible. So how did this idiocy last 10 seasons? By carefully alternating the writing between absolute chick flick and nearly tolerable man-story. Just when you are ready to turn the channel or otherwise stop watching, the dynamic flips and you stay for another fifteen minutes. This reminds me of Sons of Anarchy. Now, lest anyone think that the chick-flick man-story oscillation is a good thing, I believe that truly skilled writing appeals to all sides all the time, with perhaps leaning a little in any given segment. That is not to stay that various cop / crime / spy / military shows are unskilled, but most chick-flick series and movies are nearly unwatchable for the average male. Unless he is posturing to curry favor.

One of the more bizarre aspects of Hollywood's recent demise is that it was avoidable. But this movie points out two additional aspects which are fascinating in the extreme. The first is that Hollywood has long been capable of self deprecation, directly, or through its various surrogates, ie, the Press, the fashion police, or the insufferable nouveau riche, even if they are not technically nouveau. This idea was responsible for entire TV series back in the day, movies, and skits on variety shows. So The Menu was hardly a new or original concept. It just hasn't been utilized for a while. But the second concept is much deeper. These vacuous humans, famous for loathing all underlings, actually loathe themselves, even perhaps, to a greater degree.

So...there I was, minding my own business, when the Max comedy section offers me this movie, self described as socially distanced satire. Being a gullible deplorable, as it were, I thought, what the heck, give these insufferable narcissists one more chance. Probably you can guess at the rest. It ain't comedy, it ain't satire, and it certainly is not entertainment. It is an extended rant from a has-been public personality, captured on hot mic because no one in their right mind would let an actual interview like this go on for more than 180 seconds. But I have to hand it to the Midler - getting people to pay you for simply rambling and also having the rambling be utterly predictable is like a miracle, where chaos theory and a random numbers table create a perfectly straight line.

Within the five to ten film-story-types (I hate to say genre), most people do not realize that the spy-thriller is the most difficult in which to be original or creative. Without going into a lot of detail, suffice it to say that most of the Bond films were quite awful, regardless of the gadgets, eye candy, and manly men. The Bourne series, by contrast, was full of surprises, but, in the end, just created a sub-group of BOURNED spies (get it?). There have been spoofs, and cross breeds with cop and robber, and even sci fi. But I am unaware of a funny spy show that was not a spoof. Of course, this particular movie was able to use a number of famous actors who have actually played spies in other movies... and 50 ct, which imparted a legitimacy which may not have been necessary, but which added to the hilarity. But I have to add another point - all of the spy, superhero, western, cop, and sci-fi with twiggy-girls taking down arnold-men are just ludicrous. When Melissa fights, there is an element of credibility the other movies just lack.

As a long time hater of poor Ben, who is really just another Hollywood moron who should never go on talk shows, I spent almost the entire movie reveling in his character's confusion, suffering, disorientation, etc., whether said results were due to his hypocrisy, stupidity, or immorality. Ben provides a much needed outlet for those of us who have a mean spirit, because there is literally no reason to be nice to him. He is white, rich, snobby, elitist, selfish, posturing, conniving, and generally an untalented blob who has successfully traded on his unearned good looks, all the while keeping us guessing as to exactly how stupid he really is, and how much his screen roles differ from his actual persona. Okay. Now the way that the general story is told, with plot twists that actually make sense without being completely predictable, a person ought to stand back and give some credit to the other actors, the director, writers, etc. And, eventually, I will. In the mean time, though, I just like being mean to Ben.

Watching the restoration or revival or resurrection or the arm breaking pat your own back Warner Bros thing on HBO. Oh, it's remastering. Weirdly, movies like this got a new paint job while Michener's "Hawaii" were allowed to rot in the cans, but that is politics for another day. Any way, the beginning of the HBO presentation is an extensive docu-botch by Martin Scorsese, which contains so many self-contradictions that it seems like a study in how to make a fool of yourself without outside help. But what stuck in my craw was the sideways shots at DeMille Biblical epics and the ludicrous claims that the LOTP movie broke with Judeo Christian traditions and had the Egyptian gods actually talk. In fact, that, too, was a Scorsese fabrication. It seems obvious to me that the Marty piece was either written by someone else, or based on memories of Marty as a 13 year old, who was justifiably overwhelmed by the bloom of Joan Collins against the decrepity of poor ole Jack Hawkins. Okay. All that aside, the movie needs to get some respect for the massive logistics involved. Otherwise, it is just dumb. As Marty accidentally revealed, the music doesn't fit. Certainly it does not recreate, honor, or celebrate the culture of ancient times, as he clumsily claimed. The obvious paper mache props were a set back. I could go on. Be thankful I don't.