Michael Kenmore Reviews

Triangle of Sadness (2022)

This film is why Cannes Palme d'Or is meaningless

[1/10 · 4 February 2023]

Given the accolades this film received, the claim that mentions the word "satire" is nowhere to be found, because there is neither black comedy nor satire to be found anywhere within this film, with the outcome of watching to the end leaving the viewer scratching his or her head as confounded, if he or she had not been put to sleep by this film's lethargic pace in the third act.

It is the fatalistic plodding pacing that truly kills the momentum of the non-existent story under vestige of class criticism complete with a discordant political rumination debating capitalism, Marxism and even an odd conspiracy theory about America in the middle. Not to mention nauseatingly (pun intended) distasteful that reminds me of the infamous campfire story in Stand By Me, which was certainly satirical, unlike this film.

The fact that this film somehow won the prestigious Palme d'Or and many top European awards, despite its questionable quality and lack of a definitive point, is proof that the European doesn't have the good taste, for lack of a better phrase, only that the European cineaste type prefer the plodding pace to the point of dullness, strange pretentiousness that pretends to be timely and important, and infuriating pointlessness lacking the substance of the overall story with rambling dialogues spoken by one-dimensional characters who we could not care less about.

Only two good things about this film are sometimes decent cinematography and European aesthetics, but everything else is awful.

The Black film critic for National Review, Armond White, while often a contrarian, was correct about how awful this film is, with him outright calling the Swedish director-trying to emulate Kubrick, but he's no Kubrick, not even by a distance-"a misanthrope and a fraud." Mr. White gave this film good enough thrashing that those who dislike or loathe this film will enjoy his review, while knowing that, like me, we are sorrowful for wasting time and money seeing this bizarre (especially the political rant in the middle; if that's trying to be satirical, it fails miserably), meandering and ultimately pointless and unfunny pseudo-intellectual rubbish.

If you value your time while seeking a clever satirical film, do not waste time seeing this film. True satire is rare, and this film ain't it.

Avatar: The Way of Water (2022)

James Cameron does "the impossible" again

[9/10 · 17 December 2022]

I saw this film in its proper presentation in 3D with HFR, and it helps that open caption is provided so I follow the story.

While I liked the first movie, especially the amazing beginning that makes very effective use of 3D in IMAX 70mm I saw on the opening night (unforgettable), that first movie's story is merely serviceable as world-building inspired by Pocahontas story. The first Avatar movie was called "Dances with Thundercats"; pronouncing that faux title makes me laugh every time.

Faux title is certainly true, but never doubt James Cameron; even if the story he tells is fairly derivative. All the stories we read and watch in movies is always derived from obscure materials, so why complain about how derivative the story is, if it can be well-told with compelling visual-aural presentation and dialogue to hold our attention?

The sequel The Way of Water improves upon the first movie in almost every way. It already establishes the world of Pandora. At first when the movie opens, I wasn't "impressed".

But when the humans "arrive" in ascent from the sky to depict space, it made my jaw drop in amazement, through the clever use of 3D and HFR effects. This is James' vision as announcing his return to film-making after 13 years of absence.

James even employs the use of "reverse POV" reminiscent of GoPro in at least two scenes that are just as immersive and also emotionally invested in the characters.

While it's true the dialogue is sometimes trite, what more do you want from the sequel that tries its hardest to expand the story to go further where we would least expect?

This particular movie sort of suffers from the 'sequel syndrome,' that can't be helped, as repeating the story (even that James had to discard the script, which may be Avatar 1.5, after one long year of work, because it doesn't meet his strict expectation since it was more of the same story as deja vu). What lends this movie its ultimate strength is the astonishing and occasionally surrealistic visual effects, better seen with 3D (with or without HFR).

One minor quibble I have with the movie, despite its amplified visual presentation as the director intended, is that HFR (high frame rate) is not effective for fast-paced action scenes -- especially in the third act -- that suffers "fast forward syndrome" as distracting and therefore confusing. James would be wise to try scaling down to about 30 frames per second for action scenes, or otherwise 48 HFR in some scenes look fast forwarded like on the state of the art VCR playing the videocassette.

That complaint aside, the newly expansive story -- even if it repeats itself in some way through the clever yet almost contrived character "retcon" -- lends to ample emotional investment in the characters, which is stronger than the first movie. Towards the ending, it leads to the payoff that is rather moving (in particular the new character Kiri with astonishing preternatural power).

This fresh "retcon" twist belies James Cameron's genius, as not only the master of visual optimization but also experiential (trying as hard as the five credited storytellers could to keep the sequel syndrome at bay) storytelling with appropriate emotional heft, without the risk of contrived manipulation.

Go see Avatar: The Way of Water in the best presentation you could, even drive tens of miles farther to see it, whether in 3D regular or IMAX with or without HFR (I suggest without HFR because of fast forward effect during some quick-moving combat scenes), whether in HDR (Dolby Cinema 2D or 3D), whether in 4D, DBOX and ScreenX.

These particular presentation choices amplify the moviegoing experience, what it truly means to experience cinema as the filmmakers intend that the streaming and home video technology (even state of the art projector) cannot hold the candle to, with audience participation in their varied reactions such as sound of awe, cheers and even audible cry, that makes it even better.

Don't take a compromise like skipping to wait for video to rent (especially since 3D blu-ray video is petering out with the manufacturers officially phasing out 3-D capable Ultra HD TV, which is why I keep my 2015 Sony UHD TV with 3D feature to hold longer) for less.

Because Avatar The Way of Water improves upon the original that lends to engrossing story with well-fleshed out characters, even if writing feels a little episodic and a little standard (hence sequel syndrome), with astounding visual effects (like the aforementioned descent from space), in the best presentation such as 3D, it feels like cinema is alive and well, in the era of tiresome "murky" VFX-laden superhero movie sludge called capes---.

**** out of 4.

Heaven's Gate (1980)

This movie defines the meaning of "turkey"

[1/10 · 4 December 2022]

I finally got around to watching Heaven's Gate on Criterion Collection blu-ray edition to the end, albeit with long pauses in-between.

This movie is truly awful as endlessly interminable with the blandest characters, which makes it the most uninvolving "drama" film in history. I've tried to watch this "film" with the attempted full attention, but it bored me crapless, that led to the pauses between viewings that stretched over one month and two weeks, while on interlibrary loan. I could only watch 15 minute average interval between pauses after I struggled to stay awake to watch at one hour mark.

While the movie is almost "well written," ultimately it's a pointless exercise in pure directorial self-indulgence that lends to tedium that alienates the audience. I imagine this movie bored the audience so sufficiently with its snail-pace slowness that barely tells the story as it unfolds over the absurd length of 3 hours and a half that by the time the first intermission hits, most of the audience vacated never to return.

That's how uninvolving the movie is that failed to engage the audience, thanks no less to the director's megalomania. His ego was the reason this "film" suffered severe budget overruns that ballooned from the initial agreed upon $14 million budget to the mind-boggling $44 million in 1981 dollars (adjusted for inflation, $44 million equals $138 million).

The story itself is "meh" and grossly exaggerated when the Johnson County war event was but a very minor point with way fewer causalities than this movie depicted. Story based on the true event is nothing but pure fable.

Indeed, the director's final cut with the painfully long length -- and cinematographer's awful sepia tone filter, one of the common complaints, removed -- looks like it actually could be made for just $15 million (equivalent of $47 million as inflation-adjusted) or less, and could even make a meager profit if the two hour cut could be coherent as restructured.

United Artists studio executive made the mistake when they offered the director -- whose name shall not be spoken because, due to his megalomania, this cinematic disaster ended "New Hollywood" in terms of auteur directors and big budgets with rare final cut privilege -- the carte blanche, and the result is shocking waste of money and talent that could even be called outright fraud intended to serve the director's ego.

Heaven's Gate movie's infamy as a true box office bomb, adjusted for inflation (perhaps #1 bomb of all time in terms of losses), changed Hollywood to be more cautious, and Hollywood ultimately turned on some directors to deny final cut privilege. Only a few directors post-Heaven's Gate could afford to have full final cut privilege provided that they are reputed to deliver the films on budget, or even under budget. (One of them is Stanley Kubrick.)

Heaven's Gate underestimates its audience to bore to death with the excruciatingly lethargic pace, therefore very demanding to devote almost four hours to watch this maddeningly pointless and self-indulgent thing -- complete with a very depressing flash forward ending that is very confounding and yet again pointless -- that should be rightly called a turkey.

The late Roger Ebert was correct to call it the worst cinematic waste he ever saw. My sentiment exactly.

Shame on the talented (for directing Deer Hunter at least) but total hack filmmaker whose name cannot be spoken. He should have been banned from making any more movies by Hollywood and producers everywhere based on reputation alone (megalomania that led to unprecedented budget overrun, and even caused scenes of animal cruelty).

0 star.

A Serbian Film (2010)

Viscerally obscene to the extreme that US government should officially ban this filth, NC-17 cut or uncut

[1/10 · 22 July 2022]

It's been 11 years since I saw this "film" on a bootleg DVD downloaded from torrent (thankfully nary a cent wasted on purchase or rental of this "film", except the small cost of a blank DVD-R) following reading the reviews on Ain't It Cool News (good ol' days of the Internet). For clarity, I only saw the uncut and uncensored version, not the NC-17 version that cuts out at least one minute (referring to the few unspeakably obscene -- so horrific to elicit visceral reaction that serve to prompt mass walkouts as if that's a badge of honor by a crazy vain director -- scenes)

This "film" is something entirely different from any movie I've ever seen or not have seen (I typically avoid the gory horror movies, and I gave up on Saw movies after about 4th installment). It is so viscerally obscene it could cause the knot in your stomach, if you are not even prepared to have the iron clad stomach from watching plenty of violent action and gory horror films.

This "film" eclipses Oliver Stone's excessive and over the top "satire" Natural Born Killers (R-rated or director's cut, and I've seen both many times) in terms of searing imagery that you cannot "unsee", as in, the need for "eye bleach" after watching the sickeningly lurid "film".

In other words, this is the most dangerous "film" in the world. Even just seeing it only once and then tossed DVD-R into trash (where it belongs indeed) with one decade passing cannot unerase what I recollect I saw. It is that obscene.

I disregard any attempted insight into the philosophy and reasons why this "film" was ever made. Director's claim that it's about exposing Serbia government's corruption is silly; it's a means of self-indulgence to offend as many people as he can, as if shooting for Guinness World Record for the most disgusting and offensive film ever released that tops Japanese horror ("torture porn") films.

I would support the United States government's effort to ban 'A Serbian Film' (regardless of cut version) as prohibited distribution and banned import (contraband), for not only breaching but also pulverizing The Miller Test, that it's indeed obscene. Justice Potter Stewart: "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But **I know it when I see it**, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that..." (emphasis added by me).

Plenty of user reviews should warn you to avoid seeing this depraved filth. DO not ever see it. If you try to see it, it won't "leave" you as traumatized, for a long time. It's that terrible.

Uncut Gems (2019)

Good suspense and acting, but could be better without constant F-bomb as filler dialogue

[5/10 · 9 January 2020]

If Safdie Brothers could cut the language in half or even two-third, this movie would be salvageable with a better score than the current C+ Cinemascore, which is probably in reaction to the non-stop barrage of F-bomb throughout this movie.

If Safdie Brothers -- given their youthful age past age 30 -- cannot make the future movies without filling in excessive and constant language, then they are problematic in their delusional thinking that the more frequent and foul the profanity is, the better and more intense the movie is.

This is one of the most foul movies I've seen, the other irredeemable lurid trash Summer of Sam.

This said, I enjoyed the suspenseful structure, even though it's constantly shouting and yelling that confound me as to who's saying who, with shaky cinematography and frenetic editing. But, the insanely constant barrage of profanity is ultimately distracting that made this movie feel emotionally numb and hollow, leaving a bad and glum mood in the audience as we leave the theatre.

If only Safdie Brothers simply tone down the language, then this movie would be slightly redeemable. But F-bomb is just too much even for me to the point of vexation that "profanity as the only screenplay" undermines the movie, regardless of good acting by the leads and supporting.

If Safdie Brothers cannot make a movie without F-word as the only dialogue filler every few seconds or less, then they deserve to be called out as the hack filmmakers, because they literally do not know how to and cannot make movies without carpet bombing of the four-letter word, among other profanities and blasphemies, thus demonstrating their filmmaking talent to be much less. They simply hate the audiences and think the audiences can take excessive profanity without complaint.

Profanity without point and as strictly filler only undermine the story, because overrelying on profanity to tell the story is ultimately hackneyed and insulting to the audience. And I blame Martin Scorsese for this adverse influence of overreliance on language to move the story along, since he is credited as executive producer of this movie.

Parasite (2019)

Ingenuity and originality plus biting social satire = winner

[8/10 · 2 November 2019]

I have not seen such a movie that is so bold and daring in its originality in a long time, and that helps make this the most gripping cinema of the year, more so than any Hollywood horror and thriller movie.

Though the movie is not without flaws, such as the perplexing ending with inane logic that makes it hard to follow somewhat despite the shocking turns and twists, the director proves himself to be the master of the filmmaking craft by many years of experience.

Toward the ending, I had to think to myself, "This director (I could not quite remember the name, but will memorize following the end) is a genius...whatta crazy movie". That is a great compliment to the filmmakers who conjured up the most intricate structure of a thriller that also emphasizes originality.

I don't know about the political, social and economical situations of South Korea, but I imagine that the themes conveyed by this movie also applies equitably to Europe, Australia and North America, without losing the tonal cohesion and heart-rending message of supposed inequalities.

Parasite has to be one of the most original films released in the last decade, and I cannot remember the last time I saw an original movie without it being derivative, mildly, subtly or obvious. It's also the most daring in terms of urgent social messaging under guise of a dark satire worthy of Jonathan Swift's work, on par with "Joker".

Certainly, Parasite does not warrant the full accolades due to minor flaws that confound the otherwise hypercritical and jaded moviegoers like me, but the effort put into the structure of exposition followed by insane but carefully constructed twists is compelling as a gripping thriller that only this director Bong Joon-ho knows how to pull off effortlessly like the illusionist, and no one else, not even the veteran once-great-turned-hack American directors like Brian De Palma and Michael Mann, can try.

Just watch this movie without knowing ANYTHING about the plot. I did not even watch the trailer, and I assiduously avoided reading the reviews prior to this screening. The astonished thrills and incredulous disbelief at the directorial and storytelling ingenuity are worth it by watching this film blind without advance knowledge.

*** 1/2

Joker (I) (2019)

A true "kino" experience; the most revolutionary and subversive film since Fight Club

[10/10 · 11 October 2019]

Normally I write the long review, but I'm going to keep it simple and concise this time.

Without spoiling anything -- I suggest you do not read critics' reviews and watch this with a moderate expectation -- this film is an unexpected masterpiece, and the best comic book-based adaptation since Superman (1978).

I have seen plenty of superhero movies, and I concur with Martin Scorsese's criticism of that as "not cinema" even though I differ with Scorsese's own output as self-indulgent and pretentious (in particular The Departed and Hugo were bloated and awful).

However, Joker should be officially considered "kino" which is German for cinema, and utilized as a code of sorts among the Internet culture crowd to indicate "encore; masterpiece; outstanding".

Watching this achieved something I did not expect, and that is of astonishment and catharsis. For that, my hat off to the reformed DC studio (which fired CEO after Justice League movie as a mega-flop to replace with a new leader) and Warner Bros that gave Todd Phillips and co. the chance to produce the bravest "heavy and dark with the purpose" cinema since, say, Fight Club, the latter I disliked but understood its messages.

Joaquin Phoenix will not only own the Best Actor Oscar, but also that this film will sweep the Oscars with Todd winning Best Director and possibly Best Picture (Bradley Cooper being one of the producers).

Alita: Battle Angel (2019)

Rejected snail mail to Mr. Cameron on why the film is fatally flawed and tepid

[5/10 · 14 February 2019]

(As the established movie reviewer, I urge you to ignore these highly rated reviews here, that are obvious plants with the notation of the only one single movie review within the username's account praising this particular movie. Here's my postage mail to Mr Cameron via his production company Lightstorm Entertainment that was rejected as returned to me unopened and unforwardable.)

"Dear Mr. Cameron, et al, as the acting producers of the film Alita: Battle Angel:

I am an ordinary moviegoer, and many years ago - 20 years prior - I have read the original manga series of Battle Angel Alita as translated to English and released by Viz in the 90's as well as viewed the OVA of the same title, which was not quite good.

I saw the sneak preview of Alita: Battle Angel (abbrev: ABA) on the evening of January 31st. Enclosed is the proof of the ticket as redeemed by the pass voucher for myself and my attorney friend, who loves going to the movies as much as I do.

As your fan as well as the manga series, I wish to offer the constructive feedback regarding the quality of the film.

While I think you and everyone did a good job on ABA, I have a concern about the structure of the film, especially the last 1/3 story portion of the movie.

The movie began very well, then it "deflates" after the latter half, that lends to the excessive subplot crossovers.

Moreover, this excess story crossover lends to the "condensed" plotting that felt out of place and redundant. I know ABA condenses the first three volumes of the manga. Maybe it's the script problem that decide to rush to wrap up toward the conclusion. Maybe it's R.R.'s freestyle energetic directing style that could not overcome how "generic" the rushed nature of the last one-third movie felt.

Moreover, the characters "Vector" and "Chiren" are somewhat underdeveloped in regards to the backstory that seems inexplicably absent or underdeveloped in characterization.

Consequently, I felt let down by what felt like the rushed portions in the myriad of subplots that lend to the underdevelopment of certain characters other than the main protagonist Alita.

The actress Rosa Salazar did an excellent job portraying Alita. However, there was too much emoting that seems saccharine and, therefore, that detracts from the story.

I offer the simple suggestions to improve the first film, which obviously opens the door to the sequels if the movie will be a box office success.

Fix the {muddled} latter half of the film to be "less condensed and intertwined with subplots" by inserting the edits to give the viewers the "breathing space," with the scenes added - if retrieved as cut from the theatrical version for pacing and story flow reasons - to explain the backstory of Vector and Chiren rather than leave it ambiguous and underdeveloped that might leave the viewers dissatisfied.

As for the proposed sequels, trust the emotional impact of the story - as adapted from the manga - to touch the audiences, while simultaneously refraining from the saccharine element of Alita with frequent tear-shedding, which in the first film seems rather redundant and over the top in manipulating the audience, which seems almost dishonest.

Based on my impression of ABA at the sneak preview in IMAX 3-D (despite the printed movie ticket that says "2D"), while overall it's good, I noted the fatalistic flaws of the completed theatrical version that could harm the box office potential that depends on the word of mouth - not just the superfinicky movie critics.

The late great screenwriter William Goldman said, "Nobody knows anything," regarding the movies' potential to be the box office blockbusters. In this case, Goldman's wisdom applies to ABA, which concerns me greatly that it could be a box office flop (according to The Wrap's recent article) which would terminate the sequel planning. (...)

If ABA does not do well at the box office, then there are the myriad of reasons. Cinemascore is your first answer to evaluate.

Your film Titanic is one of the rarest movies to have scored "A+ rating." Second answer is to ask the fans and friends for the input what particular flaws that might undermine the quality of the movie. This is to suggest the resolution, if the deleted scenes will reinsert to resolve the story and aesthetic editing problems. Or, the pick-up shots (of course, with the expense added) to further develop the characters and to lighten the frenetic pacing of the last one-third of the movie, toward greater impressions that would materially help the box office net gross potential of the planned sequels to recoup the production and marketing expenditures.

Expanded cut of ABA -- to be released later in theater (if the theatrical cut of ABA succeeds) or on video - with the suggested resolutions would give the fans and casual movie viewers the satisfactory story resolution to make the sequels more anticipated.

I wish your film ABA a good success based on the word of mouth. And it's one of the very last films distributed by your long-time producing partner 20th Century Fox prior to merging with The Walt Disney Company. (...)

Best wishes for ABA's B.O. success despite its noted flaws."

Death of a Nation (2018)

"Death of a Nation" is a pseudo documentary and awful propaganda

[1/10 · 7 August 2018]

(As e-mailed to friends.)

So, I went to the movies with my father to see Dinesh D'Souza's new "documentary" Death of a Nation.

I must say that as a "centrist" this movie is one of the worst and most bizarre documentaries ever made.

Its premises and theses that connects certain ideologies with the Leftist ideology and Democratic Party is so far fetched that it was dazzling for me to grasp, since I'm an alternative history reader.

I will go further. This movie cannot call itself a documentary. It is pseudo-documentary.

Dinesh and his filmmaking team including co-director and a famous producer who is a Mormon are deluded and disingenuous with Dinesh's insane premises.

I am not a denier of certain history. I have read far into the history NOT written by the victors after the wars that I found the theses offensive in trying to promote the false history by claiming that, for example, Italian fascism and National Socialism are the mere products of the left-wing ideology as "evolved", rather than correctly ascribing it as the historically authoritarian and far right-wing ideology.

The movie is terrible that deliberately subverts history to promote one side to present as the truth. Dinesh was disingenuous at best and delusional at worst.

I give the movie "zero star", and I did not care for the liberal film critics who already trashed the film. I saw it to evaluate the merits, and it has none.

I'd say that it's one of the worst 'documentaries' I ever saw, on par with the recent stupider Michael Moore films. And it can't be called a documentary, because it incorporates opinions of Dinesh as the historical revisionist.

Because the pseudo-documentary is so dishonest that I think Dinesh should have his citizenship denaturalized and then deported back to India where he belongs, because he is the charlatan who believes in Barnum's philosophy of "there is the sucker every minute".

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (2017)

Sophomoric and mindlessly vulgar film that falls flat as a "dry" murder mystery comedy

[3/10 · 4 March 2018]

I went to see this "film" with my father since he heard about how good this "film" is, and I reclutantly went along on Saturday night before the Oscar telecast the following evening.

I know who the writer/director is, and he's the Irish playwright behind the cult "vulgar" comedy classic In Bruges, which I liked in spite of its content.

However, there is such an idiom as "beating the dead horse," and this "film" is nonsense that tries too hard to be as clever as the Coen brothers in emulation with the familiar murder mystery like that of No Country for Old Men and Fargo.

To make it even more grating, the "film" does not cease with the wall to wall vulgarity that includes the repeat use of the most vulgar slang in the English language, which would be tolerable if used once or twice, but abused to such the obnoxious degree that vulgarity detracts from the story of the "film."

The director tries too hard to imitate Coen brothers -- including even the lead actress -- with the standard dry humor, but he uses the sledgehammer approach to using as much profanity as the filler, for some lame attempt at drama and comedy.

I never chuckled once during the "film," because the sheer amount of vulgarity in dialogues with attempt at some bawdy humor annoyed me. This "film" did prompt a few walkouts with them returning shortly to resume, during the intensely vulgar scenes.

I enjoyed the classic films that are peppered with language and some vulgarities, such as Quentin Tarantino's earlier films. But with this "film" with such a long and bizarre title that lends to the mystery, it's long on vulgar ramblings for desperate attempt at cleverness and short on subtleties.

Do not bother to see this "film," simply because it's nothing new and revelationary, regardless of acting ensemble and sort-of originality, except essentially aping Coen brothers' theme and style. All that it does is pull some shock humor with vulgar phrasings and some violence for dramatic effects, with a rather lame and tense-less climax that definitely rips off Coen brothers' style by ending it on the abrupt note.

If this "film" wins Best Screenplay Oscar, then it should prove that the voters have no taste, that prove them to be as much of a vulgarian as the vintage-Tarantino-wannabe director, who should stick to playwriting rather than make aggravatingly stupider "films" trying to be clever that overemphasizes absolute vulgarity with even less meaning and more irritation, with absolute no point to comprehend.

A definitely overrated tripe, courtesy of the dishonest critics that pushed the rating on Rotten Tomatoes for nothing but a farcically pompous and vulgar piece that only test the limit of the audience's tolerance for perfect vulgarity that demonstrate the filmmaking body to be the irrelevant and deplorable.

* 1/2

It (I) (2017)

A decent reboot, but will never hold candle to the great Tim Curry

[7/10 · 10 September 2017]

I've seen the new movie, IT Chapter One, one late Saturday night, in keeping with the tradition of seeing the horror or thriller movie only on the late night.

The movie is obviously better than the broadcast television version in all aspects, due to high production value overall, but one thing is certain.

While Bill Skarsgård did a good job portraying the villain, Tim Curry is much more nuanced and thus creepier and scarier. It comes down to characterization.

Bill Skarsgård's character is way over the top in characterization, but maybe his portrayal is merely inspired by the novel. Tim Curry's characterization is perfect, which might well be one of the best portrayals of a horror-film villain in cinema history, that includes television.

The new movie is fairly faithful to the novel, with plenty of profanity uttered by the young actors. That might shock some prudes, but I don't have a problem with it. I swore a lot when I was a child on the verge of adolescence, as well as similarly curious about sensuality. No child is too (to wit, perfectly) innocent in development.

Of course, the new movie had to omit the more explicit scenes that involve sexuality as originated in the novel. Otherwise, there would be the "moral panic" protest over the "tamely filmed and sensibly edited" (implied) erotic scenes not unlike, say, The Last Temptation of Christ when that film came out in 1988, the same year this new movie takes place at the beginning.

I am more into psychological horror with slow pacing, which is so rare as to be non-existent. The classic movies with psychological terror plus slow pacing would be Jaws, The Changeling, the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Shining and Japanese horror Ringu, the latter that to this day I consider one of the scariest movie watching experiences I had (the other "terrifying" movie-going experience would be Irreversible and I Stand Alone, both by the French auteur and provocateur Gaspar Noe, and both equally disorienting in harsh content and insane cinematography & editing), because of its mystery that led to the shocking and unexpected twist that blew my mind with my jaw dropping sense of palpable horror.

This said, I am very much a jaded moviegoer. This is why I was not even scared or phased when I saw the new movie, thanks to "cheap" jump scares with obvious CGI meshed with the makeup effects. Although a few "lingering" scenes, such as the bloody bathroom, impressed me in experiencing what it's like to go through the psychological terror.

Perhaps if the new IT movie have the emphasis on practical makeup effects, albeit more expensive than CGI, then it would easily scare me as well as many similarly jaded moviegoers who know cheap jump scare scenes when they see it, that cannot even make them jump at the seat. Unfortunately, CGI is the standard visual effects, and that lessened the scare factor of this movie. The good or mediocre "scariest" movies with practical makeup effects were last made in the 90's, in particular Hellraiser series, notably Part III.

With all this said, the young cast did a fine job, given the intense adapted screenplay with heavy language and other risqué content. I know that if my young nieces and nephews ask me to take them to see this movie, I might hesitate not because of its scary and nightmarish scenes and the villain but because of its language alone that would be a bad influence.

I look forward to the second chapter, now that Chapter One is expected to be a big box office hit. It hit all the right notes, but it cannot hold the candle to Tim Curry. He should have returned to the role, instead of a relatively young actor who nearly hams it up portraying Pennywise the Demonic Clown.

By the way, although I disagree with the novelist Stephen King's shrill politics lately (he gets a cut of the royalty from the success of the new IT franchise and merchandise), I had to see the new version of IT, because hype -- the first release of the movie teaser and trailer that saw tens of millions of view count -- justifies the commendable quality of this movie. The author was so impressed that he praised the movie in a tweet earlier this year.

Alien: Covenant (2017)

Alien: Covenant well-made but marred by predictable story twists

[6/10 · 22 May 2017]

I'll do the best impression of the character "David".

Overall superb production values. Well-polished especially the cinematography and improved visual effects.

But, it fails to follow up with the very ending of a strange unique creature in the otherwise turgid and unnecessary prequel Prometheus.

This movie disregards logic that includes the ridiculous chestburster scene that trumps the lore of the original Alien movie.

The twists are predictable as always. I can predict the telegram within the movie, that neither the screenwriters nor the director would hope to prevent. I assiduously avoid the spoilers, yet I am the armchair psychic.

This movie, indeed, is the goriest of the franchise so far.

So gory it detracts from the science fiction thriller aspect, that, along with cinematography, is reminiscent of the early and gruesome "Saw" movies.

This movie is better than Prometheus without the infuriating elements such as awful dialogue and offending subplots that demonstrate the screenwriters to be the hack.

But the fact that Alien: Covenant -- by the returning producers Walter Hill and David Giler (both who re-wrote the original Alien script by Dan O'Bannon and Ron Shusett that made that movie a feminist parable, despite no writing credit) and even the returning director of the original Alien movie -- chose to disregard the logics that were established in the earlier movies is frustrating since I'm a follower of the Alien legend in the realm of science fiction.

Alien: Covenant is interesting, but its logic is bizarre to be canonical, even with the twists that might confound. Hollywood tries too hard to be clever and original, but they tend to fail.

As always the best part of the movie is the actor Michael Fassbender, who cannot do wrong except stellar acting, even in a mediocre or bad movie.

Elle (I) (2016)

An almost awful & lurid film that exploits the female sex; Verhoeven a poor man's Brian De Palma

[2/10 · 5 February 2017]

As the header title notes, the director Paul Verhoeven is indeed a pale imitation of Brian De Palma.

I saw this movie at the art-house where it was the only one film that plays anywhere where I reside at this time of writing, in a second-run circuit.

Needless to say, despite my intrigue with the great French actress Isabelle Huppert, this movie is patently ludicrous -- so absurd that it demands the suspension of disbelief with some confusion as to the female psyche, as imagined from the male perspective as the armchair psychologist.

I am not a feminist or a "white knight." Far from it.

However, besides the risible and infuriatingly frustrating absurdity of the plot twists, this movie is unbelievably lurid with exploitation, that is demeaning toward the female sex.

Even for the aforementioned actress, who has to be the bravest actress in this world, who is willing to take on any edgy film project that pushes the envelope, so to speak.

Anecdotally, I saw The Piano Teacher at the same art-house venue, starring the same lead actress, exactly 15 years ago. Which is an incredible coincidence.

Unlike "Elle," The Piano Teacher is far more nuanced with Michael Haneke's clinical directing style, slow-burn pacing, and Ms. Huppert's astonishing portrayal of a tormented and psychosexually twisted character.

In my humble opinion, Huppert's role in The Piano Teacher is one of the best performances ever captured by the actress; the other (equally and non-manipulative) astoundingly superlative performances being the fellow French actress Marion Cotillard for "La Vie En Rose" and Bjork's one-off-only lead acting in the poignant "Dancer in the Dark."

But "Elle" pushes the envelope not only too far, but also shreds the envelope to the extreme edge, outside of viscerally obscene hard-core pornography.

The MPAA is wrong to have given this movie a mere R rating. It should be NC-17, period.

"Elle" doesn't make any sense whatsoever, that confound me as to the point of the plot and subplots. It's a rather vacuous commentary on the female psyche, and the sheer ludicrous elements of the entire plot leading to the bizarre "happy" ending left me flabbergasted with frustration and disbelief, because this movie demands that I leave my brain at the door in terms of excessive suspension of disbelief.

Paul Verhoeven has proved himself to be the poor man's Brian De Palma, the latter who, at least, knows how to pull off the crazy plot twists and intrigues without coming off laughably absurd, until recently in the last two decades, when De Palma simply went off the deep end, not unlike Lars von Trier in the last decade.

"Elle" is simply "Basic Instinct" in reverse, and still as ludicrous as that infamous 1992 erotic thriller with plot holes and equally absurd demand for suspension of disbelief that infers puerile male chauvinist fantasy.

This said, Isabelle Huppert is, as I reiterate, the bravest actress. I doubt that she will an Oscar for Best Actress (she had won Golden Globe Best Actress award last month), simply because the Academy members, in particular elderly and perhaps more prudish, will be so offended and outraged by the risqué content and absurd plotting in "Elle" that they walk out in droves midway or turn off DVD to eject in palpable anger, given that this movie is one of the most provocative ever made to date.

That this movie made me cringe with horror -- and The Piano Teacher barely made me wince, being hypnotized by the great and magnificent Isabelle Huppert's performance -- especially with grotesque sexual content (not just rape acts but also involving other elements that are just as morally offensive) is quite an accomplishment.

And I braved through Gaspar Noe's brutal and nasty films (I have not seen Nicolas Refn's films, especially "Only God Forgives" and "Neon Demon" that are said to have prompted walkouts).

Ergo, "Elle" certainly takes the cake as the most edgy movie released in recent memory, outside the typically pretentious and over-edgy film festivals like Sundance, Telluride, Cannes and Toronto.

Paul Verhoeven should be rightly called a hack, because he could not cease to direct the latest films laden with inane plots and perfectly ludicrous premises, as if he dares the audience to suspend disbelief by forcing us to leave the brain at the door, to be insulted and mocked for daring to question the parallel world of ruthless reality and plausible fiction.

Verhoeven apparently hates the audience enough to mock us, and "Elle" is not an exception that belies his utter cynicism toward humanity in terms of values or the lack thereof.

This "film" is borderline rubbish that thieved my ten dollars -- I seldom go to the movies -- save for Isabelle Huppert's courageous and competent performance, that no sane film actress in Hollywood and London will agree to by taking on the lead role that is perverse, dreadful and exploitative.

I will be genuinely shocked if Ms. Huppert wins the Oscar for Best Actress, defying the odds given that "Elle" is the most infuriatingly ridiculous and deliberately provocative movie in recent years.

* 1/2 out of four

Hacksaw Ridge (2016)

Better than overrated & schmaltzy Saving Private Ryan; depicts true heroism & visceral carnage

[8/10 · 27 December 2016]

Awaiting Director Mel Gibson's return since the astonishingly hyper-real thriller Apocalypto, which was one of the best movies of the 2000 decade, I came to the movies on the day after Christmas, just when this movie might depart from the first-run theatre too soon.

Needless to say, my reaction was that of astonishment, to some extent, in seeing the visceral horrors of the 'unimaginable' carnage of combat and atrocity, that indeed force the viewers to question mortality and that war is indeed Hell.

Hacksaw Ridge is a spectacular war movie, that should compliment the varying classic wartime movies like All Quiet on the Western Front, Paths of Glory and Full Metal Jacket.

However, due to the moderate budget that had to be funded by the sources outside the Hollywood system that basically blackballed Mr. Gibson following the scandals that are best left unmentioned, the unfortunate outcome is that the visual effect/FX looks dodgy in some combat scenes, that detract from the immersive realism of the horrors of war.

Especially, in the gut-wrenching and nauseatingly visceral portrayal in this movie, the particularly ferocious battle between the American infantry and the relentlessly brutal and ruthless Imperial Japanese infantry on the southernmost Japanese-held island of Okinawa in the duration of World War 2, that was precipitated by Japan's unwise decision to attack Pearl Harbor, likely as a reaction to President Franklin's oil embargo and blockade that antagonized the Japanese to commit to total war, much to their regret given the Americans' fearsome and retributive resolve.

I would go on the record to state that Hacksaw Ridge, despite some dodgy CGI effects of combat violence and gore that was, understandably enough, due to the moderately low budget in financing outside the unforgiving Hollywood movie studio system, accurately and unflinchingly depicts the horrors of carnage in the protracted battles, especially against the fanatically determined and heartless Japanese infantry.

I have had read the history books on the horrors of war and occupation, such as Imperial Japan's brutal occupations of China, Korea and the Philippines as well as the accounts of the battles, notably the famous photograph of the flag-raising on Iwo Jima and what led to that moment. My father is an amateur historian of WWII Pacific Theater who interviewed the ancient surviving American soldiers of this theater, who spoke very negatively about the Japanese soldier that seem demonic and inhumane, which is true.

With Hacksaw Ridge, through Mel Gibson's brilliant but otherwise almost imperfect (i.e. melodramatic scenes meant for establishing characters in order to explain the motivation -- especially why the humble yet unrelentingly non-conformist Christian protagonist chose to enlist only to be subject to violent bullying and hazing trying to force him to change his inexorably pacifist belief when he only wanted to serve as the mere combat medic) direction to show us how horrible the war truly is, it forces us to confront our mortality as well as ask ourselves the existential questions such as nihilism and suffering.

This movie, for the first time in a long time (not even recent other violent and horror movies would bother me), made me queasy and aghast at the grand vision of carnage that infers the absolute inhumanity to one another, that invoked the philosophical questions of mortality.

In many ways, Hacksaw Ridge is, in terms of pacing, storytelling, characterization and visual portrayal, the better movie than Spielberg's absurdly sentimental and turgid propaganda Saving Private Ryan, that went downhill after the opening battle sequence that was well-done in depicting the carnage on the massive Allied invasion of Normandy on D- Day.

Furthermore, Hacksaw Ridge touches upon the utmost courage in face of adversity that include despicable bullying for holding firm to the pacifist belief in genuine religious principle, unbelievable heroism and absolute carnage, whereas Terrence Malick's The Thin Red Line is merely philosophical that, while almost well-made (fantastically ethereal cinematography by the twice-Oscar-winning cinematographer of "Braveheart" John Toll) and well-meaning, was frustratingly esoteric, almost maddeningly inert, and apparently naive.

Ergo, Hacksaw Ridge is certainly dissimilar to the aforementioned films Saving Private Ryan and The Thin Red Line, noting my complaints about these movies with their inherent flaws.

Indeed, Hacksaw Ridge is one of the finest war-centered movies made to date, with all the right filmmaking and competent storytelling components that accentuates the true horror of war, with Mr. Gibson's insistence to show us that war is really hell, and that we the people should be thankful that the Allied soldiers fought valiantly for our freedom and liberty.

I am the descendant of the grandfathers on both of my parents' side. I am the grandson of the former captain-ranked bomber pilot in the European Theater and the former Navy sailor in the Pacific Theater. My father and I saw this movie when we finally had the time to go to the movies, since he and I were busy with our jobs & other obligations.

Hacksaw Ridge impressed us to poignancy, knowing that the horrific portrayal of carnage is exactly why our ancestors fought the unspeakable evil, especially the Imperial Japanese with their terrible love of violence and rape and so on, yet vigorously denied by the ultra right-wing nationalists in Japan.

The Allied forces sacrificed their lives and limbs to "save" the civilization, and for that we must be grateful to them, including my grandfathers, so that we never have to experience the appalling horrors under the occupation by the despicable invading enemy.

A grand comeback for Mel Gibson in redemption as the superbly proved auteur, since Apocalytpo and this film are the visually astonishing, compelling and unapologetically unflinching movies that depicts the morally tenacious and appalling human conditions in the duality of good and evil, with the latter film that portrays the doubtlessly truthful adage to its most effective extent: "War is Hell."

3 1/2 stars out of 4

The Angry Birds Movie (2016)

Angry Birds Movie is a filthy movie that masquerades as family entertainment, with risqué humor & overall lameness

[1/10 · 18 September 2016]

(As sent to my brother-in-law by e-mail, warning him to consider banning this movie for queueing as selection for his young children.)

I just rented The Angry Birds Movie on Blu-ray at Redbox, and I found it to be appalling and terrible. I'll explain why you should NEVER show it to your developing children.

It's one of the most irritating animated movies I've had a misfortune to have seen, and I did not finish watching The Lego Movie which I turned off when it was only about 20 minutes. I hated that movie that grated on my nerve.

The one common thing Angry birds movie and Lego movie share is that it's nauseatingly nonsensical, inane, and frenetically paced that doesn't know when to pause for quiet reflection.

Another common thing both movies share is awful forced humor, and what made Angry Birds worse is that it's atypically crude for a PG rating, with this movie being advertised as a "family" movie when that should be the opposite in deceitful advertising.

The Angry Birds movie contain profanity and risqué humor, with the former "cleverly" (according to the idiotic producers' belief) disguised with double entendres such as substitute for the F-word, at least twice.

This movie doesn't know what it truly wants to be. It's a bizarre and convoluted animated movie, and it's simultaneously irritating, headache-inducing, and morally offensive.

I can't see any point of this movie, despite it being a mobile game adaptation. It's a surprise that this movie, despite the mobile game's enormous popularity, is almost a disappointment in domestic box office gross.

I can attribute that tepid box office gross to the bad word of mouth that condemned the movie by the appalled parents and annoyed children, who could not understand some inexplicable movie references that only the adults know for sure, and they will, inevitably, ask with confused demeanor, "what does it mean?"

Angry Birds is overall an awful movie, and it's absolutely NOT appropriate for children under 10 at least. It contains a prolonged scene involving the stream of urine that is unnecessary and offensive.

This movie, by the way, is so puerile in its juvenile attempt at humor, including lame movie and pop culture references, that it's not funny at all. I never chuckled.

It's an endurance test. And I played Angry Birds mobile game only momentarily, and then left unimpressed. Although I admit to buying Angry Birds gummy products in various editions at the neighborhood grocery store to cut out the characters at home.

As a parent striving to be good and protective, I suggest instating a ban of Angry Birds movie so that your children should never see this movie until they are teenaged age, at least.

It's too dirty for a PG rating, courtesy of the creator studio and the shameless Sony distributor that emphasize vulgarity in children's entertainment that fails to even entertain. They fail with this movie, badly.

I'd give it one star. One of the worst movies of this year.

The only positive thing to say about the movie is that the CG animation look gorgeous on my Sony HDTV as almost upscaled to 4k. That's all there is to this putrid piece of crap that's only a cash cow for its producers who pushes filth on the children while masquerading as family entertainment.

This filthy movie ought to be PG-13. MPAA is moronic with its rating decision yet again, with conflict of interest favoring the big studios with the low bar on appropriating movie rating.

If you see the movie with your wife, you will know why I hate this movie and am appalled at its risqué content. Definitely not for kids, either, despite its marketing misnomer claiming family genre. It should be next to adult anime section and 70's R-rated adult animated fare like Fritz the Cat.

(* out of 4)

Spotlight (I) (2015)

Spotlight good but unexceptional; why tell the story now? It's a glorified HBO movie.

[7/10 · 10 April 2016]

(As e-mailed to relatives and attorney friends.)

I rented a Blu-ray disc of the movie. Albeit I held on to it for days and then I had to pay almost ten bucks in accrued rental fee, because I've been busy and am quite lazy when it comes to priority of watching movies at home.

While the movie Spotlight is well-made, it's not exceptional and it's a standard movie. It feels like a slickly produced HBO movie at times.

I would expect this movie to bash Catholic religion, but it's more restrained. But why this story needed to be told in movie form is a bit strange, given the topic.

I enjoyed Zodiac and The Insider, based on true stories, and these are far superior compared to this movie that plays like a "TV-M" Hallmark movie.

The reason why I mention this movie to you is two reasons: the rare topics that relate to lawyering and journalism.

But given the precedents like the aforementioned favorite movies I cited above, Spotlight isn't that fantastic.

Spotlight won Oscars for Best Picture and Best original Screenplay, and I think Best Picture is unwarranted, but I also thought script was very good that held the movie well for two hours instead of three long, almost drab hours.

I recommend the movie just for brief lawyer "mumbo jumbo" if that will pique your interest how movie depict lawyering.

In my opinion, Spotlight is overrated but a tad respectful in its sensitive treatment on the controversial topic involving sex abuse within Catholic church.

One thing I disagree with is the given MPAA rating that gave this movie an R rating. It should be PG-13, but the MPAA thought the subject is too mature, so they automatically gave it an R rating, for adult themes alone, besides brief language and relevant sexual abuse references.

MPAA is really out of touch. In my opinion, for example, The Insider should have gotten a PG13 rating, despite some language. It's a relatively "bloodless" movie but still great.

Only Yesterday (1991)

A decent film on childhood remembrance and adult introspection, but could be better paced

[5/10 · 25 March 2016]

(Prefacing my commentary as emailed to my relative to offer my thoughts, I offered to take her to see this rather unconventional animated drama film on my tab; she agreed, despite not having been to the movies in years because she's picky.

She said she sort of enjoyed the movie, but complained that it felt glacially paced as the biggest flaw. She is millennial-aged, while I am Gen-X.)

Well, the movie Only Yesterday has its good merits, but, of course, it's rather slow- paced that makes it hard to be reasonably attentive.

I found the ending strangely touching that is indescribable.

Perhaps you might enjoy the movie more if you saw it in English dubbed version, rather than the subtitled version, because the dubbed version would keep the story moving at a reasonable pacing, without you struggling to understand some cultural notes that fly over our head.

The best part, I think, is the pineapple scene, which is simultaneously fascinating (given cultural background as explained) and a little poignant. Second best is long retrospection near the end of the movie, even though it could be better paced.

I reminded you during the movie you showed me how to cut the pineapple.

I suggest that you check out The Tale of the Princess Kaguya (out on DVD/Blu ray), also written and directed by Isao Takahata, who is now retired (old age in his 80's now) and a mentor to & best friend with Hayao Miyazaki. I saw it at Tower theatre, subtitled version, and the ending was very poignant.

As far as I know. Isao is a serious dramatic director in animation, that is non- conventional. Only Yesterday is the most dramatic animated film I saw, and I've seen a few animated dramas.

Only Yesterday is the anti-thesis of stereotypical full-length animated movies that tend to pander to children and also adults with risqué humor and such like Shrek series and other franchises that I didn't want to see just because they look mindless.

Only Yesterday is a very thoughtful picture, despite its pacing. It's also quite nostalgic, and the adult character woman reminds me of you and your status, as I noted in discussion before. And it was released in Japan in July 1991, which explains clothing design for the "present day" scenes.

Walt Disney Studio, which bought the rights to distribute Studio Ghibli catalog in North America and parts of the Western world back in about 1998 with agreement not to edit any film, refused to release this film likely because of its glacial pacing (that they think will bore Western children and adults alike) and because of mature themes involving menstruation and subtly mature themes.

The distributor GKIDS took the film off Disney's hands and released it, albeit this year to commemorate 25th anniversary.

(** 1/2 out of 4; because the pacing is so glacial it's hard to be attentive without fidgeting, typical of Japanese cinema style, as my relative commented.)

The Revenant (I) (2015)

Why is The Revenant a darned lousy movie? Let me count the ways

[1/10 · 3 March 2016]

(As e-mailed to my few relatives, to impart the fair warning not to see this silly and execrable film.)

Just saw Revenant movie with open caption last night.

I bought a ticket to Kung Fu Panda 3 that plays at the same time as the movie. I may see it in hypocrisy to protest the idiot ["pendejo"] director's soap box politics. But at least I refused to pay FOR the movie directly, so they don't get my money, so there's that.

As for my opinion:

Terribly overrated. It's ridiculous, pretentious, inanely contrived (esp. protagonist's dead Indian wife), frequently dull and thematically & aesthetically anemic with one-dimensional characters especially the villains who hammed it up.

There is absolutely no point in this movie.

It is offensively politically didactic to the audience on race relations between Amerindians and whites, as if patronizing the audience by the director's self- important mockery, which felt overbearing with his overkill directorial style, like "Look at this, look at me, isn't this pretty, great job (cinematographer buddy) Chivo!"

Some shots are irritating with "in your face" close-ups. There is absolutely no tension throughout the movie because of over-directing that is so palpably annoying it kills the enjoyment with occasional dull pacing in paper-thin plot structure.

There are unintentionally laughable scenes that require suspension of disbelief like CGI animals (not just the mauling bear) and swimming in the icy-cold river wearing bear fur coat with no adverse hypothermia effect (frozen to popsicle afterwards in twenty degree temperature). It's like a nature action movie with lack of logic as seen from Hollywood perspective.

As for Leonardo's acting, it's really nothing to write home about. It's all method acting aided by the cold and chilly air that affect the actor to nearly and almost overact. I really didn't think his acting Oscar is due for this movie. It's a pity award.

The movie drags way too long. An hour could be cut and nothing would be lost. Pretentious filmmakers think length equals depth, but it's the opposite. They are very shallow in preconception, heavy on sensationalism (some scenes obviously pretentious as if the director is a show-off) and light on logic and reasonable pacing.

Inarritu is a total hack who pretends to be an intellectual when he is not, instead he mugs as if he's on par with Kubrick. Cinematography is the only thing that's good about the movie, but still an awfully pretentious movie with no point to comprehend.

I checked my watch more than a few times during the movie. It's how restless I felt. Gore doesn't phase me, but Inarritu's directing is the worst and most irritating factor about this movie.

George Miller is very calm, controlled and serenely self-assured in commanding direction in contrast to Inarritu's desperately provocative and bore-you-to-death pretentious approach to filmmaking.

That Miller lost best direction Oscar to this sentimental and lecturing hack Inarritu says a lot about the idiocy of Hollywood.

Don't bother because it's so long and indulgent with pretension that Leo's subtly Oscar-bait overreaching method acting cannot compensate for how lousy this movie is, in terms of demerits.

What a piece of crap.

* out of four

Steve Jobs (2015)

Character assassination of Steve Jobs by magnifying his flaws to attack relentlessly and viciously that are entirely pointless.

[2/10 · 23 October 2015]

(As written to my few relatives by e-mail, one of which opposed the idea of going to the movies to see this movie on account of its R rating and uninteresting subject matter. I went alone and offered them my opinion as follows.

In the spirit of my brief review, shame on Aaron Sorkin. A perennial over-liberal hack; his Oscar for a past movie is not even well-earned.)

I saw the movie Steve Jobs.

In summary, a total and complete character assassination. A very negative portrait of Jobs and there is no point or meaning to extract from this movie.

It's way, way, way too talkative that makes it hard to follow with constant cross talk and argument, regardless of the principal actor Michael Fassbender's good acting.

It's so talkative with constant dialogues that it will put you to sleep, guaranteed. I did not but I feel it ran a bit dry in some spots.

The movie is way over its head. Some scenes are outright false as complete fictionalization conjured up by the screenwriter's imagination.

I think the Steve Jobs estate (widow) should sue the producers of this movie for the defamation of character that literally assassinate Steve Jobs repeatedly with rumors and embellishments that are outright untrue to mislead and deceive the audiences.

Don't bother to see the movie unless it's in a dollar theater, and that's to watch the impressive acting ensemble and visual editing design and framing, in spite of the terrible and totally turgid and dishonest script.

I give it one star, to be honest.

Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)

Mad Max: Fury Road - the good, the bad, the grotesque, and WAY over-hyped

[7/10 · 15 May 2015]

(This is the same email I wrote to my brother in law, a movie buff, for blunt and honest commentary verbatim)

I saw Mad Max Fury Road late Thursday night. The reaction varied with some mockery at a few weird scenes.

My opinion is it's a good movie for what it is. A few scenes are out of place that make absolutely no sense. There's a weird scene that should have been cut as it isn't relevant to the feel of the movie.

Director George Miller, an old dude at 70, typifies with his style going for the weird and the grotesque. It shows up again like in the latter two old Mad Max movies.

I almost hesitate to see the movie because of the reports and critic reviews that reported injection of feminism especially with the author of The Vagina Monologue, a staple of college indoctrination tour (my first sister was brainwashed with this grotesque/misandric/empowerment feminist bullshit).

I express disappointment in George Miller for the move. Not surprising as he pulled the similar bullshit espousing atheism in Happy Feet. I saw the movie and felt that feminism is minimal so not to be detracting. Almost subtle.

The movie was fairly intense and riveting with constant action. Sometimes a little too much and over the top. Deserves an R rating for restrained gory violence and also the rarest R rated movie that does not utter any profanity.

I look forward to more Mad Max sequels, if it makes some money. But I judged the audience's reaction with my astute observation and the reception is mixed, almost muted, because of how weird the movie is.

I noted the underage boys (under 14) accompanied by their fathers upon exit after the movie.

If I were the father, I will make exception provided the child is at least 11 and able to handle the violent content. It's a "hard PG-13" movie at best.

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014)

Absolute, tedious, self-indulgent rubbish. Worst movie of the year.

[1/10 · 4 May 2015]

I never bothered to see The Hobbit movies in theatre for two reasons. Bad word of mouth complaining about the pacing tedium and the fact that the third film exists for the express purpose of milking the cash cow to enrich Peter Jackson, producers, his stars and the studios.

It turns out I was right by avoiding The Hobbit series in theatre, preferring to wait for rental video. It turns out all Hobbit movies are forgettable fluff.

The worst of the Hobbit trilogy is easily the third and last entry, The Battle of the Five Armies.

What to say about this movie? Disjointed, incoherent, predictable, treacly, inane, tedious, contrived (lol, stupid romantic interlude) and ridiculously self-indulgent.

95% of this movie is strictly filler. You could watch until the dragon villain concludes within the first 15 minutes and then skip to the last ten minutes before the end credit and you will not miss anything, only a somewhat satisfying conclusion.

Self-indulgence is the operative term for Peter Jackson.

The filler portion is the most protracted and boring part that runs interminably. You will be bored crapless and you'll nod off to sleep soundly while this movie runs that make absolutely no sense character-wise and plot-wise (minus the pathetic reason that relate to avarice which form the motivation for the inane filler that run two darned hours).

Kill the damned dragon already. Then fast forward, by skipping right after the dragon is vanquished, to see a sparsely amusing conclusion. There, save yourself the two agonizing hours that is much ado about nothing.

Peter Jackson and his team of writers, including Guillermo Del Toro, are interested in padding out the length that expand to the third film, to serve as the cash cow. Milk, milk, milk until the bucket is full.

Given how spectacularly awful the film is, from beginning to the end (even with the dragon's brief speaking part), Peter Jackson has proved himself to be the hack, trying to exploit JRR Tolkien's simple story to fill with grotesque and violent content for the third film, allegedly citing the appendixes that serve as the major portion of the movie.

In view of the execrable quality of this so-called movie, courtesy of Jackson's insanity with his love of inane and bloated epics that comprise The Hobbit trilogy, there is the good news.

The executioner of the Tolkien estate, Christopher, have flat-out refused to agree to sell the movie rights to any more of his father JRR's work, following the lawsuit filed against the studios and producers over the royalty in box office earnings for The Lord of the Rings trilogy (quickly resolved with the non-disclosure settlement terms with a big reimbursement payment).

Hear that, Jackson and Del Toro? You will never get to adapt The Silmarillion, JRR's novel that precedes The Hobbit with the First Age of the Middle Earth story.

Enough about the exploitation. It is not passion to tell the story, but rather the passion to be massively self-indulgent while milking the cash cow for personal enrichment. This movie adaptation of the Hobbit series is not what JRR envisioned, given how overlong and bloated it is.

Thankful there exist Tolkien Edit version that purport to trim the fat to reflect JRR Tolkien's simple and true book volume. That's what I look forward to, awaiting the finalized alternative edition.

Bloated is bloated and tedium is tedium. All must be obliterated to find the real version that is missing, thanks to Jackson and company's sheer and unapologetic self-indulgence.

Bloated and tedious make for the spectacularly awful movie to save the last for the worst, all for milking the giant cash cow. Disgustingly greedy and repulsive in debasing JRR Tolkien's literacy legacy.

Indeed, the worst movie of the year, for the casual moviegoers with discriminating taste, only to be bored senseless by the insane and pointless two hour filler non-sense.

1/2 star out of 4

American Sniper (2014)

A tense and straightforward biopic that aims for the apolitical story

[8/10 · 8 February 2015]

Having bought the ticket for this movie with a recommendation by a military friend in service close to his retirement, I came in with the expectation the movie is supposed to be apolitical that neither preach to the choir nor criticize the war.

Apolitical it is, which is a notable achievement as it's tempting to roll with the rah-rah propaganda, for the right, or self-righteous condemnation with critical approach, for the left. Director Clint Eastwood and screenwriter Jason Hall, adapting the autobiography book, did the stellar effort with deft directing and tenacious focus on the psychological cost of the war in combat that affect the home life.

I am more impressed that despite Clint Eastwood's back and forth political alignment between libertarian and republican party as a voter and in belief as a moderate, not to mention Clint's (in)famous lecture to the empty chair at 2012 Republican National Convention (which, while pointed, was embarrassingly bizarre, with Clint's last-minute request to bring in the empty chair besides the podium), Clint, working with Jason Hall trying to be respectful to the source material and the late Chris Kyle himself, chose to be tenacious with the aim of making an entirely apolitical movie, without overtly questioning or promoting support of the war.

There have been criticism of the movie by the left -- lame one-note actors, jealous-of- success directors and dogmatic online publications like The Huffington Post and, most egregiously, Salon -- that need not to be rebutted or challenged. Let the criticism speak for themselves. Suffice to say the criticism is ridiculous and unfounded, after viewing the movie and finding no fault.

American Sniper is, in the final analysis, not a propaganda movie. It never set out to be this way.

Clint and Jason tried something extraordinary -- to make the movie as apolitical as possible without offending the sensibilities of one type of audience or another. Interestingly, only the left-wing complained like Seth Rogen and Michael Moore, only to backtrack with excuses why they had the first impression that purport to be condemnatory.

Clint knew the propaganda value of film, that led to his denial of accepting the role in thematically anti-Iraq war movie "In The Valley of Elah" that was supposedly written with him in mind. Hence his aversion to making the movie with overt political statement that might offend the audience who lean conservative.

Clint knows the majority of the conservative audience is the "rare breed" to catch as the moviegoer base that vote with their wallet. Not to exaggerate, but this base is by and large powerful to make the movie succeed or fail, depending on the movie's message that is either politically neutral (or subliminal), or not at all. This is why the recent slate of the liberal-tilted anti-war movies (e.g. Robert Redford's "Lions for Lambs" with major stars including Tom Cruise and "The Green Zone" with Matt Damon) had tepid returns at the box office.

Politically conservative moviegoers, for the most part -- like me -- seldomly go to the movies, if never in a long time, because of the antagonistic and amoral content in the movies, not to mention self-serving as the conduit for liberal propaganda that condescend, denigrate and offend the moviegoers. Hence the shrinking movie-going public that befuddle Hollywood and the analysts, negating the shift towards movie streaming and other convenient means of watching at home. Hollywood can only count on the demography of 19-45 year old (R rated), teenagers (PG-13) and parents with children (PG and G) to go to the movies for the bottom line of profit.

Clint Eastwood, working with screenwriter Jason Hall, consciously avoided the minefield of political bias to choose to tell the story as apolitical as possible as the only viable way to contain the movie's themes without offending either side.

This is highly commendable indeed. I could not find anything obviously or subtly biased in the movie.

The sum of the movie's theme is "war is hell" requiring sacrifice that include the psychology of self in patriotic service for the country -- right or wrong.

The movie is not without flaws. (Not the fake baby scene, it went by quickly.) These flaws made me ask the question, why is this odd? was this even true? (You'll know towards the ending.)

Still, a very good movie with tense combat sequences and occasionally poignant moments. Bradley Cooper did a great job, duplicating Chris Kyle in Texan drawl and stoic and tough yet psychologically vulnerable, tender and deity-believing mannerism.

If American Sniper wins Best Picture Oscar, I should expect Clint Eastwood to announce retirement to the standing ovation. Splendid effort despite some flaws, not to mention frequently profane and graphic that shock and perturb some reticent conservative moviegoers who have not gone to the movies in a long time, that, with the timely story and its perfect apolitical approach, translate to the tremendous turnout not seen since The Passion of the Christ (which I also went to in a sold-out screening).

With respect for the core audience for which the story is thematically appealing come the big box office return. This is something Hollywood could learn from if they aren't so colored by their evidently pompous and didactic liberal belief, as conservative-aligned film critics Michael Medved and John Nolte always point out.

By the way, I have never been to the movie screening where the entire audience sat silent, solemn and still when the moving ending credit began for a few minutes, until this movie. Moved all of us to tears and lumps in the throat. Remarkable movie-going experience as a phenomenon.

Thank you Clint, Jason, Bradley & co. for the respectful tribute to the late war hero and patriot Chris Kyle and his compatriots. Even though I never agree, to this day, with President Bush II and the second Iraq war.

***1/2 out of 4

Gone Girl (2014)

Intriguing, well-paced mystery thriller that reveals itself to be Basic Instinct 2.0

[4/10 · 3 January 2015]

I'll cut my typically long review style short to the center of the complaint common among the bad reviews: Gone Girl had been undermined and demolished by the ludicrous plot twists in the last half hour, which un-do the premise and set-up, that incurred a bitter disappointment in me as though the viewer has been toyed with in the last minutes.

Yes, Gone Girl has some gaping plot holes visible in the last half hour, so gaping it caused a vexed, infuriatingly frustrated disbelief in me. The way it happened in the movie doesn't work in the real life, because forensics police investigation is painfully thorough with improvements and reforms following the botched LAPD investigation of the double homicide that could pinpoint O.J. Simpson's culpability.

Good attributes of the movies are good acting across the board -- even the actor Ben Affleck whom I loathe; moody atmosphere with the spectacular cinematography, set-up with the slowly-unfolding plotting (until the last half hour), and the compellingly written and paced mystery thriller aura that is rare in modern movies.

However -- it pains me to say this, knowing David Fincher's prodigious talent but never expected him to bungle so bad as agreeing to film Gillian Flynn's screenplay adaptation -- the last half hour became too much to bear with inane twists and turns that devolve the entire movie to the equivalent of Basic Instinct 2.0, updated and revised for the 21st century.

Gone Girl lays out the standard work in that the plot lures in steady motion, hooks with suspense and intrigue, only to bait with the inane and illogical twists that would be laughable if it were not infuriating for some analytical viewers knowing the basics of detective and forensic investigation.

Like the absurdist spectacle Basic Instinct as the predecessor, with its problematic and ludicrous plotting and idiotic Hollywood logic, the seasoned and learned detectives, agents and forensic/behavioral scientists will have a field day ridiculing Gone Girl pointing out inconsistencies, impossible placements, procedurally oblivious and offensively stereotypical characterization (e.g., trusting idiot detective and the group of idiot FBI agents in one scene), glaringly obvious clues, and behavioral science holes.

To think David Fincher accepted this movie project to direct, ignoring its astounding plot holes among other vexing crises delineated above, is disappointing in view of his somewhat stellar filmography. It's apparent Mr. Fincher badly needed a directing job instead of marooning in boredom at home so he jumped into Gone Girl project with haste without measurably judging the script and even the novel, by the same author, to discern it's agreeably ludicrous for his liking so he could have turned it down and pick another project that's not just as ridiculous.

David needs to be discretionary in choosing the scripts, now that he directed what could be his worst movie since either Alien 3 (not his fault given the history of studio interference, but shows his amazing visual and nascent film directing talent) or Fight Club (unrestrainedly self-indulgent, mean-spirited and ludicrously perplexing). Panic Room is arguably Fincher's weakest film, not to mention illogical, fake and pretentious. Ultimately, it comes down to the screenplay that could correspond with the director's strengths or frail due to indecision, confusion and laziness.

Gone Girl is certainly an embarrassing misfire, as the meandering and inanely twisted last half hour effectively destroyed the good portion of the entire set-up that dissipated the mysterious aura with the reach and conclusion that are so ludicrous the audience is flummoxed with vexed contention, being insulted to a degree as if the movie expects to be plausible.

The movie is entirely implausible made by the ill will (mocking the audience) of the last half hour, which reflects Gillian Flynn's attitude that tries to pull the trick off the sleeve in a homage to Alfred Hitchcock and Brian De Palma, but comes off as rather inept, not to mention impossible.

Indeed, to reiterate, Gone Girl is a spiritual successor to the semi-classic erotic noir mystery thriller Basic Instinct (disregarding the sequel said to be an abysmal failure), given the similarity of the plot line with Michael Douglas character substituted as the husband and Sharon Stone character as the disappeared wife.

Not a whole lot of original, either. And it should never have been made into the movie; leave the novel unadapted as a Basic Instinct ripoff which it is.

Dave, try again and choose scripts wisely. Your choice of Gone Girl with its chasm-wide plot holes is unbecoming your body of script literate-quality work and even your literacy intelligence. Excellent visual flair, always, but juvenile high school story that gets a C minus.

** of 4

American Hustle (2013)

Fragmented and bizarre story on the American farce, replete with overacting

[6/10 · 6 January 2014]

After seeing a few David O. Russell films (in spite of his personal problems, especially the infamous bipolar-type outburst on the set on "I Heart Huckabees," the movie I never saw because the word of mouth was bad referring to the complaint of pretentiousness), especially the stellar and moving The Silver Linings Playbook, I went to see "American Hustle," piqued by the reading of the stranger than fiction story on political corruption.

The movie is middling at best, harmed by some disjointed editing and structure, which explains the near-incoherence of the story. Non-linear is intentional, but it's difficult to follow the movie with complete comprehensibility the first time, befuddled by frequent ensemble overacting and rapid-fire dialogue (often profane) that only serve to annoy.

The film probably contains the most overacted ensemble in the history of the movies. Everyone overacts to the painfully embarrassing effect.

Despite suffering the flaws, the movie is half-riveting and half- tedious. I can't decide which, but it is simultaneous. I noticed a few walkouts of the young adult moviegoers to return 15 minutes later, in the middle of the movie, completely missing the story, probably to their confusion arising from the short attention span.

"American Hustle" demands attention throughout to comprehend the plot with the dizzling turns and twists that even confound me as to the plausibility. It asks the audience to suspend disbelief momentarily, which is stretching the truth, typical of Russell's penchant for comical exaggeration that throws the allegation of the true story in question which is true and which is completely made up.

The movie, being inane and implausible with the elaborate scam conspiracy followed by the police entrapment, reminds me of the cheesily produced television show with Jonathan Flake, "Beyond Belief: Fact or Fiction," which I recollect I saw at the turn of the century. That is now the staple of the Sunday morning cable programming with the marathon programming, which brought back memories.

Watching the movie conclude, on a spectacular note despite the bizarre structure of the movie in terms of pacing and dialogue, with the insanely clever plot twist reminds of this television program.

Pursuant to Russell's style in allowing freestyle improvisation, the movie is consequently strange and frequently off-color, that makes it a little boring to watch, trying to pay attention to the story without getting lost in the process.

As aforesaid, everyone overacts, even the uncredited role of Robert De Niro, for what reason I wouldn't know. The director lets them act as they like, without the measure of control by both artists.

It shows to the degree of shtick. Even Jennifer Lawrence overacts in this movie, in contrast to her tempered and nuanced acting roles, including her Oscar-winning role in the other Russell movie.

I was fascinated by the constant action of the movie as directed, being freestyle but also formless that lend to the palpable tedium and confusion as the result of recklessness at the vain attempt to achieve the artistic value.

There's not much to be said about Christian Bale being deliberately overweight, imitating Robert De Niro's Oscar-winning role in Raging Bull. Bale is a fine actor, but in this movie, he's forgettable, as is the guiltily overacted Bradley Cooper. (There is the scene towards the ending with Cooper that is so overacted it was weirdly off-putting.)

The noteworthy stars of the movie are the quietly commanding character of a FBI field office director played by the (foul and frequently antagonistic) comic C.K. Louis and the "is-she-British-or-is-she-not" scam artist played by Amy Adams, who emoted superbly in vulnerable characterization without being phony deserving of an Oscar (like Jennifer Lawrence in another emotionally taut role), a departure in 180 degree turn from the innocuous Disney movie "Enchanted".

Not a bad movie, but not a great movie either, blamed on the director's inability to maintain control, letting the actors go wild like mustangs, with the strange and non-linear structure, resulting in the incoherence and near incomprehensibility of the point of the movie.

Overrated, but serves as a good study how not to screw up the production with freestyling, which may explain the lack of necessary disciplined filmmaking in artistic and technical collaboration. I know how editing works, being directly involved in work, but the structure is a mess. It took three editors to make "American Hustle" as close to coherence, and it almost doesn't come close, which may explain the nature of the rushed production.

** 1/2

Man of Steel (2013)

Worst movie of 2013. Appalling and sacrilegious movie, with the director's pornographic use of lens flare

[1/10 · 26 December 2013]

There's not much to say about this movie already said by other critics in other user comments preceding this comment, noting the sacrilegious abuse of the original material that form the Superman mythology, by the storytellers and the director who brought us 300 and Watchmen, which I loathed with in-depth criticism in the past reviews on this web site.

Besides the horrible retelling of Superman mytho which essentially deform the original story to comical effects, I vehemently, with repulsion, object to the director's fetish for the constant sensationalism with the shaky (even zooming, as the director's trademark) cinematography replete with the inanely pornographic employment of lens flare, like his fellow director J.J. Abrams of the Star Trek reboot, which I harshly criticized as well.

Zack Synder "made it" by dishonest means, which is the remake of the zombie movie directed by George Romero who was struggling financially to fund his next original zombie movie.

Here we continue to be delivered the abortions and abominations by Mr. Synder, who produce these films to degrade and mock the audiences as the proverbial cash cow, not unlike Michael Bay who produced and directed vulgar (in terms of degraded quality and language) and outright sensational and garbage films.

The overuse of lens flare, almost all computer generated, indicates utter lack of directorial creativity, and could only be abused by the hack who seek to gain only fortune instead of making the movie that actually respects the source materials, out of genuine love.

The director and producers Christopher Nolan and David S. Goyer should be ashamed that they have committed possibly the greatest desecration in the malformed adaptation of the comic book since Albert Pyun's spectacularly hideous Captain America (not to mention the offensive recent adaptations of certain established comic books with the heroes and Norse mythology characters in revisionist storytelling to mock and insult the specific audiences) and Roger Corman's rushed and mind- blowingly cheap production of Fantastic Four.

I don't bash this film for comedy. I say this as having been the comic book collector and reader of Superman, including the original published comics from the Golden Age. This film is certainly not like Neal Adams' revision of Superman in character design and storytelling in the 70's.

Instead, Man of Steel is close to what it might have been had it starred Nicolas Cage, complete with the giant spider and the fight sequence with the aggressive polar bears. When the movie concluded with the ending credit rolling, I watched for Jon Peters in the credit. There he is, as the executive producer.

If the movie has the credit by Jon Peters, even if barely related, you'd know it's a stinkbomb that serve strictly as the ATM machine for the producers involved, that take the popular source material to strip of its cores in terms of common humanity to defile with sensationalism to render the movie unwatchable because corruption and absurdity pervades.

The "fight" sequence towards the ending is so repetitive it is palpably tedious. I yawned throughout the movie. I had to pause between boring and extraneous scenes a few times, for the length of time, while I prepared dinner, read books and even text a friend about how damn awful the movie is, when I have not finished watching, barely past the first hour.

I watched Man of Steel on Blu-ray rental at Redbox. Because I was too lazy to finish watching the movie in full, the rental period was extended to two days, and my money was ultimately thieved. This movie is, with all things considered, the thief of the audience's time and money.

This said, at least Russell Crowe excels as an actor as usual, even if he phones his role in. The sequence with Russell narrating amidst the moving background was the only highlight of the movie, if somewhat pretentious.

Man of Steel is a sacrelige, indeed, with irony noted which is in regards to the dishonest (source material polluting) producers and the comic book creators' intent.

This movie accompanies Bruckheimer/Bay's production Armageddon and J.J. Abrams' Star Trek how NOT to direct the "blockbuster" movie.

1/2 out of four