davejones Reviews

M3GAN (2022)

I guess I got off on the wrong foot with this film

[6/10 · 5 July 2023]

Not having seen any trailers nor having heard anything about this movie, I started off taking it somewhat seriously. Yes, the ad introducing the Furby-like toy that was the springboard for all of this was somewhat cheesy, but I could see having a cheesy product ad in a serious horror movie. TV Ads in movies almost always look a little cheesy and satirical.

The problem then was, when Gemma cracks the holy grail of robotics by creating a sentient, learning robot able to move about as well as a human being (and later, we find, with considerably greater strength and speed) after working on it for what seemed like a week or two--without any sort of great breakthrough or insight, I was pretty incredulous. I thought, "And this happened. . . How, exactly?" (Yes, I know it's a movie).

Now, if I had been aware from the very beginning that this was supposed to be a rollicking comedy, then I could have just turned off my critical faculties and laughed at it all. But in fact, it starts out on a pretty serious note: a young girl is orphaned and she's sent to live with her aunt, who clearly has no interest in raising a child, even if she believes she's obligated. It's all quite serious, and actually a really nice dramatic premise. And I was trying to take it seriously.

So then when it shifted into Chucky meets the Terminator, as so many reviewers here have accurately described it, I guess I was a little disappointed that it wasn't taking itself more seriously. It had a pretty solid story, all in all, even if there was never a moment's doubt about where this bad doll was headed. And the climax is kind of a nice steal from (homage to. . . ? It's always a fine line) the climax of Aliens, with the "man amplifier" robot being used to defeat Megan.

I appreciated the deft commentary on our obsession with our personal devices and the internet. I loved the questions it asked about developing robots as substitutes for human caregivers. And Megan herself was also a great killer robot. I liked the combination of nurturing and murderous.

I was just never quite able to settle into the movie because of its shifting tone.

A.rtificial I.mmortality (2021)

A muddled and dishonest documentary

[4/10 · 1 March 2022]

The title and blurb for this documentary led me to believe that it would be about legitimate scientific efforts to capture or download human consciousness and preserve it in some sort of artificial vessel such as an advanced computer. The promotional materials suggest that we're close to some kind of breakthrough that would enable this, and that "artificial immortality" is not only a real possibility, but just around the corner.

But there's almost nothing about that, here. I'm assuming that's because downloading the mind or even just understanding what it is is still just a fuzzy dream. Science really has no explanation for what consciousness is, how it is created, or even how thoughts and memories are generated. So I assume that the filmmakers couldn't find (or perhaps didn't look for?) anyone trying to honestly tackle these basic questions, which we will have to answer before we can achieve anything even approaching the artificial immortality promised in the title.

Instead of offering any theories as to how downloading or running the mind on some sort of electronic platform might be accomplished, what we get is a documentary about some primitive efforts to simulate a couple of individual human personalities by recording and analyzing their personal photos, videos and spoken memories--which is a far cry from downloading a human mind or in any way achieving immortality.

And that's the documentary at its best. Much of it is actually home movies of the director's children or her demented father accompanied by some rather obvious, semi-poetic observations about the fleeting and ephemeral nature of intelligence and personality. That much, I think we already knew. These musings would be fine if they were just the springboard for an honest investigation into the mysteries of consciousness, thinking and memory, but they aren't a substitute for it.

I kept waiting for the documentary to get to the real meat of its story. But it all played like a big stall, as if the filmmakers were trying to run out the clock before the viewer noticed they weren't even close to addressing the subject suggested by its title.

Even with all the filler, it's still a pretty short documentary. They didn't even make it to the 90-minute mark--which should have been pretty easy for a subject this rich and interesting.

The Vault (2021)

It wasn't bad up until heist day. . .

[6/10 · 26 August 2021]

I liked the motivation of the heist leader--the idea that the vault contained treasure that had been taken from him and was rightfully his. That was nice.

The old and ingenious mechanism at the center of the vault was also an original plot element--even if it was ridiculously easy to access.

Yes, the world's most secure vault seemed. . . Less than secure. But I was willing to overlook that. Most heist movies are less than fully believable.

But you know where they finally lost me? It was about three quarters of the way through the movie, the day of the big heist, where in order to get to where they need to go, the characters must do the thing that is by now so cliché that I thought that it would have been banned from every script written since 1970.

That's right, they crawled through the air ducts. By now, doesn't everyone know that they don't make air ducts big enough for a man to crawl through (especially in the world's most secure bank) and they're far too flimsy to support the weight of an adult anyway?

I don't mind a few moments that stretch credulity. But I do mind hoary old clichés that haven't been believable for 50 years, now.

Lapsis (2020)

Interesting Idea for Low Budget Social Commentary, but the Storytelling is Sloppy

[6/10 · 28 February 2021]

This film is well directed and acted. Very convincing, naturalistic performances. The film looks pretty good, too. I'd hire Noah Hutton as a director in a heartbeat.

The problem, as usual, lies with the script. I can live with the story inconsistencies, such as if these robots are so good at laying cable, why is the company even bothering to hire people? And why are they identifying people who have sabotaged the robotic cable layers through their DNA? So, wear gloves when you smash one of them with a rock. Seems to me that a much bigger problem would be that the human cable layers are being tracked through GPS every step of the way, so it would be pretty obvious who had crossed paths with a droid moments before it was wrecked or disappeared.

Also, the notion of "laying cable" by draping it all over the landscape, completely unprotected or buried is ludicrous--which, if the rest of the story had been pushed a little more definitely into the realm of absurdity, wouldn't have been a problem.

The real problem with this movie is that all of the obstacles placed in the path of the protagonists are just too easily overcome. They're never developed or escalated. Instead, they're dispatched with almost as soon as they arise.

I admit that I didn't understand entirely what some of those problems were. The main character has been issued some kind of bogus, existing account which causes him to be overpaid for his services. But I didn't quite understand how that led to him owing the people who secured the account for him money. Nor did I understand what any of that had to do with his credit card being declined. And I guess that it's just a happy coincidence that this doctor who originally programmed the cable-laying droids and built in a kill switch then went on to develop teas that will cure the protagonist's brother's condition. . . ?

This is what I mean when I say that the problems that arise are just too easily resolved. Also, an early scene in which the protagonist's van is duplicated, suggesting that the quantum computing network is producing some kind of quantum effects in everyday reality is never really paid off. Or did I just imagine that?

There are plenty of good ideas in this movie, but the story and drama are weak.

This is the type of story in which, initially, everything should look quite rosy (Hey, I've got a great new job just when I need it, I'm getting exercise and fresh air, and I'm being grossly overpaid) and then, as things progress, there's some larger, darker undercurrent that becomes apparent. There's always "a catch."

But it's obvious right from the beginning that a) the main character's account is a fake and that b) the cable layers are being exploited. There is no revelation beyond these, except for the handy solution to the droids being that they have a built-in kill switch. Phew. Problem solved.

On Your Way (2017)

Intriguing Short

[8/10 · 22 February 2021]

In my opinion, this is the sort of idea that is perfectly suited to a short film.

As Kirplanuscus says, it works more on a poetic, metaphorical level. Of course, anyone looking for literal or realistic explanations of what is happening is going to be disappointed.

I'm not so sure the ending works, but the falling through the air towards the ground gave it a natural, dramatic urgency.

It's also a great looking film, and the music and wordless performances were very effective.

Jules Verne's Mysterious Island (2010)

Ultra Low Budget Production -- Like Almost Everything SyFy does

[3/10 · 29 October 2020]

I don't know why everyone's being so hard on the script and actors for this movie. They're not that bad; it's just that they're so obviously hamstrung by the film's very limited budget. The movie looks as if it was shot on home video equipment (especially the night scenes) and the sound is pretty poor, too, in places.

The most egregious offense of this production is probably the costumes. A couple of the characters who are supposed to be Civil War soldiers are wearing what are clearly synthetic thermal undershirts that weren't seen on Earth before about 1980. Let alone 1880.

Do yourself a favor and rent the 1960s version.

I See You (II) (2019)

A movie that thrives on its plot twists

[7/10 · 1 September 2020]

This movie lives by its many plot twists and by abruptly cutting away from moments that would give too much away. This leaves some of the characters' actions appearing to be a bit dumb in the moment, although they make much more sense when the final plot twist is revealed. It's an original and largely successful bit of storytelling. And if you like a taut and twisty story, it's worth sticking with until the end.

The thing this movie most lacks is a character that I was really rooting for. I suppose that the most sympathetic character is the mother, played by Helen Hunt. Unfortunately, she isn't much of a force in the story for most of the the film, and is nowhere to be seen in the climax. She's really more of a viewpoint than a full character.

The father, Greg, seems like the world's least suspecting police detective. His wife tells him that all of the silverware has disappeared from their house, he notices that pictures have gone missing from their frames, he's locked in a closet by. . . someone. . . and he's also told that a repairman who came to the house has reported being let in by a well-behaved young woman (when there is no such person living in their household) and his only reaction seems to be, "Huh. I guess stuff happens sometimes."

As a detective, he did not come across as a credible character. But then, as it turns out, he's got a lot of other things on his mind.

I know that a lot of obvious stuff that goes unsaid between our main characters is supposed to be because it's a dysfunctional family where everyone is angry with everyone else, but there's a limit to how far you can push this. These people let an awful lot of very strange stuff just slide.

One last, small complaint: Enough with the drone shots, already. I know that it's a great way to make a low-budget movie look like a million bucks, but I'll be glad when the infatuation with this new technology dies down a little.

Quatermass 2 (1957)

They may have elaborate Invasion Plans, but we have the Luck of the Irish!

[5/10 · 18 March 2020]

I can't believe people giving this movie scores of 8 and 9 out of 10.

The worst thing about this film is its script, which blunders from one completely unsubstantiated assumption to the next on the part of our protagonist in constructing its slapdash story. But also pretty terrible is its heavy reliance on coincidence for the good guys to succeed in their quest--namely to thwart an invasion of the Earth by an alien landing force.

There are so many points in the story where dumb luck--for example, having an experimental rocket in danger of destroying itself in a nuclear detonation warmed up and ready to fire on the launch pad--works in our heroes' favour. There's very little they actually plan and execute to win the day.

Fortunately for us, the aliens are completely incompetent at 1) shooting guns and 2) maintaining any kind of perimeter on their own base.

Also lucky for us is a mob of drunken St. Patrick's Day revelers who spring into action in defense of our planet.

I'll admit that this film does have a certain air of paranoia that reminded me of of the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers, but it isn't a patch on that classic. Its occasionally spooky atmosphere doesn't come anywhere close to making up for its failures in storytelling and weak production values.

I wouldn't waste my time.

Spitfire (III) (2018)

Lots of good footage, but pretty thin when it comes to actual information

[6/10 · 5 January 2020]

There's lots of stirring music, great footage, and teary tributes to this great airplane, but there's almost nothing about WHAT made it great. Very little hard information about the design and construction of the airplane. How did the designers and builders of this marvelous fighter pull off the feat of creating a superior fighter?

I know very little more about this plane now than I did before I started watching this documentary. And I didn't know much before I started watching it. It's not as if they had to impress some lifelong aficionado!.

As the British would say. . . Pity.

The Woman on the Beach (1947)

Weirdly Inept Melodrama--but at least it's only 72 minutes long!

[4/10 · 22 September 2019]

What an inept and muddled mess this film is. The setup is interesting enough: While out riding his horse, a shell-shocked Coast Guard Lieutenant on the cusp of marriage stumbles upon a femme fatal out gathering firewood near the beached hulk of a ship. He's immediately smitten. He escorts her home (on the pretense of carrying her firewood) where he also meets her blind artist husband.

Having fallen hard for the femme fatal (as you would, of course) he sets about trying to prove that her husband isn't blind at all. In the process, he almost kills him. Oops. Turns out he was wrong about the old guy faking it. No hard feelings, though. After that, the blind artist and the lieutenant become best buddies. Until the next time the Lieutenant tries to kill him, anyway. (A fishing trip in a typhoon goes badly; you'll just have to see it for yourself.)

Oh, and our lovelorn lieutenant takes a quick 60 seconds to dump his fiancee (lucky break for her!).

Everyone's motivations and goals (with the exception of the fiancee) keep shifting so that all the characters seem either erratic or just insane--it's hard to tell. They frequently declare their mercurial states of mind: "Let's face it, I'm not well!" being my favorite. But close runners-up were, "I'm a tramp!" and "Those paintings are my eyes!"

The dialogue and the score are frequently so inept as to be laughable. I would almost start to believe this movie for about five minutes at a stretch before some freshly idiotic event or line would cause me to burst out laughing.

*Nothing* in this film is to be believed, starting with the tragic accident that supposedly blinded the painter. We're told the femme fatal threw a drinking glass in his face. Somehow, this resulted in the optic nerves (to both eyes, no less) being severed, without leaving a mark on him.

What . . . ?

No wonder the good lieutenant thought he was faking it; I wouldn't buy that story either! Plus, the actor playing the blind artist seems to bustle around the film's sets (whether he's at home, on the beach, or at the coast guard station) as if he still had 20/20.

Speaking of unbelievable, I'm stunned that there are people here rating it as some kind of masterpiece--no doubt because it was directed by Jean Renoir and has a couple of surreal dream sequences.

They're not bad (the dream scenes), but they're not all that good either. And certainly not enough to save this shipwreck. Nor is a quick cameo by Granny Clampett.

Til Ex Do Us Part (2018)

This movie gets points for the universality of its ineptitude

[2/10 · 7 September 2019]

I don't think I've ever seen a movie that is this bad in quite so many ways. It really is kind of spectacular. As fkopun-27429 put it, it might just be the worst movie I've ever seen. It's almost worth watching for that reason.

First, the script is truly awful--the dialogue, especially. The characters seem to be explaining a film rather than actually participating in it. But the director has to take equal blame. As each scene begins, the characters seem to be standing in place, waiting for the cameras to roll. As if they were in the midst of doing nothing (except trying to make a movie) each time we come upon them. I think my favorite scene was where one of the characters is at home, looking in a mirror (in her living room) applying makeup. She steps away from the mirror, revealing the reflection of a mysterious intruder. Only he's standing about two feet behind her (he must've been *really* quiet!) However, she only seems to notice him when she goes back to looking in the mirror. This is followed by the most exposition-laden conversation possibly ever recorded on film. Or whatever they shot this on.

There's a weird, static quality to every scene. And I don't mean static in a stylistic, Wes Anderson kind of way. This lifeless feel is aggravated by the movie's unnaturally uniform lighting.

But there are also some truly bizarre visual moments in the film, too. There's one scene in which a woman is out jogging at night, then glances across what appears to be an open field. CUT TO what she supposedly sees: her neighbor's house. And through the living room window we see two (uniformly lit) people having a conversation. Seems straightforward enough. Only it looks as if they used some kind of optical effect to paste a rectangular section of an interior scene of the two people talking onto the outside of the house. Everything is out of scale, and it looks as if someone chainsawed a hole in the house so that we could watch two (uniformly lit) giants chatting.

There are a number of scenes that are marred by small flubs or physical errors that would have caused any other director or editor to discard that scene, but they've been left in because, I'm assuming, that was the only take they had.

The music is obviously just lifted from some library of canned mood moments.

It's as if everyone involved in this film was told, "Okay, people, we've only got four days to write and shoot a feature movie. I know that's not much time, but we're just going to have to do the best we can to get through this thing. If anything goes wrong, we'll fix it in post. Let's get to it!"

I had the impression that the actors were all quite capable, but they're struggling with the awful dialogue and the badly staged scenes. I felt sorry for them.

I gave it two stars because I thought the live sound was pretty good.

The Beyond (2017)

Ambitious but Misguided Effort

[4/10 · 2 March 2019]

This film has two major problems.

1) The first is the faux documentary style. This is an idea that just backfires. The rationalization for the annoying, shaky-cam, cinema-verity style is that a documentary is being made about a character who works at the space agency where much of the drama is set. The problem is that this storytelling frame extends into outer space and even continues long after all the events we're seeing have been declared top secret by the government. It's clearly designed to make the events of the film seem more convincing (we're not watching a science-fiction movie, after all; we're watching documentary footage!) but because what we're seeing so obviously breaks the bounds of anything an actual documentary crew would have had access to, all the conventions of the low-budget documentary (like seldom getting a clear and steady look at anything) just become annoying, and an excuse for inferior production values. Also, the director just didn't get convincing performances out of his actors. I was always aware that I was watching actors trying gamely to sound as if they were in a documentary. They came close, which almost made it worse. The performances ended up falling into some weird uncanny acting valley.

2) The film makes the mistake of introducing a second science-fiction premise about a half hour into the movie--which was just one premise too many for me. The first I can buy into: a wormhole from another part of our galaxy appears in low Earth orbit during what appears to be more or less present-day time. Okay, I can get behind that. We're going to send some probes, and then some astronauts to investigate. Cool. But then there is this long, distracting (and completely unconvincing) diversion into how the would-be explorers of the wormhole have to undergo surgery to have their brains removed and placed into robotic bodies so that they can withstand the gravitational stresses of going through the wormhole. I just found this incredible--and not in a good way. I mean incredible, as in I didn't believe it. I didn't believe that in a world that appears technologically more or less like our own, the military has developed the ability to not only transplant a brain, but read and download thoughts, memories, and motor commands from it.

If gravitational forces threaten to tear apart a human body entering this wormhole, then why would a human brain be spared? It's probably the least robust and most easily discombobulated organ in the human body.

And then--and this is obviously a small nitpick-- as a couple of reviewers here have pointed out, there was this very weird substitution of the made-up word "complexing" when I assume the writer (who was also the film's director and editor--always a red flag) meant "perplexing."

It's a minor gaffe but. . . man it was just bizarre and distracting. Especially because he does it twice!

Singularity (I) (2017)

It's as if someone tried to turn his visual effects reel into a feature film

[2/10 · 4 February 2019]

This movie is inept on almost every level--except one.

The story is a nonsensical hash of ideas lifted from other, better movies. The acting and direction are terrible. The dialogue is laughable.

The only thing about it that's any good is the visual effects. Some of them are quite cool.

I can see how a movie this bad gets made. There's one person credited with the script, directing and even the editing of the film. One Robert Goupa. So you can see how one person might become invested in this idea and lose sight of how awful it is.

What's s hard to believe that anyone would finance such an obviously terrible script. I can only guess that the people who put money into it must have believed that the effects would somehow carry the day.

Westworld (2016–2022)

Corben D'allasse (another reviewer here) Said it pretty well

[4/10 · 18 June 2018]

But I'll add my 2¢ worth.

First off, no one was rooting more for this show at the outset than I. I'm a sucker for anything about AI, what it means to be human--all those interesting themes and questions. And I have a ton of respect for HBO.

But this show is taking very little story and streeeettttching it way too far. It has become so repetitious. How many times can I watch Delores and her posse ride into either a) a group of hombres who, after a tedious speech, she and Teddy shoot to pieces or b) someplace already littered with bodies that has maybe one survivor gasping for water--whom they then shoot to pieces. Always after a tedious, threatening speech.

And I am so sick of their cryptic pronouncements about what they're going to do next or who has to be punished or what great destiny awaits them or who's not worthy to go. I just wish these characters would GET THE HELL ON WITH IT instead of endlessly riding around the desert, hinting about their grand plan, and then killing a bunch of people.

The only "events" in this story are revelations about the past. And even the big revelations--such as the newsflash that the hosts are being developed to eventually serve as vessels for the consciousnesses of human beings who would like to be immortal. . . well, DUH!

Nothing is propelling this story forward anymore!

But that is the sad effect of video games upon modern film. There's no true suspense. Because it's not about what's going to happen next or what characters will choose to do because all they do is shoot each other (much as in a video game). It's now about uncovering Easter Eggs--which is all stuff buried in the past. This show is now about one third flashback. And flashbacks are a bore!

Then there are the inconsistencies of the robots. Sometimes they seem to have superhuman speed, coordination and strength. And when it's convenient, they're barely up to middle-aged human standards. Sometimes they seem to have free will and can plug themselves into an iPad and change their own programming, and at other times they are absolutely bound by their programming. Bernard is just all over the place. How about establishing some rules for this world and sticking to them?

And then there is the problem of whom to root for. There's no one. Originally, you're rooting for the robots because they're so badly treated. But once they get some control, they become even bigger a**holes than the people who built them.

So now I don't really care about a bunch of characters who aren't doing anything to advance the story anyways.



I'm done.

Approaching the Unknown (2016)

A Half-baked Movie about a Half-baked Mission to Mars

[3/10 · 5 March 2018]

Hard to know where to begin with this one. First, I suppose I'll tackle the mission design, which consists of two separate spacecraft, one containing a lone man and the other a single woman, headed to Mars a couple of weeks apart.

Not sure why this would be. Every mission to Mars on the boards consists of at least six astronauts--per spacecraft. Maybe they thought they couldn't keep their hands off each other if they put them in the same spaceship?

But then, this mission appears to have been conceived by a wanna-be astronaut who thought it would be a good idea to maroon himself in the desert as a motivational exercise to help him engineer some kind of machine that turns rock into water. If he doesn't die of thirst, first.

Second. . . did you know there are mysterious and colorful nebulae floating somewhere between Earth and Mars? Neither did I. But apparently there are--and they look great!

That's not nearly as unbelievable, though, as a space station located three weeks from Earth populated by a couple of moping astronauts. But apparently, our Mars-bound spacecraft has to stop there for "supplies"--an utterly idiotic notion for anyone familiar with physics.

Did the writer/director of this movie do *any* research at all? I don't see how he could have. Scanning even the briefest article on colonizing Mars would have upended the premise of this film.

Look, I'd be willing to forgive all the technical inaccuracies if this movie had a strong story or offered some kind of insight into human behavior, but about two-thirds of the way through it devolves into this rambling. . . I hesitate to call it "philosophical". . . meditation on. . . something. Most of what the protagonist spews out is just oddly random non sequiturs.

There are tips of the hat in this film to The Martian, Silent Running, and 2001: A Space Odyssey. The reason this compares so poorly to any of those classics isn't the ultra-low budget of this film; it's the writing.

Good performance by Mark Strong, but he just has so little to work with. At least he eventually gets to Mars. As a viewer, I felt as if I was left on the launch pad.

The Architect (I) (2016)

A strange mix of the familiar and the offbeat

[7/10 · 12 October 2016]

This is a movie with a story that, while far from being a cliché, contains elements we've seen before--the most familiar of which is the ostensibly happy suburban couple whose lives are upended by the intrusion of a stranger who causes the couple to realize that they aren't quite as happy as they thought. In the formula, one of the partners almost always welcomes the interloper, while the other is immediately suspicious. That's the case, here.

This film is billed as a comedy, and it has several quite funny moments, but nothing that's going to have you rolling in the aisles. It's consistently amusing. The performances are uniformly excellent, the characters are well drawn, it's got a really strong soundtrack, it's well shot, and seems to have been done on a tight budget--a budget kept low thanks, in part, to some seamless and smart visual effects.

The movie has an unusual tone--set right from the start by the animated credit sequence. The odd and arresting soundtrack also contributes to the strange tone. I doubt it will get much of a regular release (I saw it at the Vancouver Film Festival) because of its determinedly indy tone.

SPOILER IN THE NEXT PARAGRAPH: The script has some problems. The situation is just never pushed far enough, and the sense of jeopardy to the protagonists--the distressed couple--never becomes as dire as it should be. I was never really rooting for them, never feared for their marriage. Not because I didn't believe it could disintegrate, but because I just didn't care that much whether it failed or not. And the resolution is very weak. In the end, it seems the Parker Posey character returns to her husband not because she realizes that her marriage is worth saving, but because the architect turns out to be a fraud. Whatever happened to her complaint that her husband was stifling her? Of course, if that was the writer's intent--to point out that the couple's marriage held together only because of a lack of better alternatives--then I suppose the point is made. But it doesn't exactly leave you with a warm fuzzy feeling that a comedy is supposed to.

Operation Avalanche (2016)

An Amazing Feat of Filmmaking

[9/10 · 1 October 2016]

This film starts as a comedy and ends as a thriller, a neat trick if you can pull it off, and these filmmakers pull it off with style! This might just be the most ambitious and audacious low-budget film I've ever seen.

At the VIFF showing where I saw it, someone in the audience at the Q & A asked the director if he was a fan of the 1977 conspiracy thriller Capricorn One. Matt Johnson answered that he was, although he didn't find it a terribly plausible thriller. He did admire it for the aerial chase scenes.

I'm in complete agreement with him. The helicopter/biplane chase scene is one of the best chase scenes of any kind ever filmed, IMHO. But, overall, the story is pretty hard to swallow.

What Operation Avalanche shares with that film are some wonderful plot reversals and a thrilling escalation of the stakes as the movie develops. The scheme at its heart is considerably more plausible than the one in the Peter Hyams film. Plus, the dialogue in Avalanche is way better.

The only thing about Operation Avalanche that I found hard to accept was *why* some of the scenes were being filmed and who was filming them (it's a "found footage" movie) but the story was so well structured that I easily forgave that hiccup. There were also a few anachronistic dialogue slips that gave away that the film was written by a millennial (for example, at one point, a character says "And I'm like. . . " instead of "And then I said. . . ", an idiom that didn't appear until about 15 years ago) but that, I suppose, is one of the hazards of improvised dialogue. Visually, the film is very convincing looking.

The director's stories of how he pulled off filming it right under NASA's nose is the icing on the cake. Hopefully, some of those behind-the-scene stories will find their way onto this movie's eventual release on BluRay or DVD.

What a gem.

Victoria (II) (2015)

A good film, just way, way too slow--especially the first hour

[6/10 · 16 April 2016]

This film could have been an eight or a nine. It's well acted, shot and directed. Loved that opening shot. I found that the story events stretched credulity just the right amount for a thriller. And I loved the gimmick of having high school level English the common language of the main characters, who would otherwise be unable to communicate with each other.

The drawback of this hyper-realistic, one-shot filming technique is that everything has to happen in real time--including the getting-to-know-you first hour, which is essential to make the improbable things that Victoria does in the second hour believable. So I understand the dilemma.

The problem is that this first hour of chit-chat and bonding is excruciatingly slow. Watching it was like being the only sober person at a drunken frat party. Clearly, a lot of people (and certainly the critics) didn't mind.

Me, I watched it and at about the 30-minute mark I found myself thinking, "And *that's* why we have cuts in movies. So that it doesn't take two-and-a-half hours to tell a 50-minute story."

Coherence (2013)

Inventive, Suspenseful Film spoiled by Baffling Character Behavior

[6/10 · 7 April 2016]

There's a lot to like about Coherence. It has an original premise. It's well acted and the dialogue has a nice naturalistic feel.

Unfortunately, the conflict and paranoid atmosphere felt forced to me. It's all well and good to have one character, Mike, who has a drinking problem and such hostility toward himself that he assumes that his Doppelganger will try to kill him. But why are all the other characters in this film so paranoid and on edge from the beginning? They're a bunch of self-absorbed yuppies, not escaped murderers from a maximum-security prison.

You're at a dinner party, there's a power outage so the lights go out, and then there's a knock at the door so. . . you startle as if they threw a rock through your window? And then grab a baseball bat before answering? This seems odd, especially when two members of your party have just left to go investigate the house up the street with the intention of asking to use the phone. If it were me, I'd just assume that someone was probably coming to my door to ask the very same thing.

And once these characters figure out that reality has fractured and that there are duplicates of themselves from another reality running around--I still don't understand what they're so afraid of. I mean, obviously that would be a freaky and unsettling situation. But once your doppelganger has demonstrated, by leaving exactly the same note that you wrote on your front door, that he behaves exactly as you do, wouldn't you at least be somewhat curious to meet him or her? Most of these characters seemed reasonably intelligent and rational. Why should they be so automatically fearful of these alternative selves--even after they've accidentally spent time with them and found them to be benign.

I think the writer needed a stronger trigger for all the fear and hostility.

And as several commenters here have mentioned, the camera work is bad. I understand that hand-held is used to add energy and tension to a scene, but there's no excuse for things like that interminable opening shot in which no part of the frame is in focus. It's just annoying.

The Last Ship: SOS (2014) Season 1, Episode 7

I'm With Devilsgerbil on this one

[5/10 · 28 February 2016]

Another episode spoiled by completely unbelievable moments.

For example, they bring the Jamaican Typhoid Mary aboard the Nathan James without any quarantine or examination at all. Sure, she appears to be immune to the plague, herself, but did anyone ever think that she might still be a carrier of the disease? Apparently not. They just pipe her aboard in the clothes she was wearing when they found her. Not so much as a hot shower--even though she came from a boatload of corpses that have died from the plague.

Give me a break. I can understand fudging naval protocol to some degree to heighten the drama but you have to at least maintain the main antagonist in this story--the plague itself.

The Last Ship: Dead Reckoning (2014) Season 1, Episode 3

tasic from Thailand is absolutely right

[6/10 · 28 February 2016]

This show has a great premise, strong, suspenseful story lines and some likable, layered characters. Admittedly, I'm a sucker for apocalyptic plague thrillers.

But after watching the first season, I have to say that almost every episode is sabotaged by one or two moments of complete unbelievability--either in the behavior of the characters or the workings of a naval warship (and I'm no authority on naval procedures, but I can rub two thoughts together).

In addition to the ridiculous moments tasic described (which I also noticed as I was watching the show) there was the moment where the crew of the Nathan James use about ten feet of Reynolds Wrap and a couple of light stands to replicate the radar signature of a ship that must be at least 200 feet long and four stories tall, and another where they try to convince us that a Soviet destroyer doesn't have the capability to detect when another ship floating within view has started or stopped its engines through hydrophones.

In another episode, a small team of commandos is able to infiltrate a Russian warship (who are expecting them to arrive) and sneak through half its length without encountering a single Russian sailor. It was pretty ludicrous.

It's a pity, because these moments just take you out of what could be a very good series and make you say, "Oh, come on. Do you really expect me to believe this?"

The Finest Hours (2016)

The moments of high suspense work, troughs between the waves not so much

[6/10 · 12 February 2016]

The main story worked well. The action scenes and effects were great. I found it quite suspenseful.

The attempts to wring every last bit of emotion out of the quieter character moments were sometimes forced and made me want to shout at the screen, "So get on with it!"--Like the moment when all the freighter crew are aboard the rescue vessel and Casey Afleck is asking Chris Pine if he knows the way back to shore and Pine's explaining to him, "Well the wind was coming from my left on the way out, so I figure if I keep it to my right I'll be heading back in and if we just look out for some lights. . . " Which seems like a reasonable enough plan. However, in the meantime, some of these men have actually fallen overboard and must be dying of hypothermia but Captain Pine stands there brooding over the helm with the boat's motor idling, discussing his plan instead of JUST GETTING ON WITH IT. You can talk and drive at the same time, right Chris . . ? Same with a lot of scenes with fishermen huddled over coffee mugs telling us how dangerous it is to be out there on the water on a night like this instead of just getting the camera out there and showing it (which eventually the movie does; it just takes its sweet time about it).

SPOILER ALERT: So, was anyone else bothered by the fact that, as the rescued freighter crew climbs, one by one, off the rescue boat and onto the dock that they all (with the exception of Pine) appear to be BONE DRY? I mean, some of these crewmen were actually overboard, floundering in the ocean, just a half an hour earlier. And it's been snowing ever since.

So how did they dry off in an open boat? An open boat that, by the way, appears to have the abilities of a submarine in a few scenes. How does an internal-combustion engine run underwater like that? Without air?

Could've used one of those on the freighter.

Brooklyn (2015)

A Film in Which the Protagonist has no actual problems

[6/10 · 19 December 2015]

I had little empathy for the heroine of this story because she has almost no obstacles to overcome. Okay, she's got a cranky boss. Fortunately, her sister has saved up enough money to send her to America--where the parish priest has already found accommodation for her. And, where everybody is nice to her. And where a sincere, kind and handsome man courts her and proposes marriage. Oh, and the parish priest pays for her schooling. And she breezes through her exams because she's smart as a whip.

Then, about halfway through the movie, tragedy strikes. But it's an event so sudden and so far away that there's really nothing our heroine can--or is expected to--do anything about it. So while it's sad and unfortunate, it's nothing she can act on.

Phew! For a moment there, I thought our protagonist might actually have to do something besides accept the next kind offer of assistance.

Returning to Ireland, she's courted by considerate, handsome fella #2. But to make matters worse. . . she's offered a high-paying office job--doing the very thing she aced all her exams in! Will the tribulations of this woman never end? For a while, I was afraid she might win the lottery.

The worst thing to happen to her is that she gets seasick and is locked out of the head. SHE HAS TO USE A BUCKET. Oh, the humanity! Someone should have told the screenwriter that this is an insufficient problem to build a drama around.

Family Affair: Christmas Came a Little Early (1968) Season 3, Episode 7

How Wrong I Was

[9/10 · 16 November 2015]

So I remember watching this series as a child (through the ages of about 10 to 14)--although I have no recollection of this particular episode. I recall clearly that I didn't think much of it at the time. I found the kids cloyingly cute, the score somewhat mawkish and overbearing, and the laugh track intrusive.

I do remember John Byner's hilarious stand-up bit in which he does an impression of Brian Keith, kneading his face at every opportunity as if it were a lump of bread dough. That, and the MAD Magazine satire pretty well sealed the deal for me. I thought it must be a pretty bad show.

I saw a re-run of this episode today, and am a little embarrassed to admit that I was practically moved to tears. Admittedly, the subject of terminal illness in children is a pretty easy way to get me. But I was stunned by the *economy* of the writing. There isn't a wasted word or moment in the whole thing. There isn't a scene that goes a second beyond the instant that its point has been made.

The acting, especially by Keith, was great.

SPOILER ALERT

And that ending (really a twist ending) in which French and Uncle Bill think they've pulled the wool over the eyes of the kids (with the most noble of intentions) only to find out that Buffy has figured out exactly what's going on--all without a word of dialogue. It was, as one of the other reviewers here put it, heartbreaking.

There's never a point at which any of the characters says, "The kid is going to die." There are no tender homilies or lectures to the kids explaining to them the essential tragedy of the biological condition. None of the on-the-nose, expository, radio-with-pictures dialogue that burdens the worst TV dramas I see today: "You know, Ashley, all your father and I--who died in a tragic drug overdose when you were a baby--ever wanted was for you to be happy, even though I could never blah blah blah."

Here, it's all communicated through reaction shots and people doing their best to protect each other from the inescapable and awful truth.

The Measure of a Man (2015)

Like Kafka on Tranquilizers. And Prozac.

[4/10 · 4 October 2015]

I walked out of this film after about forty minutes, so take my comments accordingly.

This film is well directed, acted, and shot. It effectively portrays the hell its very sympathetic protagonist is going through. It's a story worth telling. The actors are superb.

It's just way too slow. Every scene that I saw (and after 40 minutes, I believe that I had seen a total of about six of them--at least, that's what it felt like)was about three times as long as it had to be. The scene made its point, and then just kept going. And going. And going.

I get it: The protagonist, a good and decent man, is being abused by. . . well, just about everyone. I got it after the first 30 seconds of the first scene. All he can do is take his next punch and keep on keeping on.

The first thing I did when I got home was check the total running time for this film: 91 minutes. In other words, about the minimum acceptable length for a feature. And that's almost always the case with films that move this slowly: The writer (invariably also the director) doesn't have enough ideas or story to sustain a feature. So he just stretches every scene long past the point it should be stretched.

What you end up with is a painfully slow, paper-thin film.