Change Your Image
Redpawn3
Recent Check-Ins
Reviews
Stardust (2020)
Know Your Audience, Ironic This Film Received the Same Reaction As It Depicts Bowie Receiving in America
Not nearly as bad as the reviews suggest.
The greatest strength of this film is it offers just enough to make you want to seek out and learn whole lot more. It's the tip of an iceberg that invites more discovery.
If you already know or think you know everything about Bowie, then you're bound to be disappointed.
Some complain that there is no David Bowie music in this 'biopic' and my response to that is throw the albums on in the background.
Read complaints that the lead doesn't look like Bowie. That didn't bother me at all.
Already searching out more materials to review and supplement this film.
H. H. Holmes: Original Evil (2018)
Had To See For Myself
This is not a place to start.
It's just so misleading with stick footage that has nothing to do with the story, events, narration, era, anachronistic.
I mean, it's so bad I'm 100% sure a middle school book report would be better.
I don't like leaving such negative reviews, but the stock footage was so irrelevant I had to look this up.
Add my voice/vote to the well articulated reviews here. This is bad and I am struggling to meet the minimum character count to simply tell you it's bad.
If you're like me, you will still watch it to see for yourself... but don't. 🤣 watch a different
documentary on Holmes.
The Covenant (2006)
Lacks... Magic.
I'm writing this review 15 years after this movie was released. I didn't know it existed. Had I in 2006, it has the elements I would've though in 2006 were the formula to success. A young very attractive cast. And special effects that were just as good or better at times than Charmed, Buffy, Angel, etc.,
While it's about magic, and spells are cast... there's something missing here. All the pieces seem to be here, but it just never connects. It's still better than many of thee things you can stumble upon these days streaming, but it's not a must see. It's not memorable. The trailer looks promising. But for me, I'm 2021... it just doesn't connect.
The Last Outlaw (1993)
Revenge Western
First, this has a respectable budget and a star heavy cast (or at least those who became stars/highly regarded). Seriously, check the cast out. The quality of all the actors led me to this.
Next, some reviewers call this a made for TV movie, or straight to cable. Okay if HBO is TV, or cable. The point they're trying to make falls short now in 2021 with major films being Streamed first. This doesn't look like a TV show, TV movie, daytime frame. It had the same picture quality as a well produced Hollywood film.
This is a polished film. Nothing static. Excellent professional cinema photography.
Is it entirely original? Of course not, it's filled with solid well executed western tropes. There's nothing wrong with this.
There's not a lot of political depth here, it's an action western. Here the protagonists are all former confederates now robbing banks -but as the title suggests they're Outlaws- and aren't espousing any Pro-Confederate stances. There is no pretense that they're still fighting the Civil War. They're simply a band of thieves following their former military commander.
It's given they're broken men, who lost and have nothing else. This is clarified with some specifics about Graff's life before, during the war.
As a film, it's enjoyable. But the viewer is left with a lot of unanswered questions. Why are they robbing these banks? As I said above, it's pretty quickly established simply because they've got nothing better to do now. There could've been more meat here, but that's not the story they're telling.
Why does Graff 'break' at the beginning of this movie? What is it that really led to this turning point after 30 bank robberies?
We know who Graff was and that he has nothing left, but why has he deteriorated so far? Was this building? Suddenly here we are with Graff seemingly acting out of character from the time he has spent with his troops.
Suddenly Graff wants to blow the bank up with civilians inside. When questioned -respectfully- he strikes his own and says never challenge me.
When pursued, Graff is overly eager to abandon a wounded member. All very unnecessary and uncharacteristic according to the way Eustis reacts.
Reasonable advice presented by Eustis is ignored by Graff. And the reactions of all seem to suggest Graff has crossed the line.
Graff could've kept the money, but it's clear this isn't about money for Graff. Most likely, none of the 30 bank robberies were about money.
Does Graff simply want to cause as much misery in the world as possible? Why is Eustis only waking to this now?
Other interesting questions could've been explored like why is Lovecraft a member of this band? How did he come to earn everyone's respect?
What depth there is then is left to be discerned in the distant and hard stares of Graff and Eustis. Like Lovecraft says, "You boys savvy what you savvy and I'll savvy what I savvy."
Enjoyable movie, it isn't trying to be more than what it actually is.
Zero Charisma (2013)
Darkly Comedic
There comes a point, the climax of the film perhaps when it he joke is no longer funny but tragic... don't give up. The storyline is darkly resonate beyond any fringe 'geek/nerd/gamer' reference. This movie could just as easily been about drugs, or sex, or religion. The changes and growth that occur in character are both dramatic and minute for those paying attention. Recommended to everyone as entertainment and character study.
Day of the Dead: Bloodline (2017)
Change name better reception
I have a strong feeling that if the name was changed, this would be a pleasant low budget fi.
I have seen so much worse than this film, and so much better of course.
Not a fan of the voiceover narrative logs in this film (its fine in many other films).
The title sets up expectations that this film fails to deliver. But it's fine schlock if you remove expectations.
Flora (2017)
Independently Rated
It would be nice if people rated the film on its own merits in their own view as opposed to looking at an overall score, and deciding it's too high or too low and then overcompensating. I'm sure there must be a whole treatise on how to rate a movie, or how movies are rated by a voluntary self-ordained community.
That being said, I think this film is underrated. But instead of giving it a ten, I truly feel I've rated it fairly. The trailer intrigued me. Success in the trailer, though many bad films have great trailers. While the film may not capture the true period in props, or 'expected gender roles/attitudes' it does a great job in its consistency. Some of the acting felt like acting, but then again some of The people I encounter in my daily interactions are just as flat and stilted.
There is definitely tension, and an air of mystery, and anticipation. Not every tense moment has an immediate payoff, but that's what adds to the overall atmosphere and surprises when there are payoffs.
There is definitely something of quality here, and I'd certainly recommended it over many other films that fall into its varied categories 'independent, horror, thriller, period piece, debut, 'student effort', lovecraftian, low/no budget, passion project'.
While I spent a ting bit of time thinking about this film before reviewing it, I fully expect it will continue to haunt me. Why do I like it, what could've been better, how might I have liked to see the story played out differently, what happens at the end?
If anyone is still reading, I'll end by saying again... I think my rating is fair and not over or under compensating. It would be nice if people rated films on the film, and not in hopes of countering somebody else's review.
I've seen 'films' that shouldn't even receive a zero or a one for simple follow through in pumping it out and distributing it (even if a vanity project).
This is a pretty scenic -professional looking- intriguing film that allows one to ponder existing and potential themes.
Jack's Apocalypse (2015)
Disappointing
Was tempted t rate this even lower as some people do, but my fair assessment is it's a 5/10.
It's just not good. I did watch this because it had an overall rating of 6.3+ and Amazon Prime of 3+ stars out of 5.
I just don't feel this movie at all. Slow, plodding, boring. But I think 5/10 is a fair assessment.
The Call of Cthulhu (2005)
Faithful AND Entertaining
I knew what I was getting myself into here. Even though I wouldn't call my self a fan of silent films, I was prepared for this presentation. I think it was a wise choice to present this as such. The musical soundtrack is on point, and while I doubt I will (maybe I will) seek out the score for listening or background...(as I have many other film scores) it served its function extremely well.
I've read the original story, and many a graphic novel adaptation and seen many other Lovecraft inspired or named films/works. I do feel this is a very faithful rendition.
I do recommend it to people who know what they're getting into.
The Dunwich Horror (2008)
Didn't want to lower or raise the rating.
Of course the reason I watched this was because the version I watched (both are on prime) was titled The Dunwich Horror (Not Witches: The Dunwich Horror).
AND because Dean Stockwell is in it. It's okay for what is a TV-movie (I guess). It isn't a faithful adaption, but it has plenty of Cthulhu Mythos info. Absolute favorite part of this movie is the first 10 minutes... the introduction of our heroes, and the overly zealous college student who won't stop talking (long after the Professor has his answer) about Cthulhu.
If you have spare time and don't mind B-type films then go for it. If you're a purist, or a snob, or have to choose your viewing very selectively, skip it.
Cthulhu (2007)
Disappointing
The only thing that piqued my interest was when I saw Tori Spelling and I asked myself what she was doing in this film. Less about Lovecraft and horror than you'd expect from a film titled Cthulhu. Poor choice in naming, except it got me to watch-bait and switch really.
The Creature Below (2016)
Pleasantly Surprised
Read reviews saw the lower overall score. Went in expecting a bad independent low budget film. Very pleasantly surprised. Acting was fine.Personally I found it better than a SyFy movie in acting and special effects. May have inflated my rating based on such low expectations. But still good.