CelluloidDog Reviews

War of the Worlds (2019– )

Metal Dogs, Lies, Secrets, Hate, Incest, and Sex

[6/10 · 24 September 2022]

I liked the idea of an Anglo-French take on an alien invasion. Interesting first couple episodes and build up with very good acting. But with everyone killed, it seems they accidentally killed the rest of the series. At least there was hardly any progress by aliens or survivors, rather it seems like survival of the least fit or likeable. Instead we see melodrama played out with "human" issues such as hate/revenge, teenage problems, divorced couple issues, sex and whatever else makes the human race questionable. Most characters are just not interesting so developing them with problems does not make this series highly enjoyable. Still it is reasonable human drama but barely science fiction. But really, would metal dogs be the advanced mop up of an alien race? Is that all they could do with technology?

Transit (I) (2012)

AKA The Thrilling Adventures of Stupid People

[5/10 · 7 April 2021]

Most thrillers have a couple smart people playing cat and mouse but this one plays off dumb people vs dumb people. In reality, that would probably be the scenario if four low-lifes committed a armored robbery with murder and chased a clueless family trying to re-start a vacation. As not to give spoilers, that is as far as one can go. The low budget of $5M is only $1M more than the dangerous robbers snag, as that low budget seems to be pervasive in everything: directing (Antonio Negret), cinematography, sets, script, etc. It is a mediocre thriller film with one exception of above average acting led by Jim Caviezel and James Farin who plays one nasty villain. But really, the mid-film scene as a silly mom (Elisabeth Röhm) misjudges husband Jim Caveizel who then stranded in the wild decides to smash his phone? Why not call the police? Oh, right, it would ruin the thriller. Ask yourself that. Still, for a low budget, it is a fair pass on a rainy day.

Swordsman and Enchantress (1978)

Bizarre, Confusing but still a bit of fun

[6/10 · 18 March 2021]

Wow! What did I just watch? Chor Yuen and Shaw Brothers produced one of their strangest wushu sword butt-kicking films. Actually make that the strangest out of bizarre. But since it is a unique film, I figure a review might add to the fun. I would not recommend to watch this film as a prime feature but perhaps on a rainy day. Xiao (Ti Lung) plays a lone fighter who plays by his own rules but happens to fall in love with Chen (Ching Li) who is the wife of Lien (played by Tony Liu). The movie is plenty of fight scenes, many mysterious out of the blue especially led by the impish Shiao (Wen Hsueh-Erh) who says she is a boy but of course, obviously not. It seems the fight is for the Deer Cutting Blade. But maybe that is just a mousetrap? We don't really know what is happening in a twisting maze of fighting including with zombie fighters and finally in a world of little people. Or maybe? Lily Li is sexy in her minor role as Lady Feng. The film has a nice light-spirited score, is full of colorful sets and costumes but sometimes I wonder who are the cameramen? One wonders what is the purpose of out-of-focus shots on the female stars. It's a fascinating, but not quite absorbing venture into weirdness. But the fights and lightness of the film make one realize it is a bit out of the ordinary. This movie is really for wushu swordplay movie fans. Rating 5.5

Waiting for the Barbarians (2019)

Artful Mythical Work

[9/10 · 14 February 2021]

Many masterpieces are recognized well after they come and go. Van Gogh sold only a few paintings in his life. No, this isn't a masterpiece of Van Gogh statue, and won't be the of the 2-3 best films of the year, but it is one of the finer drama films in the past several years. And the novel by Nobel Prize winner Coetzee should be seen as a superior gem. However, this film is a gem in its own rights. Beautifully acted by Mark Rylance, Johnny Depp and Robert Pattinson, this film is mythical and timeless as a study of human nature, power, imperialism, and how conquerors dehumanize and how resistance forms. It is filmed in Morroco and is namelessly fictitious in its thematic treatment of the subject. Cinematography and film score are beautiful. Unfortunately, critics today are a bit shallow and people need increasing stimulation and this film does not meet those expectations. As other people may say, it is a slow burn into myth. But very worth seeing for mature audiences who appreciate philosophical interpretations of human nature and conquest. Actual rating 8.5 or the type of film which is a minor masterpiece deserving to win a few awards at lesser film festivals.

A Taxi Driver (2017)

A collective sense of democracy in the best political film of the decade

[9/10 · 7 February 2021]

Korean films often love to cast a goofy 'ne'er do good' character as the hero which in this case is well-played by Kang-ho Song. To his neighbors he is cheap, lazy and does not appear to be the best father or most reliable person. But our ignorant soon-to-be hero runs accidentally into a German journalist also well-acted by Thomas Kretschmann. The two make an unlikely pair that walks into an important chapter of Korean history and an important political statement for human beings today. In the grand sense, this film is about ordinary people rising collectively to a greater good. It is about truth, freedom of the press, and democracy. No wonder it was unbelievably popular in South Korea since it connects everyone to a real event. It is a film worth seeing, another Korean film gem. It's hard to give this either a 9 or 10 but it is among the best 25 historical films ever.

The 12th Man (2017)

Uplifting, inspiration version of the Revenant

[8/10 · 3 January 2021]

Excellent Norwegian film with great acting, tension and graphics of the cruelty of survival and heroism of Norway (as Jan himself would probably say). Perhaps the script could be better but the directing by Harold Zwart and lead performance by Thomas Guilestad was superb. Amateur supporting roles were terrific and realistic.. One of the best war movies of the decade. A minor masterpiece and a message of grit, facing adversity and hope.

Pumpkinhead (1988)

Stylish underrated 80s horror

[8/10 · 26 December 2020]

One of the most memorable horror flics of the 80s was one of Lance Henriksen memorable roles (Aliens was another), Stan Winston did a wonderful directing job in this atmospheric folk myth. Brian Bremer did a nice job of Bunt but the rest of acting was mediocre. Still, the make-up and ambience is excellent for this pre-CGI film. The hillbilly characters are a bit overstated but this adds to the fun. Deserves to be remade. Real rating = 7.5. Critics should not have panned it since it's better than Jason and Freddy.

Love and Bullets (1979)

Maybe the worst Bronson film, overplayed Ireland-Bronson pairing

[3/10 · 25 December 2020]

Charles Bronson and Jill Ireland made 15 films together and some of them are solidly fun films like Breakheart Pass, From Noon to Three, The Mechanic, The Valachi Papers. Yes, in real life, they love each other but sometimes too many films together runs into stale acting and dead ends. Jill is less than mediocre with her fake southern drawl. Bronson is flat in his role. In a supporting role. Rod Steiger plays the chief mobster but isn't given much of a script. In fact, the screenwriting was just terrible. It is a shame since Switzerland is a terrific setting. Bronson shines best in his western roles. Unfortunately this one is unimaginative, poorly written and forgettable.

Dunkirk (2017)

Tedious cold film

[6/10 · 25 September 2020]

I agree with many reviewers here. The film isn't as good as the critics think. Shocked it got so many award nominations and definitely not Nolan's best film. Good: The technical achievement is stunning, cinematography is excellent, but not much of anything else. Directing was above average. Bad: waste of talent, poor character development, tedious, uninteresting subplots. Nice images without much meaning. Sorry this isn't on the top 10 war films of all time. Maybe the best war film of its year but falls short of other films, even recent ones such as Fury. Recent classics such as Saving Private Ryan or Black Hawk Down are better. And definitely short of classics like Patton, Apocalypse Now, Das Boot,or Ran.

Locke & Key (2020–2022)

Ok could be better but falls off a cliff

[6/10 · 28 February 2020]

Episodes 1-6 roll along well and then what happened? As many point out, it suffers from mediocre writing, directing and continuity at episode 6-7. Case in point, Tyler rescuers Bode from Dodge around episode 4...so he knows who Dodge the Well Lady is. So how does he start hanging out with her??? I can't say more otherwise it's a spoiler. And then Sam escapes from jail in Seattle (remember that's where the family lives) and he walks to the house in Massachusetts??? In a day? No magic key. And then they can't figure out that the best key to use to stop Sam is the music box key which would control Sam. You are kidding me, right?? Basically you get my point. Ow! That was painful. Like painting a masterpiece (well, not quite) and taking a break to find your little brother splattering paint all over the canvas.

The Knight Before Christmas (2019)

Want to like but so weak all over

[2/10 · 28 November 2019]

Sometimes a movie isn't worth making or watching. Sometimes we think a Christmas movie has an excuse to be bad since it's a naive family movie. In reality, It's A Wonderful Life, Home Alone, Miracle on 34th Street, A Christmas Story or...even Bad Santa are superb examples of Yuletide quality. Acting was weak or almost horrible with a poor, uninspired script; only Sir Cole's lines hold any chance at redemption. Vanessa Hudgens is so likable and cute but drowns in a flood of terrible lines and expressions. Joshua Whitehouse stays a bit above water as he occasionally is given moments of light wit and comedy. Production quality and direction is very weak. One feels like it's a pharmaceutical commercial, so innocuous and bland. Cinematography is...well, nonexistent. I would strongly recommend watching the very fine Kate and Leopold - with Meg Ryan and Hugh Jackman - which Knight seems to copy inferiorly adding a Christmas flair. 2.5/10.0

The Woman in Black 2: Angel of Death (2014)

Like watching a movie in the theater but someone forgot to turn the projector on

[4/10 · 29 June 2019]

The audience will ask if they need glasses or go to their eye doctor. As someone else said, about 70-80% of the movie isn't visible. There is no plot either so even if you can't see anything, there isn't anything. Isn't much of a horror film, we barely see any ghost (is there?). Plot doesn't make sense since why take the wrong person (at the end?). Only redemption is acting is fairly good. Ah, one wishes for the old Hammer films. If this is a new Hammer horror flick, it isn't fun anymore.

A Quiet Place (2018)

Solid horror film - but usual flaws

[7/10 · 19 May 2019]

What makes this flick good? Solid acting, directing and suspense. However, as with most sci-fi or horror flicks, it has the usual wonder-why-they-do-stupid-things moments. In fact the whole premise is the stupidity of not being able to fool or kill the creatures. Yes, you can shoot one with one bullet. Not so tough. And they hunt by sound, right. So if you throw a rock far off, you can do the old distraction trick. Why one has to scream and sacrifice one's life makes no sense. You can scream and then run away and fool the creature since it can't know your present position but has to go on to where it last heard sound. Can't even do sonar. That's less effective than little brown bats. Oldest trick in the book is to distract or fool the blind. So why didn't people do that? Maybe people are really dumb. Or the people who came up with the idea are not that bright. And finally, given the sensitivity to sound, yes, of course, that's must be related to the creatures' weakness. Why some military personnel or scientist didn't test and try to eliminate creatures that way. If such creatures really exist, they would have easily been eliminated. So like the usual teen horror movie, we have to question the weak premise of such creatures becoming a dominant specie. Can't happen, sorry, it doesn't make sense. Hence the whole film isn't believable. But who notices?

Black Panther (2018)

Spectacularly Mediocre and now nominated for Academy Awards best picture??!

[4/10 · 23 January 2019]

Hard to really pick a rating for this Marvel entry. All the clamor about one of the best Marvel films fails to meet objective standards. But money talks, very loudly! BP had a production budget of $200M and a marketing budget of $150M. It's like spending a few million for a Formula One racing car but getting a midsize Toyota. Not to say it's a bad film, but it could be so much better on so many fronts. I can understand Oscar nominations for special effects, visual effects and makeup/costumes. All deserved. Maybe even cinematography.

But consider several things: acting is very average, script is a bit on the weak side, directing is average. It's a very expensivemaybe abive average superhero flick. But money speaks and you can market a film. If you show it in every theatre and bring it to attention of Academy members, you win. For example, think about the success of McDonald's: mediocre food but outstanding marketing and presence. So everyone wants a below average burger. In today's world, sometimes we fail to think for ourselves.

The cultural impact on black America is immense, but that doesn't mean it's outstanding. It's interesting as it creates a whole new world in Wakanda. Which is why some critics rate it highly. Much like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings, it follows a spectacular imagination. And think of some films that did that and failed overall: The Last Airbender, has been the worst. But that's comparison with LOTR ends. The acting, script and directing in LOTR series was much better. I rate BP only a 4 but I could give it a 5, 6 or maybe a 6.5 at its highest. But given all the overly optimistic voting, I'm downgrading it.

BP' cast led by Chadwick Boseman as T'Challa and Michael Jordan as Erik really wasn't strong except the female roles of Lupita Nyong'o, Letitia Wright, and Danai Gurira were stronger, despite average scripts. It's solid entertainment but not Marvel's best. By comparison of superhero films of the same period, compare Wonder Woman. It's superior in many ways except David Thewlis as Morgan/Ares or the supervillain. You gotta be kidding, right? Somewhat not convincing. Patty Jenkins did a better job at directing than Ryan Coogler. But who's paying attention?

Radio Free Albemuth (2010)

Wow! Reviewers and film crew must be on Grass From Aramchek!

[3/10 · 11 January 2019]

Like a few others here, I found this film to be amateurishly impoverished. Dick's book isn't considered to be among his better works so one needs to be addicted to him if the review is least a 7 or higher. So director Simon had little material to work with. Or fascists will rate a pro-fascist film high marks. Here's why it's an awful waste of nearly two hours (did I just do that?): awful acting where the best acting was by the young female FAPer and the incarcerated former preacher at the end. Actors couldn't display any emotions but kept robotic faces through the film. Horrible script which seemed silly at times. Terrible sets on a budget. Amateur special effects. This film, in fact, was stopped in mid-production since it ran out of its low budget and finally took another 3 years to finish after getting more to pull it through. Unfortunately, that should have never happened. In the end, one of the worst sci-fi's to be made that takes itself seriously. That is, B sci-fi classics don't seem to have that same sober feeling, rather we rejoice how bad they are. There is no joy in Mudville here. For this film, it's more about burying a dead rock. Lifeless film.

Hold the Dark (2018)

The Dark Already Came

[6/10 · 29 November 2018]

A novel turned movie where unfortunately both fall short. I didn't read the novel but watched the film. And then I read background on the novel and reviews. So I actually got a very good grasp of the plot (which confused most people). Overall, it falls tantalizingly short of a dark, gothic thriller but somewhere in the realm of psycho-thrillers that lack soul. It's a beautifully filmed film in the cold wilderness of Alaska with fairly good acting. But it really falls short after that. The main criticism of viewers is the unclear plot. Director Jeremy Saulnier does a stylist job but one that has too many holes. He later explains he intentionally left a few holes in the boat but on the other hand, you don't want the boat to sink. And it does sink a bit in this case. Jeffrey Wright does much of the superb acting but most of the rest of the acting is limited and somber. Julian Black Antelope plays Cheeon in a dramatic mid-point standoff but aside from that, it's plain. One can explain the dark secrets of the couple (Medora and Vernon) but in the whole context of the film, many things don't make much sense. Why does Cheeon go on the spree? What's the sense of first two cops getting killed? So if secrets are to be kept, why go to extremes? It's not the irrationality or dark side of human nature that needs to be coherent but rather what path the director wants to take. There are similar such movies that take a more coherent path. This one walks in mud, not even snow. The final unclear secret, why drag the body at the end? What purpose does that serve? The wolves live more coherent sensible lives, so the comparison of wolves and human isn't quite valid for this film. That theme supposedly keeps the film (and book) together but it fails. It's a fascinating analogy but its comparing apples and oranges in particular, when your humans don't really act like wolves. So this film claims to make sense if one has insight from the novel but neither actually make much sense. On another note, the novel received good but not great reviews from readers. Critics liked the book and movie more than readers or filmgoers. That says the critics were probably off the mark. Or both book and movie critics were in an obfuscated dimension. One has to question whether the author (William Giraldi) or director really understood what they were doing. It's stylish and Wright does a fine acting lead but the rest of the film is a cold Alaskan mountain fog.

Jack the Giant Slayer (2013)

Very Underrated - What Critics Didn't Understand

[9/10 · 16 October 2018]

After watching this film a couple times and reading reviews, I have to come to the conclusion that many critics don't watch movies and perhaps people fell for the critics misjudgment. According to critics on RottenTomatoes, etc, Jack the Giant Slayer falls into the mediocre realm badly over budgeted. That's the only thing I think they got right. To spend $195M or so on this film simply wasn't worthwhile. Easily less could be spent on a high quality film. But that's the risk in show business. Now let's get down to the real (good) stuff.

First, there was the claim this movie wasn't a family movie since it was too scary. You have to be kidding. Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit Trilogy were far more sinister and traumatic to watch. Orcs, trolls and goblins are not pretty sights and they do the same as the giants in this movie. So strike one for the critics. This film actually is produced by Peter Jackson and New Line Cinema so it fells into the Rings and Hobbit series.

The attack on it as a non-family movie with sinister overtones isn't true. There are witty, humorous parts of the film. Perhaps not as much as there should be. So, yes it could be more fun with a couple more lines or characters.

Critics are attack it for a weak script. I don't think they listened or followed the movie. Rather the script is very well written and conceived. It's almost poetic. It opens and ends with a creative story-telling verse and the script flows well.

Direction and special effects were terrific. Acting by the main roles was reasonable, not great, so it does fall short on this account but supporting roles were terrific. If you liked Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, this apple doesn't fall too far from the tree. Definitely worth watching. An 8 or 9 out of 10. (( just to boost the ratings). But, it could have been done for less money.

Next Gen (I) (2018)

Excellent Animated Feature with Complex Character

[8/10 · 26 September 2018]

Like some people, I found this film was at times hard to watch due to mostly the protagonist, Mai, a little girl who is annoying, spoiled, violent, moody, angry...well, you get the picture. How can you make a film with an unlikeable main character? Compared to Momo (the best character!), her dog, who is quite adorable with the running joke line...in every door. The first 20-30 minutes was unclear as the movie struggles to find its plot. I wasn't sure if I'd watch it through since the robot 7723 was unexplainably violent and senseless in purpose and Mai was the spoilt brat. But the movie moved on, the characters developed and changed. So some complaints or negative reviews on IMDB probably were by those who paid more attention to the start of the film rather than the purposeful last 1/3 of the movie. The robot 7723 makes us realize that our own biases of selective memory make us who we are and how we react to certain situations. 7723 becomes more human-like and dislikes violence after more positive experiences while Mai finally admits she is troubled. In other words, we see a transformation of characters. Due to violence, complex characters, language, this film isn't really for kids under 10 years old. I think it's more a 11+ movie that builds on a teenage girl's realization of who she is. When 7723 shows her how ugly her personality is, she initially denies it. But 7723 makes her realize she can't be angry and ugly. She learns to grow despite losing her best friend. Unfortunately, one can watch half the movie and not appreciate its message since that isn't realized more until the end. In a sense, it's a bit like Disney's Frozen. What we thought should happen doesn't, and then it all seems very very clear. It has great references to Blade Runner and Terminator I and II. The latter film also evokes a similar plot: the brat and the protector robot. In Terminator II, John Connor was a brat who was capable of creating trouble. He hated his foster parents, thought his mom was crazy, was capable of stealing things, etc. And of course, he would become the hope of the resistance. The Terminator robot become his protector and best friend. However, John Connor wasn't as annoying as Mai. I think the director/writers could have toned down her negative character without losing purpose. They could create a character who can redeem herself but don't go over the edge. Otherwise the animation was very good despite this film heading the wrong direction at times. So, one can rate it in three parts: 5 for the first 1/3, 8 for the middle and 7 or 8 for the end. At the end, it redeems itself like its protagonist.

Frozen (I) (2013)

Hokey, Dated Disney Musical saved by Olaf the Snowman

[5/10 · 11 July 2018]

Heard so much about this movie so I decided to watch it thinking it would be marvelous. But it's really quite the opposite. I think it might only appeal to little girls but for no other reason than the two protagonists are two princesses, Anna and Elsa. That could make for a great premise. But.

So here's where the movie fails. First the humor is weak. We have to tolerate the Swedish accented storekeeper Anna runs into. Or Anna'a awkwardness and ramble substitutes as humor. Along with the lack of likable animal characters, this film has none except possibly Sven the reindeer and the one saving grace, Olaf the snowman.

Animation is very mediocre compared to what we see from Pixar (Disney!?) and Dreamworks. Add a weak script and way too many songs (about 5 in the first 20 minutes). If you don't have a good song, don't throw in 3 bad songs just for the sake of it.

Finally its plot is something from the 1940s or 1950s.

So it's 5 out of 10. 3 for Olaf.

47 Meters Down (2017)

Two Stars for the Sharks - Zero for the Humans

[2/10 · 8 February 2018]

OK. I get to see some awesomely big great white sharks. But this reminds me of another fantasy (unrealistic) adventure film, Gravity. That is, the genre of films which are unrealistic ever pretending to be realistic. The same thing here. If we want fantasy, then make it so. Like Sharknado. Let's have some flying sharks that leap out of the water to take the shark cage down.

But really, what makes this film bad is 1) acting was poor, 2) directing was poor, 3) script was poor, 4) scuba and realism was laughable. Rocket in Guardians of the Galaxy is more believable. And cooler.

The most laughable part was having two divers talking, screaming, kicking and swimming around...in how long? Did they say 20 minutes top? They would have run out of air in 10 minutes. Amazingly, they hardly considered ever shutting up to conserve air. And how did they swim around that well without fins? Don't they get pain in the ears just falling quickly to 47 m? Or did they just go deaf?

This movie should be fed to the sharks. Score: Sharks 2, People 0

Sing (2016)

If you love to laugh, cry and listen to great songs. Not what the critics say...

[9/10 · 4 January 2018]

Simply outstanding(!) and far better than what professional critics and amateur reviewers say. It's really one the best animated films of the decade. If you don't want a musical but prefer superhero fighting, ok, it's not for you. But in terms of originality, laughter and songs, this is the best animated film. I've seen probably more films than most critics and seen the best, so trust me on this. I will go through some critics points which I don't think are valid.

1. Originality and moral theme: Sing has multiple storylines and they move quickly so it's hard to focus on one moral line like the Lion King or Monsters, Inc. But each story has a terrific line which are not necessarily trite cliches. For one, Rosita is an overwork mother pig with a ridiculously large family. Frankly, I have never seen a story line like that since one of those movies from the 1960s or earlier (e.g, Yours, Mine and Ours). But it's a funny take on a multi-tasking mom who wants a life outside homemaking. Meena is the shy elephant who can sing but is afraid...I don't know any movies that carry that story line unless one means the reality shows where we find a Susan Boyle or two. I have not seen a Buster Moon dreamer in a movie in a long time. You could compare the storylines to one of those 70s movies on dancing but this is different. Ash fires quills when she sings, Buster acts as a carwash mop, Ms Crawly is always losing her glass eye. Tell me you have seen all that in other movies. I'm sorry critics. This is a very original film. And the storylines are terrific: overcoming fear, shyness, learning to stand on your own (from your boyfriend), learning not to just be an overworked mom, trying to face up to your dad, live up to your dad, dream. I could stop there, but I wonder what people missed?

2. Humor: people seriously thought it wasn't that funny? Miss Crawly's glass eye? Buster Moon and the moon? Gunter dancing? Rosita in the supermarket? The baboon Mike attacks? Buster wakes up in...? It has far too many funny moments, almost nonstop especially with some characters.

3. Songs: it's a unique film since Reese Witherspoon, Seth MacFarlance, Tori Kelly join up with Jennifer Hudson, Stevie Wonder and Ariana Grande...and the songs are terrific.

Aside from that, the animation and direction were terrific, as good as any animated film. The characters, squids and the flood were exemplary in outstanding animation.

Ok, the plot was relatively simple even with the running storylines. If you don't like to laugh, don't want to hear a great soundtrack and songs, and a fast-paced movie, then this isn't for you.

The Circle (I) (2017)

Seriously Waste of Talent

[2/10 · 15 December 2017]

I have not seen a laughable movie in a very long time. IMDB users rate this currently 5.3 perhaps only because people like Emma Watson and Tom Hanks. That is generous and I'm more inclined to agree with the lowly 16% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. But seriously, from a major production perspective, it has to be perhaps the worst movie of the year. Almost everything was sadly wrong, or more accurately laughable. If it was made as a comedy satire, it might work but by taking itself seriously, it's like taking PeeWee Herman seriously. Emma Watson was a decent, popular child actress (Harry Potter series) but really doesn't have true thespian skills. Director James Ponsoldt makes a great Thanksgiving turkey here. Everything is wooden. Supporting actors are seriously bad. Karen Gillan plays her best friend Annie almost shines in her bathroom privacy chat. The most notable acting role was by the late Bill Paxton (he died before the release of the film) who played the protagonist's father. Tom Hanks can't save this film. The script is weak and tooooo predictable. Adding to the laughability is Danny Elfman's soundtrack who had a memorable Edward Scissorshand soundtrack but this one sounds like a xylophone played by a 6 year old. The problem is the soundtrack and supporting acting just gives a lack of seriousness. The stage presentations a la TEDx only worked for Tom Hanks in his initial SeeChange presentation which was fascinating but anything that follows crashes and burns. For a superior look at how we engage dysfunctionally with technology and social media, take a look at Black Mirror's episode "Nosedive" which I would rate a 9/10. Much superior and should have been made into a feature film. Not this dull turkey.

The OA (2016–2019)

Anti-Science Mystic Afterlife Makes for a Weird Slow-Paced Drama

[6/10 · 19 December 2016]

The OA is a fascinating, strange adventure that ventures into the truly, truly weird. If you don't believe how weird it is, just watch until you see the first "movements". Or google "weird movies" and try to compare with a David Lynch film.

It's a strongly anti-science movie that gets its facts wrong (e.g, Copernicus and the flat world which isn't true) and creates nonsense of nothing. It isn't science fiction but rather more closely resembles a slow-moving drama borderline fantasy.

It does have strengths: fairly strong acting and good editing. Some of the characters were fairly interesting too. But the script and story line is unclear and weird. It takes twists but painfully goes nowhere like the years in captivity. In reality, nothing would bring these characters together and the oddness of the movements weakens any credibility as OA loses her credibility in the last episode of the way through.

It draws in viewers who want to believe in angels and afterlife. But it is rather unconventional in its approach. It teases the audience into thinking something might happen but almost nothing really does. The original 8 episodes really could have been about 4-5 episodes since almost half the time nothing happens and useless dialogue wastes screen time. Some people call it character development but it's hardly that with the exception of Alfonso, Steve and BBA.

I don't think this series will have much success elsewhere since it is very middle America. And perhaps that is what attracts people with its references and scenes involving character-building scholarships, angels, broken families, scenes in a school cafeteria, wholesale stores or hotel breakfast room. It is an ordinary attempt to look extraordinary. Like selling broken glass as diamonds.

Real rating 5.6-5.9 due to the painful slow pace and loss of self.

The Untold History of the United States (2012–2013)

Brilliantly Done Revisionist History

[9/10 · 30 November 2016]

For those aware of history, politics and culture, we need to step back and see what our world really is. You will have both sides praising and condemning this series. Conservatives are angered by an unpatriotic view. Revisionists are pleased by a view but claim it is told and unoriginal.

Exactly what does untold mean? Some people scoff and say, well it has been told enough. But the definition of untold isn't "never told". Perhaps "Less So Stories" might come to mind. Less Told is the meaning in this case. If you were driving a car and met in an accident, of course, it's the other guy's fault. You don't tell the other driver's story. Thus, Stone offers instead an apologetic version of history.

In the world view, however, this film isn't really leftist or liberal, but probably slightly left to the center. Most Americans are on the right. Just like Saudi Arabia is on the right economically and socially, the US is far right economically and slightly left socially. Left socially and left economically are, for example, Scandinavian countries. Australia is socially on the left. China is economically right (like US, very capitalistic).

In the world view, this series is actually slightly left. Not much off the center, really. Most people in the world will see this as fairly accurate but it's hard for traditionalist Americans to swallow.

But it's also has some small lumps that make it sometimes hard to swallow. For one, Oliver Stone comments on a traditional political leadership history, not a social or economic history. For the most part, this series is quite truthful although just like any version of history, it represent opinion and conjecture. Some historians like to view history as a series of movements or struggles. Stone views history as shaped by powerful individuals. But often, it isn't single figures but movements that shape the world.

Another lump. Stone also uses his familiarity of movies as his comfort zone. Showing clips of films to depict history may not be the best way to suggest actual political course of events but how we interpret them. History and films, after all, are merely opinions and interpretations of events. Oliver, nice effects to show those clips, but they are movies. Give a few more facts to back up the argument.

I wish Stone took this one step towards understanding movements. He makes the case at times for that. Celebrating Wallace or JFK as a hero for the common person and for world peace. But what drove Truman or Reagan the other way? As Stone mentions, it's often who one listens to. Advisors and those closest to power often help shape history as presidents cannot entirely shape policies on their own.

Stone may well do one step better by focusing on the influence of movements. How the wealthy classes or hardliners/militarists shape American foreign policy. Noam Chomsky who was cited in this series, often depicts history as class struggles. At times, the common man seeks redress from oppressors and at other times, the wealthy classes dominate control. Historically, due to American capitalism and lack of upheaval, it has been the wealthy classes that control the nation's direction. The recent electoral victory of Trump over Clinton confirms the power of wealth. Stone's historical message is: those who are closest to power and wealth wield greater influence and will seek to protect their interest. Those who don't want change and stand to lose the most, will resist the changes sought by the middle and lower classes. Stone implies JFK made enough enemies and mysterious assassinations of the 1960s were instigated by those resisting change.

But Stone brings up excellent points of what truly is important: the welfare of ordinary people around the world. Therefore, he vilifies Nixon for getting more Americans killed than Johnson in Vietnam. He points out that Johnson dropped more bombs on Vietnam than the US did on Germany in WW2. Some estimates as many as 1.5 to 3 million civilians died in Vietnam. The same is true for the US invasion of Iraq by G.W. Bush were again, nearly a million were killed.

Do American presidents have their priorities wrong killing people in a third world country that cannot hurt the most powerful country? Is it really for the protection and security of America?

In summary: a brilliant, provocative, slightly flawed series worth seeing with an open mind.

Chronicles of the Ghostly Tribe (2015)

Underrated, very good entry into sci-fi fantasy

[8/10 · 18 October 2016]

OK...real rating is about 6.7-7.2. But the ratings here are notoriously and this film is better than that. So I am balancing the ratings. The critics reviews were actually fairly favorable compared to viewers. Some people trashed it (read other comments) saying this film is inferior to Transformers in depth and rips off Indiana Jones, Godzilla, etc.

First, I'm not sure what this film and Indiana Jones have much in comment. Not much except for an archaeological dig at the start. No Indy film dealt with monsters. Second, it has little to do with Godzilla other than old bones which suggest dinosaurs but there are no dinosaurs (or I though dragons at the start). And I have not seen another movie with red or blue bats. In fact, the scenes in the caves and mountains resembled more Lord of the Rings or the Hobbit. I'm expecting Smaug to appear somewhere.

So what does it really rip off? Not much but probably the general Hollywood investigative conspiracy-type film where a government bureaucracy, in this case Bureau 749 is much like Area 51, Roswell or Project Bluebook. But no one got that. The other film is remotely resembles is actually Tremors where you have a group of people out in the desert surrounded by creatures. A bit different. We see mysterious characters like Mr Wang, the Professor and Bureau 749. Not sure which Hollywood film produces those types. But most people naturally stereotype, if it's Chinese, it must be copying some western film since Chinese are unoriginal. So old prejudices can affect how a film is rated.

One interesting thing about some recent Chinese films is the depiction of old-style communism. Films today are generally but loosely scrutinized by the government. It seems to depict the old communist lifestyle as "glorious" but that is a bit tongue-in-cheek since the main character Hu Bayi is overworked at the beginning. More the opening of the film is a social commentary on hard labor as a virtue of the 60s communism in China. One almost senses a labor camp where the government tries to cover up an accident.

Otherwise, it's really a interesting cross between a science fiction and a love story. The depth of the plot unwinds and is confusing halfway through. But that is because the main character Hu Bayi himself is confused. He doesn't know he's part of something greater until it's quite late. And we never really find out why the Professor and his daughter were on the archaeological dig until the end. It's a far more complex plot than Transformers. Really! For the person who thinks Transformers, a film made for kids (mostly young boys), is more sophisticated.

The opening scenes which are comparable to some as an Indiana Jones film, but I think any movie that deals with caves (a huge genre that started with Journey to the Center of the World) is fun and riveting. The library scenes are also mysterious and fascinating. One issue is that awkward introduction and explanation of the ghostly tribe. It didn't go down smoothly. And again, the complexity of the plot is hard for many to follow. Hence, some criticism is natural.

Regardless, the product really is a one-of-a-kind production that is entertaining but perhaps too deep in plot for many viewers who just want monsters or a simple action plot. So some say, it's great for action. But it gets bogged down with the plot (or the love story). But many Chinese action films do involve a love story somewhere. And gorgeous sets and cinematography. In that sense, this film does achieve all three. And it's well acted, all the leading roles were well done. And it does have great CGI (monsters were great!) which is rare outside Hollywood (and some French films).

Overall, this film far more complex than Godzilla or Transformers. I'm not sure how that comparison was made. Probably a bit too esoteric for an action-craving audience. Definitely worth renting.