jkemmery-753-721518 Reviews

Q: Into the Storm (2021)

Investigative Journalism as it should be

[10/10 · 6 April 2021]

Gives you a peek into the Rabbit hole of QAnon and exposes the players, and even "Qanon" himself. It traces it's origins, it's precursors and the behind-the-scenes players both public and private who struggle with each other to control the narrative and the movement that they have created. Just watch it to find out the real truth for yourself. Definitely worth your time if you are even remotely interested in this movement.

SMILF (2017–2019)

Great start - no politics

[10/10 · 6 November 2017]

I watched the first episode after seeing the advertisements. So far, great acting, interesting story, sort of a peek in to the mind of a single mother, and as a man, that is refreshing. Another reviewer mentioned a "transparent political agenda" without explaining what that was, and I felt compelled to give my view on that. So far, there's no overt politics at all, politics isn't even mentioned. I can only assume that the other reviewer objects to seeing people of different races being romantically and/or sexually involved. If that bothers you then, I suppose you might want to skip this show, and if it does then shame on you! I'm curious to see where this story takes us. Hopefully it'll be another great under-the-radar series by Showtime similar to Episodes or Weeds. In any case, politics isn't mentioned in any form at all in the first episode. There's a lot of talk of sex and vaginas, as well as nudity and sexual situations, which if you ask me, isn't political, nor is representing racial harmony.

The Postman (1997)

The Postman: Much Better than the critcs' opinions

[8/10 · 20 March 2015]

I thought I would write a review of this movie because it's a prime example of how, in my humble opinion, the critics often get it wrong, and really wrong. Don't get me wrong, the movie has its flaws, I'll get to those later, but it also has a couple of pretty amazing acting performances, and quite a few others that are very good. These would not be Kevin Costner's however. Kevin Costner plays 1990's Kevin Costner, which was probably part of this film's undoing with the critics in the first place: they were getting sick of him, and assumed the movie going public was too. An outstanding acting performance is turned in by Will Patton as the antagonist General Bethlehem, a sadistic warlord who rules his "troops" with an iron fist while regaling himself in the pretenses of having culture due to his love of literature and music. Another pretty amazing performance is Giovani Ribisi as one of Bethlehem's minions who is mentally challenged and unstable and makes every effort to ingratiate himself to his superiors, who seem all to willing to ignore him until they can take advantage of his eagerness. There are also very good performances by Laranz Tate, as Ford Lincoln Mercury, the would be protégé of Costner's title character, Olivia Williams as Costner's love interest, and Daniel Von Bargen, as the sheriff of the small town caught in the middle of the struggle between Costner's Postman and Patton's Bethlehem. It's a shame that the critics tend to like to focus on the negative, and in doing so all but dismiss the incredible acting done by these actors, among many others in the film. The film does get a little heavy handed near the end, and the final scene unveiling the statue of Costner as "The Postman" probably sealed the film's fate with the critics. It can be a little slow in parts, but that normally doesn't last too long, and there are a couple of different parables about modern life and human nature intertwining that are interesting and add to the enjoyment of the movie beyond the excellent acting of the supporting cast.

This film could be a study in how American critics in general, and movie critics in particular fail to do their jobs in directing audiences to movies that are worth their time and money. Compare this movie to say, Mel Gibson's "The Patriot", and it is superior in every way, yet due to it's initially poor critical response, still is rated far lower, and yet is a far better movie by almost any standard.

If you enjoy great acting, complex parables and are willing to endure a few slow spots and a bit of over-the-top sentimentality and ego stroking in the last 10 minutes, this would be a rewarding film for you to watch, regardless of what the critics or a few of your clueless friends might tell you. Also, if you're a Tom Petty fan, you will get to see one of his very few live action acting performances, and while not great, is not bad either.

Spring Breakers (2012)

Boring, pointless movie

[1/10 · 14 October 2013]

In the first place, an amateur could edit this down to about 20 minutes without missing a single point in the "plot" of this movie.

4 girls go on spring break. One is a good girl, the other 3 are bad girls who rob a store to get the money to go. Somehow, these amateur college girl armed robbers get away with the crime and use the money to go on spring break. While there they get busted for possession and then bailed out by gangster/rapper/drug dealer "Alien" played by James Franco who utilizes a horrid and wavering Florida White Trash accent. The good girl leaves the party to go back home. The other three are then threatened by Alien's rival and one is shot in the arm. She leaves. The other two along with Alien vow revenge. We hear phone conversations between the girls and their parents where they say they had an "amazing" time and how "this had made them want to be the best person they can be" The two remaining girls and Alien board a cigarette boat, go to the gangster's home wearing bikinis and ski masks, Alien is killed immediately, and the two college girl/spring breakers armed only with handguns (and no place to keep a spare clip), kill an entire house full of armed criminals including Alien's main rival in a surreal scene shown to a soundtrack full of black light effects. That one scene is actually kind of a cool scene, as improbable as it is, but still highly ridiculous.

The final scene shows them driving off in the rival drug dealer's Lamborghini.

That's the plot. I'm not sure what it is supposed to mean, if it is supposed to mean anything at all.

Outside the plot are various scenes of spring break partying, drug use, and one scene where Franco fellates the silenced handguns of two of the girls. It made me cringe, but was memorable. Overall the movie is just slow. Lots of scenes of the Florida sunset and palm trees overlaid with Franco/Alien's horrid accented voice saying in a half whisper "Spring Break, Spring Break, Spriiing Breaaaak Foreveeerr".

I'm all for movies without a real point, and done stylistically, so long as they don't become plodding and boring along the way. This one does, as though we will be treated to some kind of a point. No point here. A few party scenes, some naked breasts, some drug use, some gun play, but no real plot and not enough "fun" to make the movie worthwhile. Either make it fun and pointless or have a point at the end. This movie is boring and pointless.

Happy People: A Year in the Taiga (2010)

Excellent film ... BUT

[9/10 · 31 July 2013]

First of all, I don't want anyone to think that I don't consider this to be a film of the highest quality. It was extremely informative, and overall quite entertaining and well made. My quibble with it is this: not one single person portrayed in the film fit anything that I would consider to be a description of "Happy". In fact, most of them seemed downright somber if not dour the whole time. Perhaps the film makers got the sense that the people who lived in this remote Siberian village were, in fact, quite happy people while they were there making this (extremely well made) film, but that sense of happiness was not conveyed to the watcher. Their lives seemed dismal and harsh at best, and none of them had an attitude about life that reflected anything different than that they lived a dismal life in a harsh and unforgiving world. While it is a look at the way people probably lived several hundred years ago (minus the snowmobiles and chainsaws), I for one do not envy them in the least. I'm sure it can be terribly exciting to encounter dangerous wild animals and harsh unforgiving elements in the wilderness, but without ANY real modern amenities, the lives led by the people in this movie have to be without a doubt what most of us would consider to be mind- numbingly boring. Not to mention lonesome. Months in the wilderness trapping small fur-bearing animals with only the company of a dog or two, does not seem like the making of a "happy" life to me. I was expecting some sense of enlightenment to come across in the film as to why people who live in such bleak and harsh conditions would be in some way happier than the rest of us, but that never came. If you are expecting that sort of enlightenment, then you may be disappointed. However, the film does indeed prove to be quite engaging and entertaining, portraying the inhabitants of this region of Siberia as hard-working, industrious and without a doubt some of the toughest people left on earth. Your deer hunting, Cabella's swag wearing neighbor (or uncle, or cousin ...) only wishes he could be a fraction of the outdoors-man these rugged Russians are. It's likely that if a guy like that were to trade places with one of the trappers in the movie for even a single day, he would not make it through that day alive. It's a film worth watching, but I'm just wondering how on earth the film makers could describe these as "Happy People".