Change Your Image
MJBlazin
Reviews
The King's Man (2021)
Sometimes box office results do mean something
I wondered why this film did not do well in theaters. Top notch cast, prior films did well by same director. Then I watched it on Hulu. It was not dreck, but I had to wonder about the decisions that created the film.
SPOILERS
- why go to all the trouble to have both the Duke's wife and later his son killed by violence. I bought the idea that Oxford got enough incentive from the first death. We spend all the time with Conrad and he dies in a stupid incident. Maybe it is from a particular view of WWI by the Brits. Somehow Oxford did not deserve to sit at the table in the final son without suffering personal loss?
-why cover every major facet of WW1? The scenes with Russia made no sense. They seemed to only be there so Rasputin could be a character.
-how was the bad guy pulling strings across Europe? When the guy that throws the bomb sits next to the evil crime lord, that does not seem like a big organization. As in Godfather 2, mobs have buffers.
-the big climatic moment is so USA gets into the war and then 18 months later the Allies win?
-How did these people get around do quickly? During a World War with no air travel?
I was expecting something like Prisoner of Zenda where Oxford got involved in something that had world impact, but was more organized. I could make a case that the role of English imposter in Zenda would have been a good first Arthur.
Perhaps that is the problem with successful franchises. People that keep stretching the envelope forget why the envelope was there.
The Untouchables (1987)
Exciting movie to watch, but the plot falls apart once you understand everyone's role
Spoiler
I always enjoy watching the movie for the car chases and the dialog. The dialog as the team assembles is hilarious and chilling.
In most movies with plot holes, you can say that the characters do not understand and simply react. The problem in Ronin is that Robert DeNiro's character Sam understands exactly what is happening. He is the only one that does. Once the real target has surfaced and Robert DeNiro knows exactly where the target will be, at about 2/3 through the movie, his job is done. Until then, the plot lines make some sense despite the coincidences. At that point, a hit team waits and takes out the target. Job done. Instead, we get a lot of innocent people killed and wounded in the remaining third of the movie.
The Jean Reno character Vincent does not understand at movie's end that DeNiro used him? Does this movie count as one of Sean Bean's dying character roles? Do we assume a cleaner takes him out off screen?
The Fugitive Kind (1960)
Do quick Wikipedia read of the stories of Orpheus and Persephone in Hades before watching
Spoilers (Maybe)
I cannot add anything to previous comments except to correct one point. Joanne Woodward's is not the character that combines Persephone held in Hell by her evil husband Hades or Orpheus' wife Eurídice. Anna Magnani plays that role. Joanne Woodward has a substantial role, but she is more like a Greek chorus role.
Conspiracy (2008)
More like Bad Day at Black Rick Meets Malone
SPOILERS
The copy to Bad Day was obvious though I initially kept wondering about the equivalent of Spencer Tracy's bad arm. Commenters also threw in First Blood, but I think the second connection is the Burt Reynolds movie Malone. In First Blood, the sheriff was the instigator. Malone features the right wing businessperson with delusions of grandeur buying up the town and creating an army. The jail scene where Cole recounts his investigation of Kilmer's past and recruiting pitch is more Malone. In Bad Day, Sturges made Tracy a complete mystery. For the final scene, the source looked closer to Magnificent Seven ending than anything in the previous two homages. Some prior movie must have the book connection, but I cannot recall it. My guess is Watership Down gives you an idea of the violence ahead.
Val Kilmer is no Spencer Tracy or even Burt Reynolds in this movie. Gary Cole is no Robert Ryan or Cliff Robertson. Jennifer Esposito is no Anne Francis or even Cynthia Gibb from the Malone movie. The henchman is no Lee Marvin or Ernest Borgnine. The director is no John Sturges. If you don't try to make a good movie, why copy a great movie down to so many details? That's just laziness.
The Tomorrow War (2021)
Good summer movie - Chris Pratt does what Christ Pratt does well
The movie has three acts, each of about the same duration. That makes it longer than typical at 139 minutes. The third act is the weakest on logic, but you get the conclusion that you likely expected. The consistent themes are family and sacrifice, emphasis on sacrifice. A lot of people die in the movie and it's probably not good for smaller children. Gore is a little less than the Tom Cruise/Emily Blunt monster war movie. Just about every character that you meet, and it has a lot of them, gets an action scene. They are not just red shirts on Star Trek. For J. K. Simmons fans, you may wonder where he went. He is not a cameo and he is important to the plot.
My guess is the movie would have done fairly well in theaters. This is not the Wahlberg Infinites movie or the Cloverfield Paradox dumped on streaming because the studio did not know what to do with it.
Aerials (2016)
Bad but not that bad
For people that keep claiming this is the worst movie ever made, I have just four words: Future Zone & Samurai Cop. Compared to those two movies, Aerials is Citizen Kane.
Into the Night (2020)
Good series, science more believable than the false drama.
SPOILERS
The series goes pretty fast. Interesting premise. The weakest parts are the dramatic confrontations that are stupid. The Italian major: I thought NATO staff was a prestige slot for European military. He was Italy's best? I hope not. Who brings a hamster to a hospital and how did it survive in a backpack? Having never been in a plane 90 per cent empty when 99.999% of world died, I cannot positively say I would not waste the rest of my life arguing over petty things. It seems unlikely. If a guy just had a massive head injury, would you have him drive, when the vehicle is full of alternatives, one of two rescue vehicles based on a map he memorized? Other dramatic points involve telling someone to do something, he or she questions it as if both of you have not seen the entire world collapse and the delay peels off another character. I am an observant Christian, but likely would not get into a pointless argument over a Biblical point when both parties will find out the real answer, yay or nay, in an hour or two. These people evidently found the same portable radio at Europe's Radio Shack that Jack Bauer used in 24. Personally, hand held device reception at 30,000 feet was always horrible for me. Their radio picks up messages from space stations. If I am worried about an armed foe in a pitch black compartment accessible by a hole, wouldn't I use a use a flashlight to illuminate the dark before I stuck a gun muzzle into the hole? The Belgians must recruit their sky marshals from a different pool than US. For some reason, everyone expects the Belgian sky marshal to be an expert in high end avionics and diesel fuel. I guess the Belgians still hold a grudge against the Germans for WW2. He receives info that an animal survived the attack, good to know if you want to survive, but he can't walk ten feet to investigate because he is a high tech and selfish childless Millennial. Have to respect those German schools: network protocol expert and biology of food expert. MIT: bet your grads can't do that. Someone should explain to him that for something to mutate under radiation, it has to be alive. Gas and picked oranges both contain carbon, but they are both not alive.
Travelers (2016)
Season 3 much better than I expected
The ending of Season 2 was not good in my opinion, ending a key facet of the program. To my surprise, Season 3 worked well, giving the actors good opportunities to show developed characters and the plot freedom to show implications of the science fiction's technology on large and small level. The series has always had plot hole - how does an entity in the future keep control over a situation where its data and comparison points keep changing? Maybe Season 4 will answer.
Bad Blood (2017)
Maybe Canadians are more familiar with Rizzuto story making it clearer
Some of the plot points would be clearer if the writers made clearer the Bonnano family connection. Starting as on offshoot of the Bonnano family, Vito's father made it into a stand alone national crime family of huge scope, wealth and power. The Bonnano family was naturally not too happy about its colony declaring independence, particularly since the Rizzutos made a lot of money supplying the NY Five Families. That conflict is what the first season uses as plot. It explains what Vito was doing in that Queens bar. It also better explains the desire to legitimize the business and why Vito ended up at Supermax. The Feds do not put guys robbing bars or chiseling off snow removal contracts there. This organization had revenues of hundreds of millions per year. The family is just as much old school Mafia as the Corleone family. It had consigliere, underbosses and capos. They are just Canadian.
Declan would not have had a significant role in a real Mafia family so the second season had to go In a different direction.
I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry (2007)
Premise makes no sense
- Pensions don't have beneficiaries. They have survivors. If Larry has orphans, the orphans benefits get paid to the legal guardian, designated by outside legal agreement. - If he had a 403 plan, with no beneficiary, it goes to his estate. See will comment above. The beneficiary is just a way to keep out of probate. - Why not go through the ceremony, trigger the change clause, change the beneficiary, and break up with no one the wiser? - Fraud implies theft of something valuable. The legal cases cited were for people bringing someone into the benefit program that lacked benefits. Both men were already in the program. Possibly if one had died and the other tried to collect spousal benefits, then you might have fraud. - What kind of benefits case has a public hearing?
Lame premise, lame movie. My mistake was accidentally seeing the Wedding Singer years ago and always assuming somehow, someway Adam Sandler will get back to that level. Instead he disappoints in movie after movie. I thought Kevin James might be able to keep him focused. Apparently the only person that can rein in Sandler's worst impulses and actually make a good movie is Drew Barrymore.
My local paper gave it a D and I ignored it. My bad.
Next (2007)
Not great but more going on in plot than many give it credit
Several important plot elements that many reviewers think minor, but make the ending in line with the movie's rules:
- Jessica Biel's character's real purpose, besides the towel scene, is to extend Cris Johnson's powers. Without her, he can't see far enough to have much impact.
- How he normally uses his 2 minute range doesn't really make sense until you see some of the special effects in the factory. He just doesn't view the future; he actually runs Monte Carlo type simulations against it with the weird effect that running the simulations alters the outcome. He just does not duck to avoid capture or a tumbling log. He really tries out various solutions very rapidly until he finds a good outcome. Then he moves on to the next problem. The magic show scene or the rock/salamander trick makes little sense unless he has this ability. He's never really a magician, even with seemingly simple tricks. He always uses his powers to make it seem he has sleight of hand skills.
- With the 2 minute range, he has to physically experience the next step before restarting the process. The Jessica Biel character gives him the power to extrapolate on one solution to a point further in time and repeat the process, over and over. Al Gore and friends do the same thing with their climate models.
- The ending is not consequently just pasted on. It does fit within the weird logic of the movie. Nic Cage, after being with Jessica, recognizes his reach has expanded and attempts to find a solution. After "solving" the problem, he then acts to implement it.
The Fountain (2006)
It's not a science fiction story
Spoiler The initial scenes in the bubble amongst the stars are hard to shake. Probably intentionally, they cloud what is really happening. As noted by only a few reviewers, it's not a movie where the characters span 1000 years and it's really not science fiction. The time span may be less than one year. The Spanish story set in 1500 is really the unfinished book written in the present by the dying wife. The star travel is really Jackman's effort to meet his wife's request that he finish the book after her death.
It's the only way to reconcile how the future intrudes on the past at the temple. That intrusion made no sense until I understood that both past and future are part of a book, and as designated author, Hugh Jackman can finish the story as he wants.
The real plot line is Rachel gets cancer and writes story, Hugh as husband stumbles on to something that might have saved her, Rachel dies before Hugh can try it, and Jackman comes to terms with his failure to save her and then finishes her story.
The Prestige (2006)
Even if you know the "big" trick, it's worth watching
Spoilers follow
Unfortunately I had seen a new Outer Limits episode (nothing about magicians) that was very relevant about sacrifice and moral choices inherent in the science employed. Nolan offered clues very early (depiction of the reason for the trial, Caine's comments about the sailor, and Jackman walking past the hats on his first trek up the hill)combined with the OL episode, on the secret. The more interesting parts were how each man sacrificed along the way, not trying to hurt anyone but themselves, and leaving a lot of damage in their wake.
- Is there a disconnect between Caine's supposed knowledge of the trick, demonstrated to the judge, and his decision near the end? Surely the visiting judge did not take at face value that the machine just "worked."
- Is that how bird tricks really work? Surely, performers can't do that stuff these days. Every time I saw Bale in his studio with those numerous bird cages along the window, it gave me a pause. I'm sure that was Nolan's intention because they are prominent visual and auditory feature of every scene in that studio. It was a great way to demonstrate that performing magic is about life and death.
The Illusionist (2006)
Jessica Biel surprises
Norton, Giamatti, and Sewell are all accomplished, intelligent actors and turned in very good performances, as expected. The question mark for me was Jessica Biel, after just watching Scarlett J, who is supposed to be the much better actress, doing a terrible job in Hollywoodland, another period piece. Doing the math after the end of the back story on the characters' childhoods, I wondered how Biel (who I think is still under 25) could play an aristocrat in her mid 30s when her last co-star was a talking plane. Instead she did a great job. She gave her character some depth and provided enough justification for why two very capable and powerful, each in his own way, men would fight for her. She reminds me of Jenny Agutter, an actress that I've always liked. Hopefully I won't see her in Blade 4 or Stealth 2 and now she'll get an opportunity for better roles.
Broken Flowers (2005)
Babe Magnet @ 30??
Obviously the director was more interested in having Murray show how empty his life was at 50. Unfortunately, without some kind of back story, I found it really hard to believe he had Sharon Stone, Jessica Lange, and Tilda Swinton hot for him in a 5-6 month period when he was 30. I expected to see some spark of something that made him attractive to these fabulous women (he wasn't rich at 30), but I didn't see it. What exactly did Delpy and Lolita girl (and even the flower girl at the cemetery) see in him at 50? I first thought maybe the references to Don Juan and Don Johnson were supposed to gentle put downs against a guy that obviously did not fit the bill. But every character did think Murray was quite the stud with a big rep. Maybe that's the look for 2005: a balding, graying slug in a polyester sweat suit.
Privilege (1967)
Interesting take on the use of celebrity to enforce conformity
I wish this film was available, but I remember several images though it's been almost 30 years since I saw it on a late TV movie. One was the scene of monks in robes jamming to an updated version of "Onward Christian Soldiers." A second was the huge concert in the arena where the archbishop blessed the flags, surrounded by torches (purposely copying Nazi rites). The last were the chants of tens of thousands "I will conform!" with upheld candles, like lighters at a concert encore.
True Crime (1999)
Weak plot, good characters
Eastwood as director shows a lot of characters as complex individuals that other directors would leave as stereotypes. The plot itself, particularly the climax, is pretty ridiculous.