Change Your Image
kevintrice-96836
Reviews
Civil War (2024)
Not the movie you expect and that's not a compliment
In Civil War, the viewer is not shown any background as to why America is fighting itself. Even though we have our differences, we have always come to a common ground in the past. Nobody truly wants a second American Civil War, so what event or events could possibly be so awful that we are driven to kill our neighbors? Well, the movie cheats a bit and doesn't tell you. Nor does it tell you how long we've been fighting, what the two sides are fighting for, or really anything else except that Dunst's character has emotional scars from what she's seen. When the battle scenes occur, you don't know who to root for. Even the president is hinted to be a dictator by him serving a third term but FDR served three terms and one month. Nobody called him a dictator. Am I rooting for him to get killed in the end or am I not? This may have been done to make the viewer feel unsettled and to that end, we do. At least I did. However, we also don't get a chance to get emotionally involved in what's happening. To show an effective civil war film, to show events that no one wants to occur but only do as a last resort, we as the audience need to know more and we don't.
A more effective way to tell this story would've been something like showing members of the army who were once allies being driven to the point of now pointing weapons at one another. Friends turned enemies. Young men and women who we know before the war dying to protect the flag but have a different interpretation of what the flag represents. A cautionary tale of what could happen in our country if we fail to find a common ground.
What was made instead was essentially a film that highlights photojournalism in war. I found myself thinking that the film could just as easily been set in Afghanistan or Iraq instead of the United States. They go from place to place and you see death, destruction and a dystopian America. The occasional hanging body. But we've seen that before in any zombie film. Abandoned malls, cars filling the streets. But the Walking Dead isn't scary because it can't happen. A civil war of course has happened and in theory could again. The best films about the Cold War showed the nightmare that would unfold if cooler heads don't prevail. Show that.
In reality, somebody would probably have to make a series about a second American Civil War to thoroughly show the lead up to the war, it's causes, the war itself, and how it affects those not fighting in it and their families. If that's what you're looking for, skip Civil War. This was such a great opportunity to show we are and that even if we differ on topics to not let it get to the point where we're killing Americans. It didn't deliver and I'm afraid anyone who tries to tell this story now will be accused of ripping off this film. Believe me, if you tell the story correctly, they won't be.
Alien³ (1992)
The third installment is quite disappointing
Why? Oh let us count the ways. For starters, it unceremoniously kills off two great characters from the second film (really three because what you see from Bishop this time...he may as well be dead). But just because I enjoyed those characters doesn't necessarily mean that Alien 3 is a poor film. So I guess I can kinda maybe sorta forgive the film for that. However what I can't forgive is the plot holes. How did a face hugger get on the Sulaco? There is no indication that the Queen was carrying an egg when she boarded the Sulaco. Rewatch Aliens and you won't see her with it so how did it get there? She didn't lay the egg because she didn't have her ovipositor to lay it as it was destroyed. So...yeah...how did that happen? But even if it somehow did, the audience only sees one egg in the opening titles and that facehugger attaches itself to Ripley's face. Where does the other facehugger-the one that attaches itself to the dog (or cow if you're seeing the director's cut) come from? Did I miss something there? Also, when Kane gave birth to his alien in the first film, maybe an hour or two had passed before it came out of him. In this film, a much longer time period passes before Ripley gives birth to hers. Does the alien only emerge when the plot deems it so?
Plot holes aside, the film simply doesn't have characters you care for or even easily distinguishable ones. They're all British, they all have shaved heads, and dress the same. Who is who again? The answer is who cares because they're all violent criminals and if the alien is going to kill someone, I totally don't mind if it takes out some rapists. The first two movies didn't have this problem at all; you cared about everyone. Characters like Hudson, Vasquez/Gorman had character arcs. Parker and Brett were friends and you could feel Parker's rage toward the Alien. The only character who is even remotely interesting in this film is Clemens and he's gone about halfway through. We get virtually no backstory on anyone else and there is no chemistry with the cast.
Alien 3 is not an entirely bad film-I enjoyed Eliot Goldenthal's score, the lighting of the film and the Alien itself- but following the first two it simply doesn't measure up. If you loved the first two films, as I did, you should check out the other script for a proposed Alien 3 that was never made. It involves Hicks, Newt, and Bishop with Ripley in a coma until the end. Instead of killing a little girl, this script lets Newt go live with her grandparents. Ya know, not making the events of the second film moot. That film had a chance to be on par with the first two. This one sadly is not. And like I say "sadly" because there was a good or even great third Alien film out there, it just wasn't made. What makes the situation even sadder is that I bet if David Fincher were given the keys to an Alien film just a few years later, we would've seen a much better product. Such is life. 4/10.
Falling for Christmas (2022)
It's exactly what you'd expect
Nothing more, nothing less and that's perfectly fine. My wife and I both love and love to make fun of Christmas movies like this. In this movie you've already seen dozens of times, you get a:
-man who has lost his wife (nobody ever gets divorced in these movies)
-that same person with a little girl who very obviously will love their future step mom because hey...that always happens, right?
-woman in a relationship that clearly isn't working.
-the "real" Santa helping get the couple together
-the woman's parents (in this case, just the daddy) liking the guy immediately and fully accepting him
-falling in love after only 3 days of knowing each other
There are more of these predictable, yet lovable Christmas troupes but why should I spoil all the fun? Check it out for yourself and don't take it too seriously. It's Christmas!!!!
Better Call Saul: Saul Gone (2022)
Walt got a better ending than Saul...and that sucks.
For starters, let me say that I'm a huge BB fan and despite my low expectations and general dislike of prequels, I enjoyed BCS. For the first five and a half seasons that is. This episode is not poorly done or contain poor dialogue, but I do have to wonder why Walter White-a far worse person than Jimmy McGill-got.
Yes, Walt died at the end and Jimmy doesn't but let's closer examine this. Walt got to leave the money to his family, stick it to G and E one last time, kill the Neo Nazis who murdered Hank and Gomie, semi atone for all the awful things he put Jesse through and die peacefully in the meth lab. His family won't miss him in death and he'll never see the inside of a jail cell. Great ending for a monster, in my opinion.
Jimmy, on the other hand, is far from the monster Walt is but he will have to spend the rest of his life in jail with both he and Kim knowing that despite their obvious love for each other, that they cannot be together. If Kim felt about Jimmy like Skyler did about Walt, then it would be a little easier to stomach. But she still loves Jimmy and always will. A fate worse than death knowing that two people who love each other will never be together.
But at least Kim gets to practice law again, right? Uh...no because Hamlin's widow is still going to take her for all she's worth and I don't know a firm this side of the Prime Meridian who will hire her once the truth of what she's admitting to becomes public knowledge. She's likely fired from her job in Florida as well because even in 2010, the internet is far reaching and someone at her work will certainly learn of it eventually. Oh well, at least she gets to back to "yep" guy who has a name that I won't even use because he's not worthy of being mentioned in the same sentence as Kim.
I end it like this: Hamlin mentions in his monologue that his wife is sick (just one more thing ole Howard has to work though, remember?) and she does in between 2004-2010, so there's a bit more guilt involved for Kim because they kinda caused two deaths as Howard was taking care of her. The confession is still filed and everyone knows the truth about Hamlin but Kim can practice law again far away because there is no civil suit. Jimmy gets 15 years but Kim visits him and they acknowledge that 10 years isn't that long. He does the finger gun thing (far more powerful for them than I love you) at Kim who initially doesn't return it but takes a few steps and does it as the world turns to color. Jimmy has a wry smile and the credits roll.
Lean on Me (1989)
Completely Unrealistic
It's obvious that the writers for this film have never actually taught before or have even spent time dealing with school policies. I'm a teacher with a decade's worth of experience and I cringe every time o see this film and others like Freedom Writers. For starters, you can't just expel students by calling up suspected drug dealers on a stage and boom, you're gone. It's a process any time a child is expelled and there is a hearing. Secondly, yelling at teachers the way Clark does will simply get the faculty to tune you out. A principal cannot fire a teacher unless they touch a child or steal money. Bad evaluations and pressure from the admin are a way to make you want to quit but all a teacher has to do is go to their Union Rep and Big Bad Joe Clark is now all of a sudden just Joe Clark. Third, you can be a harda** all you want but if the kids don't want to learn, they simply won't. You can't force a 17 year old to learn if they don't want to. Most of the desire to learn is formulated at home when the kids are young not by some authoritarian principal or even caring teachers. The film implies that all one has to do to be effective is yell and scream. I can assure you that it's far more difficult than that, otherwise in reality, it'd be easy to be an educator. It isn't. Lastly, the only true things about this film is that there is an Eastside High School in New Jersey and a man named Joe Clark was once a principal there. Did the test scores actually go up? No. Did the state actually threaten to take the school over? Not when the movie takes place but ironically enough, the state of New Jersey took over after the film's release. If you want reality, go be a teacher for yourself and you'll come to hate this film as much as most other teachers do.