Change Your Image
rehensle
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Recent Check-Ins
Reviews
10 Cloverfield Lane (2016)
Solid movie, but not a Cloverfield film
10 Cloverfield Lane is a really good survival movie with an engaging plot. It reminds me of classic horror survival films like Night of the living dead, a character piece that takes place in a small setting. All three of the main actors do an excellent job, with John Goodman being a standout for his portrayal of a crazy yet paradoxically level-headed man. However it's hampered down by trying to shoehorn a franchise it wasn't originally supposed to be part of.
From the beginning, the movie doesn't feel part of the Cloverfield franchise. This is evident in small details, such as the main actress having a modern iPhone when the apocalyptic event took place in 2008. This is a small detail, but it makes the world feel disconnected from the original film, where technology such as camcorders play a critical part in the narration. Speaking of camcorders, this film does not have a found footage style. This wasn't necessary to have in order for the film to be engaging, however it divorces the film from the main filming technique that made the Cloverfield franchise unique in the first place. Because of this, the movie feels out of place from the Cloverfield franchise, and only seems to be tacked on for Marketing purposes.
What is most disappointing however is that nothing new is really learned about the "incident". The rules aren't consistent from the original film, nothing new is learned about the invaders. It does maintain the shroud of mystery of the "incident" that the original film deployed, but that's the only real simultaneity. Simultaneously, knowing that the "incident" actually occurred due to knowledge from previous film creates a missed opportunity for mystery and suspense. The main character is not aware if a catastrophic incident actually occurred, and the audience could have questioned this too had there not been a previous film where said event occurred. Fortunately having the knowledge of the previous films doesn't make the plot any less gripping, but it could have been a lot more mysterious without knowing previous events.
While I levied a lot of criticisms about this movie, it's still a good script on it's own. And the cast makes the film a delight to watch. It's just a bummer that film executives didn't let the script stand on it's own, as it would have been a much stronger film.
The French Dispatch of the Liberty, Kansas Evening Sun (2021)
Great fun if pure Wes Anderson is your cup of tea!
It's hard for me to comprehend the plot of this movie was as I was drunk during my first watch through. But it was good fun! There are three separate stories: one about a famous artist in jail, a protest movement at a University and a hostage situation. All told from the perspective of journalists in an over-the-top style that Wes Anderson has perfected over the years. If you want a non-stop visually beautiful film with goofy characters and dialogue, then this will be an excellent film for you! The plot might not be super riveting like his other films, but it's an enjoyable and relaxing film nonetheless.
The only part I felt that was a little lackluster was the animation sections. The art style didn't really grab me, and towards the end of the movie there is animated scene that goes on too long and would seem a lot more interesting in a live-action piece. I also didn't feel emotionally attached to some of the main characters that existed in the overarching plot between the short stories. There are very short bits of plot with the writers and managers of the French Dispatch with emotional moments that don't feel earned.
The short stories more than make up for the disappointing main plot (or lack thereof). There's a lot of variety and each frame oozes style. Definitely worth watching for fans of Wes Anderson's art style.
Capitalism: A Love Story (2009)
A decent documentary idea, but much less focused than his other films
The intentions of "Capitalism: A Love Story" are good. This came at the tail end of the 2008 financial crisis and does a decent job at explaining some of the issues of a capitalist society. However, this isn't Michael Moore's best film. It lacks the focus of some of his other documentaries. His first film, "Roger and Me", does a great job explaining a specific issue about capitalism by focusing on the boom and bust of his hometown flint Michigan. His other great films such as "Bowling for Columbine" and "Sicko" focus on specific issues such as gun violence and our healthcare system, painting a picture of our country with vivid examples.
"Capitalism a Love Story" however doesn't quite have the focus of his other films. Rather than focusing on a specific issue, the general theme of this movie is "Capitalism is bad". That's not to say his examples aren't poignant. He will show cases of people getting foreclosed, people taken advantage of by life insurance policies, for-profit incarceration, union busting and layoffs. These are real examples of corporate greed going too far. The problem is that the picture Michael Moore is trying to create is much more vague and doesn't seem to have much of a call to action, kind of echoing the sentiment leading to the Occupy Wall Street movement.
There were (and still are) a lot of things to be angry about our capitalist society. However, I think Michael Moore would have made a stronger argument had he focused more directly on one issue. There are portions of this film that could have been great in a film about the housing crisis, workers rights, for-profit public institutions and corporations themselves. Unfortunately as a whole the documentary feels too disjointed and the subject matter is too ambitious to tackle in one documentary.
Luckily the film still can be fun to watch thanks to Michael Moore's craft. Though I have to say this documentary does kind of lack the bite some of his other films had. It has a lot of the tropey Michael Moore-isms such as when he attempts to speak to an executive of a company, but get kicked out by security. The humor isn't super shocking or witty like his other films. I love when Michael Moore shows the absurdity of a situation, such as when he got a free gun for opening a bank account in "Bowling for Columbine" or boating people to Cuba to get free healthcare in "Sicko". There just isn't a lot of that here, and it feels a bit too melodramatic at times.
So definitely not Michael Moore's best film. If you are interested in documentary about Capitalism, I would highly recommend "The Corporation". It does a great job explaining how corporations are defined by society and the damage they can do without proper moderation.
El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie (2019)
Feels largely unnecessary in the Breaking Bad universe
This film doesn't really answer any lingering questions left from Breaking Bad. The story plays it safe, giving a glimpse as to what Jessy would do immediately after breaking free from confinement. There is an attempt to show character development as Jessy rises above the physical and mental wounds of confinement. But the film doesn't do anything profound with this theme in it's limited 2 hour window.
Instead, the film tends to focus a bit too much on re-incorporating as much characters as it can fit in it's runtime. Jessy runs into his two roommates from the original show, he encounters his parents, he has flashbacks to various moments with his captors, he has a moment with Mike, and even has flashbacks with Walter White and his girlfriend Jane. While some of the character interactions fit the redemption narrative, a lot of the encounters feel like padding, especially the last two aforementioned characters. In this way, El Camino can sometimes feel more like fan service than a relevant chapter in the saga.
That being said, the writing and cinematography was pretty good. But I wouldn't feel like watching it again anytime soon.
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998)
An extremely rewarding film!
I'm not going to do a super huge analysis of this film. All I have to say is that it perfectly captures the absurdity of Las Vegas as well as the paranoia from extreme drug use. While some of the drug scenes are more obvious, the viewer is often not 100% sure when the narrator is in a stable state and that's a great thing from a narrative perspective. The creative cinematography and the goofy drugged up duo keep this film engaging from start to finish. It's no wonder the Criterion Collection were quick to pick this film up!
Urban Cowboy (1980)
Like watching a train-wreck with a good soundtrack
Urban Cowboy has a similar energy to "Saturday Night Fever", a movie in which John Travolta also stared in. You see a working class guy (Travolta) trying to blow off some steam from the troubles of a blue collar life by going to their favorite local club. At this club there is a large emphasis on music popular during the time, though Urban Cowboy is focused on country pop whereas Saturday Night Fever focused on Disco. And of course, there are romantic relationships and fierce competitions to be had. This time it's about who's the best bull rider instead of who's the best disco dancer.
Like Saturday Night fever, the plot isn't exceptionally great. What really carries the movie forward is the excellent soundtrack. It might not be as iconic as Saturday Night Fever's, but there are some notable tracks! Charlie Daniels and Bonnie Raitt make cameo appearances, playing some of their greatest hits such as "The Devil Went Down to Georgia". The saloon setting of this film is lively; and sets the country tone well.
The other aspect that keeps this movie from being stale is how utterly terrible the romantic relationships are. At the beginning of the film, it's evident that John Travolta's character (Bud) is not a great guy. He meets a woman at a bar, has an outburst with her, then almost instantly proposes to marry her. This silly behavior continues throughout the film, and it's entertaining to see how flawed these characters are. Watching how Bud will inevitably mess something up in his relationships is infinitely more entertaining than seeing perfect Hollywood couples. Granted the writing can be quite silly, and the characters actions can seem unreasonably stupid. But in a movie like this, I prefer the extreme of imperfect couples rather than cliched perfect couples typically seen in films.
Overall this movie is a hoot, especially if you like country hits from the late 70s. It's characters can be a bit silly, but it's no doubt entertaining.
Better Call Saul (2015)
A tale of two storylines
Overall I've been enjoying this show a bunch! So far the structure of the show seems to be split into two part (at least for the first two seasons). There is Saul's character arch as he tries to build his law practice. And then there's Mike's story, which focuses on his early interactions with the drug cartel.
I think Mike's storyline exists to keep the show connected to the breaking bad universe. His story tends to have a lot more action, and includes some familiar antagonists from Breaking Bad. In contrast, Saul's story tends to be a bit more of a character drama, focusing on his relationship with his brother, his best friend (Kim) and various law firms in New Mexico.
The show is generally focused on Saul's story, and it's very well written! It does a great job of exploring Saul's conflicting attitudes towards justice, and gives him more depth than the comic relief he was in Breaking Bad. That being said, there are still tons of funny moments, but also some touching ones. Saul may not be in as much turmoil as Walter from breaking bad, but there are some pretty dramatic moments here.
Mike's story however can sometimes feel a bit weak. He wasn't that bad of a character in Breaking Bad, and his solemn tough-guy nature worked sparingly in that show. However not much is done to give Mike a unique character in this spin-off. He has a cliche "good cop bad cop" backstory, and his motivation to "provide for the family" isn't all that deep either. His moral system is pretty rigid, following a sort of "do no unnecessary evil" system. A lot more could have been done to flesh-out his character.
That's why it often feels like Mike's story seems like a vehicle for the show to stay in the Breaking Bad Universe. If it weren't for Mike's encounters with the drug cartel, Better Call Saul could very well feel outside the Breaking Bad storyline. In the first season, Mike had some brief exchanges with Saul seeking legal help, but their relationship became distant in Season 2. Hopefully in later episodes their stories become more intertwined, but for now it can sometimes feel like Mike's story just exists to justify that it's a Breaking Bad show.
Overall though a really great show! This will be right up your ally if you enjoyed the dramatic moments of Breaking Bad that focused on morally grey areas. There's a bit less action here than in Breaking Bad, but there's enough to keep you on the edge of your seat!
O Crush Perfeito (2020)
The format of the show makes things feel awkward
I am not against having shows that just show people dating, fictional or real. It clearly seems that this show was staged, but that in itself is not bad thing if you know what you are getting into. However, the way this show is structured makes the dates feel kind of awkward and inorganic.
Each episode starts off with a main character who is looking for a partner. The character's gender and sexual orientation changes across each episode, which I think is nice because it mixes things up. However, there is very little difference in socio-economic backgrounds. The dating pool on this show tends to be young upper middle class / wealthy people, with not a whole lot of differences in personality. The way they structure their dates seems identical across each episode, which is having an expensive drink at chic bar while making small talk. While the couples eventually go outside for a walk, 75% of interactions happen in these bar settings and it gets old pretty quick.
But small talk isn't necessarily bad all of the time, and there are some fun bits of dialogue. And if the show was just this I might have given it a higher score. But what's so odd about the show is that the main character dates like 3 - 5 people seemingly at the same time and at the same dating locations. In the episodes, the scenes switches back and forth to different people the person is dating, in the same location and even same seats / table as before. The outside shots also take place in the same location and same time of day.
I can see why they do this for a budget perspective, and to give the episodes variation if you are border with a certain person the main character is dating. But is the implication that the person is dating multiple people at once? It makes me weirdly dislike the main character because of their judgement, and it goes counter to the show's description of abandoning dating apps.
Overall, this structure just makes the dating interactions feel awkward and inorganic. It's a shame because there are parts that I like about this show. The production is solid, as always for a Netflix show. There are also a lot of great shots of Sao Paulo for the few times characters are outside. I just think it would be better if they focused on one relationship at a time instead of this weird double dipping. And also it would be cool if the dates weren't always at expensive bars.
Network (1976)
TV Bad
This feels like one of those "I'm 14 and this is deep" movies. The messages this movie tells feel mishmashed together and as a result seem disjointed. The film mentions current events such as Watergate and Vietnam war are making people more politically woke. And then the main character, Howard Beale, starts to rant about that stuff on his TV platform, saying "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!", so then everyone watching starts yelling it too. So this movie is supposed to be some commentary on how everyone is sheeple and will be persuaded by what their TV says.
Now I'm not doubting that mass media can have a significant effect on the way people behave. But the way people react to the media in this film feels so unnatural that it's hard to take any of the messages seriously. So at the end of the day, it just feels like an early example of one of those memes you'd see on Facebook; the ones that say "TV screens bad", "Computers bad", "Books good". It's boomer humor! Even the main antagonist who's responsible for shaping the Howard Beale Show is depicted a soulless person who's worldview is framed by what she's seen on TV. A supporting character literally says this as if he has the moral high ground, despite cheating on his wife (another staple of boomer humor).
Overall it just seems to be a movie that condescends the current generation because they watch TV sometimes. TV Bad and TV creates bad morals. They also try to throw in stuff about all networks being controlled by corporations; shocking isn't it? Network seems like it has a lot to say, but it's all really surface level.
Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs (2009)
The epitome of obnoxious late 2000's / 2010's animation films
As 3D animation films became more popular in the 2000s, there seemed to be a later surge of films with an obnoxious energy to them (i.e. The Lorax). Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs is once such case. It feels like the movie can't go without a minute of having some weird slapstick humor. Not enough time is given to truly emotionally connect with the characters, because the constant absurd humor takes away from the seriousness. And funnily enough, the near constant absurd humor takes away from the absurdity of the jokes the writers were trying to make. There's so many "weird" moments in this film that none of the humorous moments really stand out. It feels like the writers were throwing a bunch of ideas, hoping one thing would stick. But like a bunch of food falling from the sky, the sheer volume of it all just ends up making the whole thing feel gross.
So the obnoxious humor and pacing is what mostly bogs down this movie for me, though I barely discussed the plot. When you look past the humor, the story itself is pretty bare-bones. The main character Flint designs a machine that rains food, the town takes advantage of it and things expediently go too far when a villain wants to use it. There's also a love relationship thrown in. Overall it's a pretty standard plot for a children's movie. I think the story would have had more depth if they removed the "villain" character and focused more on the conflict between the inventor and the town as a whole. Otherwise the plot is pretty basic, though the animation is unique at times. It's cool to see how the town transforms when it's covered with food.
Overall Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs isn't the most offensive movie, it can just feel a bit too high energy for the sake of it. And I'm judging this film on it's own merits; this is definitely separate from the 1978 book that it's based off of. So I'm not rating this down based on a bias from the book, I just think it's a mediocre film in general.
Elephant (2003)
Good intentions, but not well executed in writing / believablility
I get what the film was going for. It intends to show a mundane day of school, only to be instantly interrupted by a shooting out of the blue. I like what the film was going for in this regard. School shootings aren't romanticized tragedies, they happen when we least expect it. By showing long shots of students' mundane activities, we are put into the shoes of the characters who are about to experience the tragedy. The focus isn't entirely on the shooters or motives per-say, it's more about coming to grips with the seamless violence.
While I like this idea in concept, I don't feel like it executed as well as it could have been. For starters, the writing of the high school characters doesn't feel organic. While the film doesn't necessarily put characters into stereotypical cliques, they can still manage to feel like early 2000's caricatures of high school students. The conversations don't feel raw like other slice of life movies such as "Slacker", which defeats the purpose of feeling like you are in a real situation. In this regard I also feel like some of the production could have been a bit more stripped back too. Some of the editing choices like adding lots of depth of field effects as well as including foreboding piano music with students walking in slow motion take away from that original feeling of authenticity I think the movie was originally going for.
And lastly, I feel like there isn't much nuance in the shooters motivations and behavior. There are not-so-subtle scenes of the shooters being bullied by jocks, playing violent video games, watching Nazi propaganda, and even a weird sexual bit. For a movie that's goal is to show a different perspective of the gun violence narrative, there are several familiar dog whistles thrown in about the shooters motives. I'm not saying the shooters have to have some elaborate reason for doing what they did, that would defeat the purpose of the movie. I just think the film would have been better off without trying to justify the shooters motives at all instead of using cheap explanations.
Slacker (1990)
Title says it all
Slacker is a film comprised of brief vignettes of characters living in Austin on one summer day. You will see a character and story for about 15 minutes, and then focus on another character that crosses their path. There is no overarching story, but what the characters do have in common is that they are "slackers", people who are removed from what is considered normal in one form or another. The characters can seem downright nihilistic at times, each often having very skewed perception of reality.
But it's by no means melodramatic either, it's more of an honest look at regular life for these people. It's like a collection of casual conversations you'd have with a friend over a beer; talking about philosophy, conspiracy theories or whatever. A lot of what is said isn't important, but the conversations can still manage to be engaging sometimes.
In this regard a lot of the characters stories are hit or miss. Some stories are goofy and good-hearted, while others just seem to drag on; especially when characters explain elaborate conspiracies. But what kept me going was seeing how one story would transition to another, and it's largely what keeps the movie from feeling disjointed. This all works well thanks to simple but clever camera movement and purposeful direction by Linklater.
Overall Slacker is a cool portrait of the 90's and its culture, especially alternative scenes like grunge and punk. This definitely isn't for everyone, but if you like the more honest and raw dialogue in films such as Clerks, then you definitely might get something out of Slacker. And if you live in Austin, Slacker is an interesting time capsule of the city before its rapid growth and gentrification.
Macunaíma (1969)
A very fun surreal Brazilian classic
If you like films like Jodorowsky's "The Holy Mountain", you will love Macunaima! Overall just a very fun spirited movie, and a very interesting perspective of the Tropicalia movement of the late 60's and early 70's of Brazil.
Santa Sangre (1989)
Another interesting Jodorowsky film, but loses some momentum later on
Like 'The Holy Mountain', Santa Sangre is a pretty abstract film. However the plot of Sante Sangre seems a lot more coherent than his other films. It blurs the line between being an art statement with aspects of a horror film. The plot surrounding the horror elements can be abstract, however the horror elements are easy to follow and feel very similar to the beats of other horror films.
While the first two deaths in the film are very impactful and gripping, the violence that follows it becomes more and more predictable. In the second half of the film, the horror elements lose their subtlety and the antagonist's actions become very predictable. The music changes in the later part of the film, sounding more like a soundtrack to 80's horror movie with electronic stringed instruments. Once the film reaches this loop of horror scenes, it becomes less interesting; not only in terms of the plot but also with the cinematography.
However Santa Sangre is still a great Jodorowsky film, and the movie's setup was very intriguing. Clearly this film did not have the budget 'The Holy Mountain' had, so the sets aren't nearly as impressive as that film. But the filming locations in the first half including a circus and lively Mexican street at night offer an interesting visual experience. The character designs and movements are fantastic; you can tell Jodorowsky's work as a mime effected the direction of the actors' choreography. It's coupled with a very nice soundtrack that includes a melancholy motif played on acoustic guitar and on a fairground organ, matching nicely with the film's setting.
Overall I enjoyed Santa Sangre, although I can't help but wonder if the second half of the film was rushed because of Jodorowsky's usual budget constraints. It tells a pretty heartfelt story, and contains some phenomenal acting from Jodorowsky's children. This is definitely one of his best films, however be prepared to be underwhelmed by some of the horror elements later on.
The Corporation (2003)
Good documentary, but sometimes too general
Overall I really liked this documentary and agreed with a lot of the points it made. It has a very nice style to it, moving from one point to the next using card ques. The footage and editing make the documentary pretty engrossing even almost 20 years later.
Message wise, I think the documentary's most revealing parts are how the government, people and corporations view each other and interact with each other. It does an excellent job at explaining how governments justify and are incentivized to maintain power in corporations. It also explains the human aspects of a corporation, down to the point of explaining why corporations are legally considered individuals. The filmmakers even diagnose corporations as psychopaths in a morbidly funny way to show the ridiculousness of the construct of corporations as individuals.
A lot of the other aspects of the documentary can feel pretty dated though. These are in regard to how corporations can do harm to societies. The arguments the documentary make are valid, such as some corporations exploiting natural resources, creating unsafe work conditions, helping repressive government, etc. The examples in the documentary only really scratch the surface of these kinds of issues, and a lot are probably not big news to people, especially for the kind of people who would be into this kind of documentary.
So overall a pretty good documentary, but when it comes to the wrongdoings of corporations I feel like the examples explored can be pretty surface level. I think this documentary would be even more unique if it had focused more on the relationship between corporation, people and government like the earlier and later parts of the movie.
Don't F**k with Cats: Hunting an Internet Killer (2019)
Interesting story, but part of a larger problem on Netflix
On the one hand I think this is a great story about the dangers of seeking attention online through whatever means necessary. It's without a doubt one of those great true crime stories that shockingly actually happened.
However, the biggest problem I have with this show is how much unnecessary information is added to the show to extend the runtime. There are YouTube channels that have covered this story in less than 30 minutes that are just as impactful as this show. At most, this story should have been one episode in a true crime series. And there isn't really any investigative work done by Netflix in the series because the suspect was arrested in 2014, making the creation of this as a separate series feel largely unjustified.
As a result of being it's own contained series, we get a lot of unnecessary humor about the people hunting down the killer and cat meme culture. It just feels like another one of a number of shows that feels overlong for the sake of creating a large quantity of content for their platform. Again the story on it's own isn't bad, in fact it's intriguing. But it really shouldn't be this long.
Funny Games (1997)
Unsettling and intriging by it's abnormal structure
The formula for blockbuster horror movies are both a blessing and curse. If you treat watching a horror movie like going on a thrilling roller coaster ride, you will appreciate the ques the movie gives you to thrilling moments like a roller coaster prepares you for a drop by slowly and suspensefully moving you up a chain lift. There's something often satisfying about having knowledge about what's going to happen next, which is why horror movies often use foreboding music and shots to build up emotion before the action begins. However because horror movies are often formulaic, down to the point that you have a general sense of which characters will make it out alive based on their character development, viewers can often be desensitized to the violence that happens on screen and a horror movie becomes more of a thrill ride rather than something that is shocking.
So some artistic horror movies try to challenge the structure with surrealism, by having actions very unexpected happen to the characters that it shocks viewers who are not prepared. While surrealism is a good technique, it can sometimes feel a bit unsatisfying because it can feel like the surreal elements come out of nowhere. What differs with the surrealism in "Funny Games" however is how justified the surreal elements seem. Every action taken by the family that leads them from vacationers to victims of psychotic killers feels rational in a sinister way by the antagonist's dialogue. It's horrifying how everything seems so perfectly set up for the family's demise while simultaneously remaining unpredictable by not following a traditional horror narrative structure.
A lot of the movie pokes fun at how desensitizing violence in movies can be and in it's more poignant moments shows the true horror of violence that is often glossed over in movies. For instance, when a character dies in a typical horror movie, their dead body is often displayed for a few seconds before quickly changing focus to the next character of interest. In this movie, there are a lot of extended shots (sometimes for several minutes), that shows the effects the characters feel immediately after the violence they have endured. This is why a lot of people say this movie is sadistic, but much of the violence takes place off screen, and I feel like showing the immediate shock and disillusionment of the makes you re-evaluate how you view the violence in the film. It makes the movie feel much more raw, gripping and even humanistic in a sinister way.
Now all of this might sound pretentious. And there's no doubt that director had some pretentious intentions when creating this movie, largely as a response to violence in media. However, the cinematography abnormalities, focus on humanizing the characters and well written sarcastic villains create this really unnerving experience, and it's the first time in a while that I was emotionally shocked by a horror movie. I feel like you don't need to go into 'Funny Games' trying to understand the director's artistic intent to enjoy the surreal experience. If you are expecting a horror movie with horror movie beats this will definitely be a bit disappointing. However if you are looking for a more unusual movie with dramatic and horror elements, then this is definitely worth checking out.
Immigration Nation (2020)
So far pretty decent and balanced documentary, but a bit too long
Finished half of the season so far. Definitely an interesting look back at how recent immigration policies of the Trump administration have effected the lives of current immigrants and the policing tactics of Ice Agents. It's more of an observation of several aspects of immigration enforcement in the new administration rather than having a specific call to action statement.
At it's best, the documentary shows that immigration reform not black and white, and that abolishing ICE would not solve the many problems with our existing system. It tries to be pretty balanced politically. For instance, it shows how Immigration policies have been shaped over decades and that Donald Trump's administration is just an acceleration of previous policies from democrat and republican presidencies.
The first episode was excellent and grabbed my attention, as it focuses on how ICE agents operate under the new administration, including a lot of ride-along footage with ICE agents. It's pretty eye opening to see how traumatizing it is to be detained by ICE agents and simultaneously offers an interesting perspective from both the ICE agents and detained immigrants. It really shows how the new administration's policies effect everyone involved in immigration.
The show does kind of slips a bit after the first episode though. It becomes a bit slower moving because it's more focused on the slow processes that happen after being detained by ICE agents The show follows a lot of Immigrant families which I think is important because it helps humanize the issues. Unfortunately, Netflix falls back on this documentary trope where they ask the families to act out certain conversations to capture on camera. Asking family members to act out conversations just seems kind of corny and ruins the feeling of the documentary's authenticity even if these acted conversations are based on genuine conversations they had in the past. I would have much preffered if they just talked about these topics in an interview-like format, because I feel like the artificial dramatization of their conversations pads out the run time too much.
Overall an interesting but imperfect documentary. The first episode is definitely worth checking out, though the rest feels a bit too drawn out.
Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted (2012)
An interesting conclusion to an alright trilogy
Madagascar is one of several Dreamworks franchices that's just alright. The first film was undeniably a hit in 2005. It had pretty solid cast of celebrities, had a good amount of comic relief thanks to Sacha Baron Cohen's talent as well as the penguins shenanigans, and would be lucky enough to have a memorable theme: "I like to move it".
Madagascar 2 came out not too long after in 2008 and I remember feeling slightly dissapointed by it. It felt like there were too many plot conflicts which made the movie feel like a bit of a downer. On top of that the animation was kind of lagging behind other animated films at the time. So when I heard there would be a third movie, and it's trailers seemed to be focused on Melvin's "polkadot afro circus", I did not have high hopes.
Madagascar 3 however turns out to be suprisingly decent though. For starters, the pacing is fortunately much faster. Barely any time is spent explaining how the cast gets to Europe, which was a relief because I thought Madagascar 2 spent way too much time introducing the cast to their new enviornment. In this movie, characters move from one place to the next in Europe without much exposition. This movie feels a bit like a parody of heist movies in general, which gave it a pretty fun vibe.
Also, the animation is much improved from the previous films. The European locations actually look pretty detailed and the action sequences showcase these settings well. The new animal characters are also a pretty welcome adition too, although they aren't very memorable. I thought the villain in this movie was a bit over-the-top though and too slapstick.
Overall this movie was a lot better than I expected. I honestly thought the franchise lost it's relevancy in 2012, but it's box office would say otherwise. This doesn't make the franchise Pixar-tier, but it was definitely a step in the right direction to revitalizing it.
The Lion King (2019)
A decent movie, but doesn't offer a lot new
I honestly didn't watch this movie with my full attention. It was more just something in the background with friends. For that kind of movie it's pretty uncontroversial and gets the job done. It hits all the beats you remember from the original animation. The 3D rendering is pretty impressive and it's definitely cool to see photo-realistic re-enactments of scenes in the classic film. It's also ocassionaly fun to hear a celebrity voicing one of the characters or singing.
It's otherwise doesn't really offer much new in comparison to the original. I feel like this remastering isn't really necessary for new audiences to enjoy. The original's animation and pacing still holds up today, so this felt a bit unecessary. However, of the Disney remasters of animated films, I feel like The Lion King is one of the least controversial. None of the character models look hideous like Beast from Beauty and the Beast (2017) and the additions of new music and character traits don't feel as shoe-horned as Aladdin (2019). So honestly it's fine for what it is, and probably a decent stream if you are subscribed to Disney Plus. I wouldn't go out of my way to buy this film though; the original is still superior.
Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa (2008)
A lot more depressing than I remembered
My strongest memory of Madagascar 2 had to be the Moto Moto song "I like them big! I like em chunky!" It was probably the second most talked about thing on my elementary school playground about the Madagascar series; the first being "I like to move it move it!" naturally. I otherwise vaguely remembered enjoying Madagascar 2 when I was younger, remembering it as similar to the first movie only this time the characters are in Sub-Saharan Africa.
But wow the movie itself was just a lot more depressing than I remembered! That's in part because the movie wanted to establish an internal conflict for each of the four main characters. In the first movie, there was some brief character conflict in the middle of the film against Alex and Marty, but it was resolved pretty fast so the regular plot could move on. It seems like in Madagascar 2, the main characters have a falling out with each other early on and it lasts a majority of the movie. And on top of that, there are several depressing conflicts including a kid getting separated by his family from hunters, a family being banished from a community (Lion King style), to even one of the characters being suicidal twice in the film (with a pretty dramatic intervention scene).
There's just way too much conflict in this movie and only a small amount of payoff at the end. Had the characters been supportive of each other throughout the entire film, the conflicts wouldn't feel as depressing. Definitely not a bad concept for a sequel; I like that the main characters got to interact with more animals in the new setting. But the plot could have been executed better.
Visible: Out on Television (2020)
A very good and thoroguh docuseries on modern perceptions of the LGBTQ community
I mostly went into this docuseries as an excuse to test the new Apple TV + service that comes with new apple devices, and I was presently surprised by this feature. One of the best ways to distill modern American culture is through Television, and this docuseries creates an excellent timeline of American perceptions of the LGBTQ community through specific television examples.
I feel like the documentary is so thorough and covers nearly all facets of the LGBT community that I can hardly think of any examples it excluded. It honestly might be a bit too thorough, with some points feeling reiterated too much, but I am glad that such a thorough analysis of LGBTQ culture exists.
The series excels at pointing out how much the LGBTQ movement changed so rapidly in the last 50 years. The depictions of are a stark contrast to media today and it exemplifies how far the movement has gone. It's telling that even in the last 20 years that being LGBTQ was still relatively taboo in media (and in some instances still is). The series also does an excellent job juxtaposing television media with historical events such as the election and assassination of Harvey Milk and the Stonewall Riots.
Overall, a great docuseries if you are interested in LGBTQ history. It admittedly can seem a bit too long, so I doubt this will interest anyone with a passing interest in the LGBTQ community and I highly doubt this will change a person's opinion about LGBTQ rights / issues. But as series about appreciation for LGBTQ history, I think it does an excellent job.
Idiocracy (2006)
Pure hate
There isn't really any other way to describe this movie. The message from the get go is that if stupid people breed, the world becomes stupid. It's a classic message of eugenics, the necessity of having only the "smart" people breed. Viewers who think this movie is clever will say that President Camacho mirrors Trump or that the plot parodies the rise of liberalism. You can attribute anything you hate to the dumb people in this movie and call it some profound message about the 21st century. But no matter how you spin it, the message will always be that a group of people is perceived as inferior and doesn't deserve to exist. I rarely give 1's to movies, but it's difficult to give this movie a higher rating after seeing the discussion surrounding it. At best, it's a typical slapstick comedy with fart jokes galore (which by itself doesn't haven't much merit). At it's worst, it's a movie with a confused and manipulative message that adds nothing valuable to discourse on ideologies.
Avengers: Endgame (2019)
The longest Audi commercial ever
Not sure why they included all that time travel and extended fight scenes for. I think the advertisement was pretty effective when Tony Stark rolled up in his Audi. Just seems a bit overkill for a car commercial you know.