Change Your Image
greatandimproving
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againThis list is as unbiased as it gets. I was not subject to any influence whatsoever beyond the voice in my head. If you came down to Earth from Mars, poured yourself a vodka martini (shaken, not stirred) and kicked back to binge all of 007's adventures from Dr. No to No Time to Die, I'm sure you'd rank them like this too...
And should that ever happen, please call me. Because you'll need a Bond friend like I do. Trust me- nobody else understands the wonderment of Q's gadgets, Aston Martin DB5s, iceberg submarines and the like. They don't get it and they never will. Just call me. :)
Reviews
Civil War (2024)
The insanity of war - for your viewing pleasure?
Alex Garland's Civil War concerns a group of photojournalists on a dangerous road trip from New York to DC as the insurrectionist "Western Forces" look to topple the American government. They hope to interview the president as he grapples with anarchy on the streets and communities that no longer trust him (or each other). In the car are renowned war photographer Lee (Kirsten Dunst), her colleague Joel (Wagner Moura), longtime mentor Sammy (Stephen McKinley Henderson) and young protégée Jessie (Cailee Spaeny). Rather than romanticizing either side in the fight, the story is told from their perspective as hardened media: "We don't ask questions. We record so other people ask. Want to be a journalist? That's the job." - Lee
To be sure, it's more a psychological than political thriller and the film reveals not much about what fuelled the conflict in the first place. Instead it focuses on the team's commitment to their work in the face of chaos, alongside the self-defeating nature of unconventional warfare where combatants are often raging for the sake of rage and don't even know who they're shooting or why- just that they're being shot at and might as well return fire.
I love Wagner Moura as an actor but thought that that casting choice was peculiar. He's so awkward with his lines that I wouldn't be surprised if the role of Joel were written for someone else... perhaps Oscar Isaac, with whom Garland has worked before and would have fit like a glove (at times Moura even looks like he's dressed up to resemble Isaac lol). I have no idea if that's true, just that Moura feels like a stand-in in this picture; like he's fishing without bait and not meant to actually be doing the job. You can make your own call on my theory when you see it for yourself.
Thankfully, there's also some good news when it comes to actor availability: Dunst's real-life husband Jesse Plemons reportedly squeezed the film into his schedule on a whim, and he's sensational. I don't want to give away the part he plays and he's only there for one scene, but it's my favorite hands down. Whereas Moura led me to consider alternatives for the part of Joel, Plemons' uncredited spot is so magnificent that it'll take your breath away. One of the more jarring sequences I can remember in film.
In all, Civil War is carefully constructed with subtle layers of meaning that require second and third viewings to catch. For example, when the team arrives at a refugee camp where kids are skipping rope, Joel joins in while playfully exclaiming "Left! Right! Left! Right!" as he hops from one foot to the other. It could be a comment on how media aims for neutral coverage of the political pendulum- often to their own detriment- or maybe he's just skipping rope with kids. The production is so tight that it tempts you into that sort of analysis. Likewise, at one point Jessie asks Lee, "Would you photograph the moment if I got shot?" Lee teases her in response, "What do you think?" The film is the same way overall with answers that only spur more questions-
Much like the stupidity of war itself.
Sly (2023)
Has Rocky become Mickey?
I didn't expect much from this picture. When I saw Sly next to Arnold on Netflix I immediately dismissed them as cash grabs. And maybe they were, who knows. But the final product here is more touching than that. If anything it's a microcosm of Sylvester Stallone's career that he knows what his audience wants and how to give it to them; and once he's "in" he's ALL in - cash grab or not.
This bio spans Sly's entire life, from his upbringing in Hell's Kitchen to the present day. There's naturally more emphasis placed on films like Rocky and Rambo than, say, Party at Kitty & Stud's (look that one up if you haven't heard of it lol), but what else would you expect? Again, he knows what his fans want and how to give it to them. He's not shy about that.
The difference with Stallone is that he's not fake about it either. Formulaic yes, but fake no. When he speaks you believe him. Just a sincere dude enjoying his blessings while staying connected to the everyman Sly who (to borrow a term from pro wrestling) never got over, might still be an usher at Cinema 123 and could use some encouragement. I found his wisdom - and yes, his way of sharing it- to be so piercing and relatable that it transcends his celebrity, For example, "I'm indifferent to the threat of failure because I know that no matter what, it'll be good for you to at least continue to push yourself. 90% of the journey is tumultuous and ugly, but to get to those nuggets you have to go through it. You may not get there... but you'll be better off than doing nothing!"
It's the "you may not get there" that really shook me. Such a slick reminder for those of us who are struggling that the goal is often a mirage and the journey is its own reward. This film is replete with gems like that that move ever so slightly away from what you expect to hear in order to find their way into your heart through the back door. In so doing Sly reveals his under-appreciated talent for word play and communication. While he enjoyed his greatest renown as an actor/director, it becomes clear that behind it all he was always a born *writer.
The producers recruit an esteemed cast of speakers to provide a well-rounded look at his career, from Talia Shire (Adrian Balboa) to Arnold (his chief rival) to Quentin Tarantino (cinephile extraordinaire). Music is also used effectively- if sparingly- to manage the mood, and includes Tom Waits' classic "Come on up to the house" to boost the spirits. Needless to say that's a tremendous choice, in some ways full circle since Waits had a small role in Stallone's directorial debut Paradise Alley. But I thought another tune from the same Waits album (Mule Variations) might have done more to encapsulate Sly the person, Sly the movie, and how he rose from W 46th & 9th in New York City up to the highest echelon of Hollywood royalty:
"Get behind the mule in the mornin' and plow."
Turning Point: The Bomb and the Cold War (2024)
Informative snapshot of how we got here (and where we're going?)
Not the biggest foreign policy wonk but found "Turning Point; The Bomb and The Cold War" to be educational, even entertaining. Definitely worth checking out. Skillfully draws a thread through events from WWII to the present day - including Hiroshima & Nagasaki; birth of the CIA and its unchecked power of the 50s; rise of Castro and the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1959-1962; Vietnam War; Chernobyl and the thawing of tension between Reagan and Gorbachev in the 80s; fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989; collapse of the Soviet Union and Russia's failed transition to democracy in the 90s; emergence of Putin and context for the ongoing war in Ukraine - while pitting them all against the unsettling, uninterrupted and unprecedented threat of a nuclear apocalypse.
Series does a commendable job of synopsizing 75 years of world history into a digestible format. There are spots of propaganda for sure, but it also includes moments of objectivity where no one looks good, such as "Dr. Strangelove was a documentary. Everything there could have actually happened," "The global economic system is based on an understanding that the developed countries that *consume resources need to be able to control the countries where those resources are *produced," etc.
I'd recommend trying Episode 1 just because it gives a good taste of the full meal.
Note: I could do without the pre-opening credits "vignettes" on Ukraine, tho. I'm a supporter of the cause, but they rarely add much to the episodes and make it (too) easy for skeptics to dismiss the overall content. Just my opinion.
---
Individual episode rankings:
3: Excellent. Emergence of Khrushchev in Russia. Birth of the CIA and coups/interventions worldwide in the name of "democracy" (including in Iran and Guatemala). Anti-communist movement and actual nuclear war planning in communities across America. H-bomb testing. 9/10.
1: Reorganization of global power in the wake of WWII. 8/10.
6: I'd never fully understood how the Iron Curtain came down in the late 80s. This one made me feel like I was there. 7.5/10.
8: Useful history lesson on how Russian oligarchs got wealthy from the demise of the Soviet Union, and how Putin later monopolized that same system for himself. 7/10.
4: Gripping footage of the Cuban Missile Crisis. 6.5/10.
2: Stalin-era Russia. A bit dry compared to the others. 4.5/10.
5: Filler episode save for the last 15 minutes that cover the Chernobyl accident. 3/10.
9: Heavy on Ukraine. Almost feels like watching the news today, for better or worse. But the episode's conclusion at a ceremony in Japan commemorating the lives lost in 1945 ties a powerful bow on the series. 2.5/10.
7: Transition from Gorbachev/Soviet Union to Yeltsin/Russia. Historically important but wouldn't watch it again. 2/10.
Max episode score = 9. Min = 2. Median = 6. Mean = 5.5556. High school Stats class came in handy after all! Lol.
Joe Rogan: Burn the Boats (2024)
More awkward than funny
In terms of material, if you like Joe you'll like this - he rolls out the greatest hits. If you don't like him you won't like this - he rolls out the greatest hits. So if you're coming for a political rally you'll be as satisfied or offended as you could ever hope to be lol. I personally don't feel either way about his politics. My first "Joe Rogan Experience" was back when he was doing radio spots on O & A, so with that in mind it's hard to take him too seriously now. I'm more amused (and genuinely impressed) that he's gained the following he has.
I won't sugarcoat how I feel about this special, tho: it's a bit cringe. I don't know if that's due to his playing a new theater or streaming live or some other valid reason. But while the production is tight, his performance is rough. He's over the top (even for his standards) with manic eyes and incoherent yelling into the mic. You don't always get a chance to laugh because you're stuck trying to make out the words. 65 mins is a long set for any comic but even so, I doubt he rehearsed these bits as much as he would have liked.
And on that front I can't blame him. He's plenty busy with his podcast, UFC duties, opening a new comedy club in Austin and rubbing elbows with his billionaire friends lol. But it's still true. When Chris Rock streamed live last year in "Selective Outrage" he had the crowd in his palm and you could almost hear the clock running between jokes - his timing was so refined. Rogan's obviously not in Rock's company as a standup, but he doesn't come anywhere near that bar. Instead he tries to bridge the gap by putting extra mustard on punchlines, talking a mile a minute and using unpolished impressions. In that sense forget how he compares to Chris Rock; you might not even be seeing the best version of Joe Rogan here.
Unsolved Mysteries: The Severed Head (2024)
Haunting concept, forget about actual real-life event
Solid episode. This mystery concerns exactly what it says: a severed head found just off the highway in rural Pennsylvania. I don't remember the sky raining heads, so how'd it get there? How long has it been there?
Whose is it?
I won't lie, this one is surprisingly creepy. It might keep you up at night. You learn things about America that may or may not be related to this case, such as the black market for body parts, the lack of laws and regulations that govern said market, and how dead bodies are monetized. Through it all I thought Director Skye Borgman, her (obviously talented) crew and the investigators did a fine job of treating the victim with dignity and not getting distracted by the (impossibly grotesque) nature of the crime.
There are plenty of theories as to what happened, and those are for you to consider. But I personally couldn't get away from drawing one distinct conclusion that may be the most important of all and I don't plan to ever retract no matter what new evidence is presented:
Cremation for me! Lol.
Unsolved Mysteries: Body in the Basement (2024)
Classic unsolved mystery
Now that's more like it!
The first episode was a drag (don't read my review for it because it's a bit harsh lol). But this one made up for it and more. It tells the tale of a lady in Calgary who was murdered at home and left in the basement while her husband was out of town. Though that might suggest a typical violent crime/robbery, nothing was actually stolen from the house, she wasn't sexually assaulted and authorities found no clear proof that anyone else had even been there. So it goes beyond exploring what happened to what could have *possibly happened.
Superb photography, well-diagrammed crime scene, realistic characters, provocative story and, best of all, a bona fide mystery. The questions are simple but the answers are harder to come by. For all the Sherlock Holmes wannabes out there, this is your jam.
Unsolved Mysteries: Who Was Jack the Ripper? (2024)
Next!
Lifelong fan of Unsolved Mysteries here. The music gave me chills as a kid, the stories kept me up at night, and my imagination ran wild with all the possibilities. I was so stoked when I heard Netflix was producing a fourth season. The new format has been such a worthy addition to the canon. Giddy up! How lucky am I?! My streaming life couldn't be better-
Unfortunately this first episode couldn't be worse. It's an idle recap of Jack the Ripper that offers nothing new. Merely circles around between the insights of a handful of historical crime aficionados in England- "circles around" being both figuratively and literally true since the drama spins its wheels and leads nowhere. Just a barrage of facts, a somber score that would work well as an anesthetic, and a few pictures of 1880's London to transition from one speaker to the next... which come to think of it is a word that came to mind often: NEXT!
Only after I finished did I realize there were just four more episodes in this new volume. What happened to the tried-and-tested formula? We're almost a quarter done already? Can we get a re-do?! At the same time, if this is a harbinger of what's to come perhaps "just four more" is a blessing. Because this is truly one of the worst eps I can remember, and the excitement I felt earlier has been replaced by anxiety. Jack the Ripper's body count has now been upped from at least five prostitutes in 1888 to at least five prostitutes in 1888 *plus* one mutilated episode of Unsolved Mysteries in 2024. And instead of human organs, this time I fear he might have taken its soul.
Fall (2022)
Be careful
Man, I had no clue what I was in for. The idea is simple (two climbers get stuck atop a 2000-foot tower in the middle of the desert) but the viewer experience is complex. It feels so real. It's meant to feel real. "Fall" is an unapologetically distressing tour de force. Buckle up.
My subject line is a bit cheeky, tho. Yes I'm warning you to be careful- particularly if you're acrophobic because, again, this one pulls no punches. It is intense. But it's also a line the climbers say more often than any other. They keep stating the obvious: "Be careful, Hunter!" "Omg Becky, be careful!" And each time they do restarts your panic cycle anew- "Oh no, what now?!" Worse, it's hard to prepare for what's coming. Even when you think you're ready, there's no telling how your body will react to what it sees and fears; logic can't always override instinct. In that sense it's not a movie that provides soft landings (pardon the pun). It is full-on *trying to spark a physical response.
And not just when the climbers are on the tower either. It employs other tactics as well. Such as repeatedly using an establishing shot of the property with a sign that says "No Trespassing. Danger of Death." So even if you start to (somehow) settle in comfortably, the sign prods you back out to the edge of your seat. The name itself works the same way: Fall. Would "Climbing the Ladder," "High," "Alone Together" ("Friends in High Places" lol) or something more hopeful/less dramatic not have been enough? Nope. FALL. The filmmakers make no secret of where they want your mind to be.
In the end, subconscious tools work in tandem with vertigo-inducing visuals to create a fully destabilizing experience: Be careful... Danger of death... Fall. You hear it, see it and feel it. I get sweaty palms just typing it out now, and if I choose to watch it again I'll need a new strategy because the thrills are not something you can get used to. One of the more electrifying movies I've ever seen.
Say Hey, Willie Mays! (2022)
A (larger-than-) life well lived
After hearing he'd recently passed away at 93, I decided to learn more about the great Willie Mays. Hardly knew much beyond his celebrity status as a baseball legend and *real-life status as Barry Bonds' godfather. Thankfully, this profile goes into a lot more depth! Say Hey takes a valiant stab at communicating the enormity of Willie's cultural influence some ~50 years after he retired. It touches on all the "bases" of his life from Fairfield to Birmingham to Harlem to San Francisco, and shares entertaining anecdotes from each stop.
By interviewing icons like Bob Costas, Vin Scully, Dr. Harry Edwards, Jon Miller and Bonds himself, Say Hey also frames his career within the broader American context. It outlines his real and perceived responsibilities - both on and off the diamond - to assess his full impact. Though he took some heat for being soft-spoken during an era of vocal activism and protest, I felt he explained himself rather well: "I can't stand on a soapbox and preach. Martin Luther King Jr and Roy Wilkins are better equipped for that than I am... I've worked for Job Corps and I don't know how many kids groups I've addressed, and will continue to address. In my own way I believe I'm helping, and in my heart my way is just as important as Jackie Robinson's way. I believe understanding is the important thing... because we are all God's children fighting for the same cause."
Such moments of grace and perspective are dotted throughout the movie and juxtapose Willie's everyman kindness alongside his unique athletic talent. By the end we see what Costas means when he shrugs, "Willie Mays was as much about joy as greatness." His life was a fine story and this film does a fine job of telling it.
Six Schizophrenic Brothers (2024)
Triggers = Genes + Events ... + Environment?
If you've ever wondered about family life with twelve kids in the middle of Colorado in the '60s and '70s, Six Schizophrenic Brothers is for you. :) But it's less about the where and when than the what and why. It truly is a captivating story with plenty of angles and theories as to how it all unraveled. The Galvin family were brave in sharing their truth with the world and shedding light on a disease that's often misunderstood.
In terms of production, tho, the series is a bit sloppy. An obvious example is when the end credits roll before people are even done talking. (And if you're watching on Max at the default settings, you get prompted for the "Next Episode" and the window auto-exits full screen while you're still trying to make out the dialogue.) It can be frustrating, like going out to the theater and having the curtains close and lights come on before the final scene is over. What's the rush? Where are we going? Choppy editing like that limits the impact of an otherwise powerful tale. Some of the stylistic choices do the same. The Galvins' saga is presented almost like a horror flick, with brothers emerging from the shadows for their interviews as if they personify danger; as if they're monsters. The eerie vibe seems like an unnecessary jab at their poor health.
And while I don't want to over-analyze the script because these folks are trying to recall events of 50 years ago- which can't be easy- some of their claims don't line up. For one, they suggest Peter's (#10's) illness may have been triggered by seeing his father suffer a stroke, which "greatly diminished" Dad's ability to communicate/take care of himself and hospitalized him for "at least six months." But then they imply both parents are to blame for not taking care of Peter after he got sick. What was Dad supposed to do? Was he not bedridden himself? The timeline is a bit shifty like that. It's not that they're lying but they do play it loose with some details, making it tough to distinguish between exaggerated memory and objective fact. In short, I thought the series could have been tightened up in editing, style and script. Which is not to say others won't enjoy it because the subject is compelling. I just felt it had greater potential, oddly for the same reason: because the subject really is compelling.
-
As for my unsolicited, unprofessional view on their unfortunate story, I do wonder if the original source for all the mental illness wasn't the context itself: namely a single-income family with twelve blood brothers and sisters all living under the same roof. There's no textbook for how to deal with that in modern-day America. Indeed, the very first victim was the very first child- but only after all twelve were born. Seems like a clear red flag: this family's too big. Schizophrenia had never befallen their ancestors, nor has it yet appeared in any of their offspring. So it seems a safe bet that something about this *generation and this *environment spurred this *outcome. We can debate how they witnessed their dad's stroke, were abused by the priest, suffered head injuries playing sports, experimented with psychedelics, worked long hours in isolation... all as possible "triggers"- and the family does- but now we're drawing individual links to explain a group phenomenon. I'd be more inclined to look at the big picture, what with so many being supported by so few (no grandparents around either). For if the structural foundation is flawed, the home will be left more vulnerable to *any storm/trigger.
The fact that Mary (#12) is the only one who takes care of her sick brothers today reinforces that theory for me. The others seem not at all interested in holding up their end of the bargain. "We're not strong enough," they say, and that was tough to watch. I know the Galvins have endured a lifetime of trauma, but to abandon each other in their time of need is something else. It reflects a lack of empathy. After all, you hear the siblings use the word "fun" when they reminisce on their happiest times together- but never "love." Never. Their relationships seem linear and transactional to this day. So where is that rooted? Again, I'd say in a twelve-child household where everyone was used to competing for resources, attention and guidance. It affected them the same way then that it appears to affect them now- whether they're schizophrenic or not. Might this have simply been the case of too many people and no room for love?
Mary says early on that Mom and Dad wanted a large family for the sake of the Catholic Church. They felt it was their duty "to keep the faith going." It's an honorable pursuit and they're entitled to feel that way. But after all they went through and the tenor of their legacy, I can't help but think they might have been better served to prioritize child protection over wild procreation.
The Jinx: The Life and Deaths of Robert Durst (2015)
Extraordinary tale
The Jinx benefits from a story that defies all probability. You have this delicate old man (Robert Durst) linked to the murders of his ex-wife, best friend and neighbor. So is he a victim of bad luck or a charming psychopath on the loose? Who's really living under a jinx: Durst or the people around him? That's what we're looking to find out. What we already know is that he's a real estate tycoon from New York whose family has long been one of the wealthiest in America. So in terms of entertainment potential, the filmmakers were dealt a royal flush here. It would have been hard to mess it up.
But that doesn't necessarily mean they played the hand well. I do give them credit for untangling such a diverse cast of characters out from a web of lies (family, friends, enemies, colleagues, journalists, legal experts, randoms, etc.). That was very well done and I'm sure trickier than it looked. Plus the music is exceptional and adds melodic contour to the drama. So there's clarity and mood, which is a great starting point for any series. But it is also slow. Painfully slow. Some bridges don't lead anywhere, and even the ones that do get lost in their own construction. I'm thinking of S2:E2. I won't spoil what happens but the narrative meanders around for an hour with no clear purpose or payoff. Only in the finale does it bear any fruit, but by that point you hardly remember Ep 2 anymore, and even if you do you don't care. This sort of anticlimax repeats itself a few times and you wonder if they weren't so focused on how it would end that they didn't stumble over some of the steps to get there.
Either way, the Jinx will provoke a reaction. No doubt. So if that's what you're looking for you'll get your fix. The thought that kept surfacing in my mind is that money blinds us all: those who have it and think they can get away with anything as a result; and those who want it and are willing to do anything to *get it. The Jinx studies both sides of that proverbial coin, along with the people living on its edge who pay the ultimate price for the game... in this case the families of Kathleen McCormack, Susan Berman and Morris Black. RIP.
---
Note: Feel free to multiply my score by 1.5 to get how most people would probably grade it. I'm just not a big true crime fan. Shoot me... unless you're Durst- since then you might actually do it. No need to shoot me, Bob. Get me that Lexus and we'll call it even. :)
MoviePass, MovieCrash (2024)
Unbelievable, all too believable story
Classic before-and-after tale of a company's glory days under the founders before corporate egos come in and drive it into the ground. MoviePass, MovieCrash concerns the ill-fated MP subscription service that allowed members to attend multiple screenings for a flat monthly fee. Kind of like the Netflix formula, but for actual theatergoers.
In this case glory days is relative since the business model was not sustainable to begin with. The founders seem indifferent to having lost 'only' a few $100K per month when compared to the $30Mil burn rate of their hedge fund-backed successors, but to me that almost misses the point. Yes one was embarrassing while the other was downright absurd, but neither was poised for success. After all, the concept of all-you-can-eat should be used as a temporary bridge rather than a long-term plan, and any company whose survival relies on users NOT taking advantage of why they signed up is doomed no matter who's at the helm- be it the charming founders, the greedy businessmen or any of their acolytes. In hindsight the blame game appears even more trivial given that MoviePass went bankrupt in January 2020; would the pandemic not have wiped them out regardless?
I would have been ok had the filmmakers left it there, but they do favor one side over the other (you can guess which one) and romanticize their journey as they prepare for a re-launch today. So it could be worth your time to see how persuasively that argument is made. Otherwise I'd just lump MoviePass in with all the other victims of streaming (there've been too many) and this film as one long commercial for what they plan to do next. I do hope they make it because I still treasure going out to the movies, but I doubt I'd go for this one.
Dark Days (2000)
Well done
Documentarian Marc Singer's Dark Days looks at homelessness in New York City near the turn of the century. It follows a handful of folks living in the subway tunnels where the difference between night and day is more mentality than reality. It's also filmed in black and white, presumably because the first victim of darkness is color.
While the content sounds heavy, it's oddly life-affirming - and not just because DJ Shadow provides the score. We get to know these characters, what led them onto the streets and their undying hope for the future. There are moments of levity, generosity and fierce debate, as they form a new type of family unit to ease their daily hardships. We see them survive against the odds and how, despite the scarcity of light underground, within them beams eternal incandescence.
Best way I can describe how I feel about Dark Days is that upon watching it ~25 years after it was made, I checked to see what Singer was doing now. Turns out he no longer works in film. In fact this remains the only project he's ever completed, which is as hard to believe as it is disappointing. I wish he'd stayed in the game since he's a talented storyteller who knows how to give voice to the voiceless. And I don't even hesitate in saying that because the proof is on screen. This film is that good.
Three Days of the Condor (1975)
"Maybe there's another CIA... inside the CIA."
I'll admit I'd never heard of Three Days of the Condor. It kinda dropped down out of the sky on me. But what a pleasant surprise. I don't know why they don't make films like this anymore: ordinary people in extraordinary situations among regular city folk. Studios spend so much time ensuring that all shots and sounds are technically clean and free of outside noise that we often lose our reality along the way. Director Sydney Pollack had the right idea here by just putting his camera in Midtown and letting New York speak for itself. We could use more of that these days imo.
As for the story, it's spies chasing spies for reasons that are only shared on a need-to-know basis. The audience tags along as Condor (Robert Redford) and Cathy (Faye Dunaway) try to unravel the mystery. There's more to it than that but I don't want to ruin the surprise since the opening scene sets the stage far better than I ever could. It is truly sublime. Within the first 15 minutes you know exactly what you're in for and whether it's something you'll enjoy. We could probably use more of that too! :)
And again, the fact it's pitted against the canvas of 1970s New York adds another layer. Magnificent shots of the Brooklyn Bridge, Twin Towers (inside!), Guggenheim, Upper West Side, Central Park, etc., are themselves worth the price of admission, if only to show how the city has/n't changed over the past 50 years. Plus, even the geography makes sense- with the sole exception of Condor biking to work down 7th Ave South before he arrives in... Lenox Hill lol. But aside from that one slight gaffe they stayed true to the map of Manhattan, which I know many New Yorkers appreciate.
My favorite line comes when Condor turns to Cathy and says, "Maybe there's another CIA... inside the CIA." Tell me that doesn't make you wanna watch! Whether it's best described as a political thriller, spy drama, murder mystery or high-speed romance is not so important. Three Days of the Condor is just solid entertainment.
The Vow (2020)
"You need to check your ego at the door," said the egomaniac.
SUMMARY:
I wouldn't recommend watching the entire series unless you're a true crime fanatic. It's pointlessly long. The first two episodes of Season 1 and the two season finales are more than enough to get a full picture of what happened. The rest is overkill imo. 2/10.
FULL REVIEW:
The Vow is yet another story of a self-centered opportunist (Keith Ranière) who preys on the insecurities of vulnerable people (often attractive young females). His supporters might argue he was well-intentioned to start, whatever that means, but unchecked power will eventually/inevitably feed on itself. As one of the characters says near the end, "People were all utilities to him. That's it." It's sad how often this occurs in society and how long it takes us to realize it's happening.
The same person also admits Ranière would rarely do any actual work. He'd just eat, lay on the couch and wait for his next chance to "offer guidance"- which is the classic mark of a narcissist and/or a leech. At that point the stated mission becomes merely a tool to maintain his narcissistic, le(e)cherous lifestyle. So while Ranière claimed he sought to "empower women" by offering them his services, it's hardly a surprise that it devolved into the opposite.
While the topic is captivating and worth discussing over coffee, The Vow is still a documentary. As a cinephile, I don't have much good to say about it. Granted, the production value is excellent. I don't want to go down the wormhole of how this cult had compiled so much footage over 20 years (why were crews following them around in ~2008? Did the cultists think that was normal back then? Were scenes filmed again after the fact? How many of the spontaneous reactions were in reality staged? Etc.). But it does look and sound good. Kudos to the technical team for that.
Unfortunately that's about the only thing I enjoyed. Others have described the story as disjointed and I fully agree. You'd think they had ~17 editors... oh wait they did! :) Having that many strings on the bow leads to a discordant mess- at once repetitive and unclear- and that's exactly what happens here. Some scenes are not properly introduced, others are emphasized and re-emphasized to the point you wonder if they weren't stretching them out for the sake of it. The only thing crazier than dedicating nine hourlong episodes to Ranière's cult is to then turn around and make a SECOND SEASON- ultimately bringing The Vow to a longer run time than full seasons of Game of Thrones or Succession! The answer to "what they left on the cutting room floor" is probably not much, since they weren't all that selective about what they *did use.
The editing is so sloppy that I recall one ~10-min stretch when they established the Brooklyn Courthouse no fewer than FIVE different times. "Now at the courthouse..." - yes, you were just there 30 seconds ago. We know. You needn't show the outside again at a slightly different angle and think you're adding to the drama. What might help more is actual titles and dates to let us know when the setting *does change. Save for toppled signs on the road, thickets and shrubs that may or may not be recognizable from earlier scenes ("Wait, are those the same trees from Albany or...?") there's no telling if the story has now moved to Clifton Park, Clinton Park or Stanley Park- and I'm writing this as a NYer. Even I couldn't always tell where they were without resorting to clues. In that sense the series lacked proper oversight, like a football team with 10 assistants but no head coach to bring it all together.
Another example that comes to mind is when one of the main characters abruptly breaks out in tears. It has the potential to be a powerful moment. But it carries on for so long that it curbs its own impact. You no longer empathize, you just want the scene to be over. The Vow is much the same way overall. Undisciplined and patched together on a whim. Worse still, bizarre dream-like sequences are inserted to bridge any obvious gaps in the story and those just muddle things further. All told, the project is in dire need of a final edit. I assume if the filmmakers were ever asked to do a segment for 60 Minutes, they'd sooner add a zero to the name of the show than comply with sensible time restrictions.
Perhaps the best way to sum up The Vow is that the name Ranière is pronounced "rah-NEER-ee" by his friends and "rah-NERR-ee" by Keith himself. There's also a Bouchey ("BOO-shee") that presumably used to be Boucher but got mangled over the years. Regardless, the butchery of the French language is on full display here, to the point that I cringe when these folks pronounce their *own names lol. Which is a fitting way to view this docuseries overall: self-awareness is not one of its strong suits.
Spacey Unmasked (2024)
Brutal
I don't know why I watched Spacey Unmasked. If you've been assaulted, go to the police. Blatant hit jobs like this can dilute honest advocacy to promote safety in the world. Is the goal to cancel Kevin Spacey for being a sexual miscreant-deviant-creep? Has he not already been cancelled 1000 times over? Has his career not fallen off a cliff since House of Cards? I'd be shocked if he managed to ever book another major role, forget about matching his past success. I also found this series to be unwatchable since the sources are mostly actors themselves. I can't get out of my head that even they could be reading lines on behalf of a personal nemesis of Spacey's. This is Hollywood, after all. I know they're not donating the profits to charity.
Sexual misconduct is serious. Go to the POLICE. Don't go peddling your story to HBO or the National Enquirer or some other tabloid in the hopes of making a buck. And this isn't to defend alleged predators like Spacey, Harvey Weinstein, Woody Allen, Michael Jackson or anyone else. Far from it. These documentaries exploit a legitimate problem in society. They're more to give audiences the illusion that we're doing something by watching, rather than being actual campaigns that lead to justice for victims. If you truly want to help the cause, volunteer; donate to NGOs in the protection sector; support bills that clamp down on abuse at home, at school and in the workplace; etc. Nobody qualifies as an "ally" just because they produced/watched juicy gossip about Oscar winners on Max.
On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969)
Whole greater than the sum of the parts (#6)
The best way to go into On Her Majesty's Secret Service is with low expectations and an open mind. "Since Sean Connery's AWOL and it's George Lazenby's only 007 feature, it must have been a mess... right? Right?!" No, not right. Not at all right. This film is FUN and has plenty of highlights whether you're a Lazenby fan or not.
For starters, it's the first Bond script that's actually tight and moves at a natural pace. The screenplay by Richard Maibaum (with dialogue help from Simon Raven) is coherent and just flowwws. We're enjoying the ride; we're not suffering whiplash, wondering what just happened or begging for it to end. It balances action, character development, humor and classic Bond technical jargon- and it does so with aplomb.
Some very cool locations, too. From London to Lisbon to Bern, we're given a distinct if incomplete taste of Europe. But the 'peak' comes when our hero ventures into the Swiss Alps and we're blessed with breathtaking photography from Michael Reed (his only Bond as DP) and Peter Hunt (his only Bond as Director). These two clearly came equipped with new ideas to leave their mark on the series, and we're the direct beneficiaries of their vision. The film is worth seeing if only for the fact that it looks good...
But it also *sounds good. While it lacks an eponymously-titled vocal like 'Goldfinger' or 'Thunderball,' it truly doesn't need one. The score stands on its own with a versatile and catchy melody, led by an arrangement of horns, euphonium and synthesizer that are reflective of that era and fit well with the (at times mind-bending) nature of the plot. What's more, the de facto lead tune is We Have All the Time in the World, performed by Louis Armstrong and written specifically for the film by long-time Bond collaborators John Barry and Hal David. The title isn't just a cliche either. It reinforces the countless images of clocks, dials, watches and other timepieces sprinkled throughout the film to build suspense- even if we don't always know what we're 'waiting' for. I'm telling you, they spent a lot of time and energy on this production and it can reach you on multiple levels. It's a full sensory experience.
As for Lazenby, I thought he was an excellent choice because he's NOT Connery. His presence isn't as imposing and doesn't try to be. He allows his supporting cast to carve out their own niches, which is useful given how much emphasis is placed on the storyline with Tracy (the Bond girl du jour). In a sense, Chef Lazenby leaves space in the proverbial kitchen for other cooks to contribute, and they improve the menu together.
On Her Majesty's Secret Service is also a Christmas movie! So next time you're dragged into that ol' debate about the best holiday film and everyone else opts for a Charlie Brown, John McClane or Kevin McCallister title, you can knock their socks off with the ultimate name: Bond, James Bond.
My favorite line comes at the end of the pre-credits sequence when Lazenby turns to the camera and quips: "This never happened to the other feller." It's a masterful touch that puts the audience at ease with the elephant in the room while also revealing an openness to tweaking the formula- which it proceeds to do for the next two hours. Another notable line is when Bond says "I love you." I won't give away when or why that comes. But you don't hear him say it again until No Time to Die over 50 years later. Feel free to impress your friends with that little nugget of trivia. :)
Final score: 85/100. A few dry spells and runs a bit long (10 mins longer than any release to that point) but more than makes up for it in other areas. Crafty, creative and memorable. I have it ranked 6th of 27.
---
*** I watched the entire Bond series in chronological order and ranked them without consulting any reviews (the 25 EON Productions films + original Casino Royale + Never Say Never Again). The goal was to judge them as objectively as possible. It was all for fun. The full list can be found at my page! ***
The Act of Killing (2012)
Tough movie to rate
The Indonesian coup of the mid-1960s is an important story to know if only because the effects continue to be seen today. I keep going back and forth on Oppenheimer & Cynn's The Act of Killing, tho. It's a tough watch and not the kind you'd necessarily 'enjoy'. I don't mean just the disturbing nature of the content either (i.e., genocide). I found the film's length (167-min director's cut), absence of a narrator and complete reliance on subtitles made it awfully easy to get distracted. In the end it's a three-hour study of the psychology of mass murderers, take it or leave it.
At the same time its value is rooted in that same stylistic choice. By letting the characters indict themselves- as opposed to telling viewers how to feel about what they did- the directors take a highly original approach, one I'd say is effective *because it's highly original. It allows audiences to look past Indonesia and judge its story on universal truths that speak to societies everywhere.
I'd even take it a bit further. At first I didn't appreciate the limited political context provided for outsiders like myself. But then I realized I might've been missing the point. The killers never defined their targets beyond "communists"- even for them there wasn't much additional context provided. The label took on a life of its own to mean whatever suited their evolving personal agendas at the time. So what might have begun as an "anti-communist' crusade quickly spiralled into an excuse for serving their insatiable thirst for power. I think we can all relate to that danger today- no matter who we are, where we live, or indeed how we vote.
The Zone of Interest (2023)
You won't forget this one
This film took a new angle to documenting a period that had been milked dry by Hollywood, to the point where the public had almost become desensitized to the horrors of WWII. For that reason, I found its minimalism landed well with me. It never tried to say or show too much- for what's left to be said? What's left to be shown? It simply sought to put the viewer in the moment- to *feel it. I certainly did.
The ambient sound was terrific, if haunting. I don't know whether there was truly that sort of perpetual "hum" coursing through the community neighboring Auschwitz- let alone whether it sounded like that- but to me it all came across as thoroughly authentic. If I had to take issue with anything, it would just be a few scenes with a Polish girl hiding food for camp prisoners overnight. I thought the soundscapes for those were somewhat disorienting and could have been tightened up for maximum impact.
Otherwise the film was on point. In this age of bloated 140-minute epics, I appreciated how it said everything it needed to say in just 105. It didn't mince words but it didn't need words; you lived it as much as you watched it. The more I enjoyed its realism, the more I didn't want it to feel so real, which led to an internal disagreement I rarely experience at the movies. I'm glad creative projects like this are still being supported.
Diamonds Are Forever (1971)
Worst Bond film (#27)
Diamonds are Forever sits alone at the bottom for me. Best part might have been the theme song carried majestically by Shirley Bassey, her first since the superb Goldfinger. Straight downhill from there, tho. Had Connery not 'chosen' to leave after this film I'm sure he would have been fired anyway.
Judging strictly from this performance he had no interest whatsoever in playing 007 anymore. Imagine James Bond going through the motions as an annoyed middle-aged man, whose thought bubble at almost any time can be written as "Pfft!" That's what we have here. No fun. The film ages poorly too. If you didn't think Connery's Bond was enough of a misogynist already, just wait until he puts any doubt to rest by smacking a lady, drowning two others, and verbalizing his chauvinism outright in one of the few scenes where he displays any emotion at all- not surprisingly, anger: "You stup!d twitch! You put the real one back in there!"
Final score = 42/100. Even that feels too high, tbh, but a car chase along the Vegas Strip deserves credit for being historically unique, if not competently staged. Otherwise it has a lame plot, including a storyline around plastic surgery that is abandoned halfway through when the writers realize it's a dead end; a puzzling new version of Blofeld by the same actor (Charles Gray) who had played Dikko in You Only Live Twice, the Connery film immediately preceding this one- which does more to confuse than compel; a truly disposable Bond girl, whose "chemistry" with the leading man can at once be described as basic -and- acidic; action sequences that come few and far between amid long dry stretches that even Vegas' Mojave Desert can't replicate; and a listless Connery who's pounding on the exit door to open. So let me do him a favor and let him out here. Diamonds are forever but bombs are better forgotten. 27th of 27.
-
***I watched the entire Bond series (the 25 EON Productions films, the original Casino Royale and Never Say Never Again) in chronological order and ranked them without consulting any reviews. The goal was to judge them free from external bias. It was all for fun. The full list can be found at my page! ***
Dream Scenario (2023)
Painful, yet strangely poignant
What an amazing little film. Ultra-relatable. Everyone's got a touch of (or a lot of?) "Paul Matthews" in them. Had me cringing and laughing in a way I'd never cringed and laughed before lol. Nic Cage deserves serious kudos for this performance because I can't imagine anyone else pulling it off. Dream Scenario is a bit like The Truman Show in that Paul's being watched and judged by strangers and doesn't know how to find the exit door. At the same time, it's funnier. Cage finds that perfect medium where you feel bad for Paul but also don't mind chuckling at his hardships. And his environment is not a massive soundstage like it was for Truman, but rather the real world that we're all part of.
Loved the zebra theme that the writers worked into the script. Zebras are striped because they want to merge in with the herd and not stand out to the lions. All Paul ever wanted to be was a zebra... only to find the herd were all lions. You'll understand what I mean once you watch it. ;)
My one gripe might be with the way the film ended. It came abruptly and I thought it failed to reach full impact. But that could just be a matter of taste, maybe I'll appreciate it more next time. Either way, Dream Scenario was superbly written and provides endless food for thought on the world today. It's easy to connect with Paul's... umm, "lived experience." Once again, you'll get what I mean when you watch it- and if you're anything like me you'll be glad you did.
Breslin and Hamill: Deadline Artists (2018)
Outstanding
Thoroughly enjoyed this. Inspired me to read their books, which I found just as funny, articulate and thought-provoking.
Love how the film had them recite their own passages like spoken word poetry. Brilliant way to convey the music and magic domiciled in their writing.
That they covered (and were often present for) so many seismic events is remarkable. From the assassinations of Malcolm X, JFK and RFK, to the Vietnam war and the Son of Sam (who corresponded directly with Jimmy), to the subway vigilante, AIDS epidemic, Central Park 5, 9/11... the list goes on and on. Forget about being journalists or reporters; these two were bona fide historians.
I just thought the film captured their essence very well. As if that weren't enough, there are a plethora of celeb insights on their work to hold your attention, including from Jackie O, Shirley MacLaine, Colin Quinn, Spike Lee, Bob Costas, Robert De Niro, etc. You really can't overstate Pete Hamill and Jimmy Breslin's impact on life on New York, and on the craft of journalism more broadly. I'm glad this doc was made and I think you'll enjoy it too.
===
"Hamill would give you the poetry of New York. He had sweep and majesty. It was like walking into a French novel."
"He knew about worlds I didn't know about, and made me feel like I understood them." Hamill on Breslin
(What was it like to be on Nixon's enemies list?) "Oh it was an honor! There were a lot of good people on that list." - Hamill
"I realized early that bad news was great, even if it involved me. I protected myself by writing about it." - Breslin.
The Tetris Murders (2022)
A bit clunky- like a Tetris square
What this series really comes down to is the disconnect between the federal and local investigative authorities. Having "Tetris" in the name is somewhat misleading. Beyond investigators trying to put the puzzle together like a Tetris game, the case has very little to do with that at all.
If anything, I wish they'd spent more time on why the Russian mob would have killed Vladimir and his family. A theory was suggested a few times, but it wasn't explicitly laid out until the very end. And even then it seemed thrown together on a whim imo.
I honestly think the police knew more than they let on throughout the series. During the episodes Sandra surprises them individually with some of the info she's learned, which feels like we're finally getting somewhere. But when they meet later as a group, she "surprises" them with much of the same info again and they pretend like they've never seen it before lol. So you can never tell what's sincere versus what's being staged for dramatic effect. In that sense, if you want to enjoy Ep 3 you'd better hope you forgot what happened in Ep 2 because you might just be seeing some old re-packaged as new.
Another frustrating element was how the script focuses on whether the Feds already had a file open on Vladimir at the time of his murder in 1998. Debate on whether they did or they didn't is a point of focus that spans the entire length of the series. Now I'm no detective lol but in Ep 2 they flash on-screen the FBI's response to her Freedom of Information request, where it says in the Subject line: "Pokhilko, Vladimir 1994-1999." Just from those *dates- if not from the seat of my couch lol- you see the Feds candidly admitting they were on him for four years before he died, and then for another year afterwards (possibly until the evidence was destroyed?). Yet the filmmakers continue to act dumbfounded as to how the FBI/DOJ could have been so responsive to his death in 1998, how the District Court took just two days to issue a subpoena, etc. Yes they were watching him! They told you they were watching him! Can we stop acting like they're hiding it?! It's little gaffes like that that lead you to think the series was produced more for our entertainment than to get actual answers to questions.
For that matter, if you were to ask me why it was deemed a murder-suicide, my answer would be similarly boring: that's just how cases like this are handled. This was a Russian family in the United States (presumably not American citizens yet) who got murdered by Russian hitmen. To what end should American time money and energy be used in an investigation, right? If you look at it that way it makes a lot more sense. Not that it's not dirty or controversial but authorities were looking for any excuse to close the book on it as soon as possible. Because despite the fact it happened on American soil, it wasn't technically an American problem.
And again, it's not like I'm Sherlock Holmes here. I think the police understood that as well. The drama was just sort of manufactured in order to produce a documentary. Fake true crime, if you will. Which is fine. I enjoyed parts of it too. But I wonder if it's not a microcosm of our relationship with media today, and how we're watching a lot of make-believe investigations. Even if they're done with good intentions, sometimes it seems they're conducted more to conceal the truth than to uncover it; more to obfuscate than to educate.
They Called Him Mostly Harmless (2024)
Had its moments
The internet sleuthing dimension got in the way of a really compelling story imo. I don't mind that they talked about the search and the communities cultivated online (emphasis on "cult"). But I wish the producers didn't focus so much on those elements. A nice tight one-hour doc about a man whose isolation led him permanently into the wilderness- and whose identity was only discovered through new technology, crowdfunding and the will of strangers- would have been solid. Instead, too much time was spent on the strangers. The more "serious" it got the more I laughed, and the film lost its punch in the process.
I still think it's worth watching, tho. I won't jump on the hate bandwagon lol. For one, I had never heard anything about his story before and it left me with plenty of food for thought. While this man did something very few (if any) of us would ever do, his life was still surprisingly relatable. How much of that has to do with what you know about him, and how much of it has to do with what you don't?
I thought the quote the producers found from Adams' book was a gem, and really captured the central theme of the project: "Let the past hold on to itself and let the present move forward into the future." Such a pointed reminder for everyone involved: be it those of us watching at home; characters who participated *from home; and maybe most notably "Mr. Harmless" himself, who could never find his way home at all.
True Detective: Night Country: Part 6 (2024)
Doesn't satisfy
Full disclosure: I'd never seen any of the previous seasons of True Detective. This was the first. I also don't feel either way about Jodie Foster. Which is to say I didn't consciously go with a bias. I could judge Night Country on its own merits.
The music was dynamite. I'm not a massive Billie Eilish fan but her theme song was fantastic, and I think they used at least one more of her hits. Such a haunting voice that was perfect for the setting. The rest of the soundtrack was subdued and well executed. I also liked the themes of the plot. I'm a big progressive and think the more attention paid to indigenous rights and environmental protection the better. The producers deserve kudos for mainstreaming these timely topics.
Unfortunately there's a lot that I didn't like. For starters, the season is far more enjoyable to binge than it is to watch with a full week between episodes, because it includes a lot of arthouse nuance that can render even important details easy to forget. By the time next week rolls around you're like, "Who IS this guy again? Why is he there? Or is he just there for the sake of being there- like everyone else?" Couple that with how the unbroken night is its own character and you don't even get proper visuals to jog your memory. It's a grind.
I would go so far as to say it might have worked better as a podcast. Most scenes were filmed on a soundstage, and the effort to hide that fact by immersing the shots in total darkness wears you out as a viewer. At least I thought so. If it had been strictly an auditory experience perhaps the story might have been easier to follow, if not appreciate.
At the same time I think the root cause of these misfires was that the writing was abstract, so it might have fared even *worse as a pod. The plot dimensions were not always established clearly, the characters even less so. Peter was a glassy-eyed jock who had the same energy whether hanging at a party or knocking at death's door. Evangeline was held in a strait jacket until the script demanded she do something equally out of character and out of nowhere. Danvers (played by Foster) had slightly more consistent bounce, but even with her we witness a personal drama erupt in a way that's more shocking than touching, and only reminds us that the writing is a far cry from... say, the Catcher in the Rye. ;) (Cheesy joke. You'll understand when you get there. You won't think it's any funnier then.)
As for the story, it was a mystery for the sake of a mystery and you needed to survive five episodes to make any sense of it. I guess that was the point but, again, it gets tiring. So I wonder if it might have worked better as a movie- is that the right question, Danvers?
Who cares what the right question is lol. They chose this and it didn't work for me.