Change Your Image
Baker0927
Reviews
Bill Burr: Paper Tiger (2019)
More like an extended podcast
Disappointed to say the least. Bill Burr's latest special "Paper Tiger" unfortunately isn't up to par with his previous, brilliant works. Sorely lacking in structure, the whole thing comes off more like a glorified podcast rather than a meticulously crafted comedy special. Not unlike his 2017 effort "Walk Your Way Out", Bill once again rubs off as overly whiney about current culture and lacks the finesse and consistent punchlines that made his early specials work so wonderfully. To make matters worse, there were a handful of recycled bits in "Paper Tiger" that I heard in Bill's previous podcasts as well as his appearances on talk shows. Of course there were some funny moments here and there, but few and far between the dire rants and rehashed bits that we've already heard many times before.
Perhaps being a married man with a young child and a now super successful comedy career has tarnished the razor sharp, uniquely hilarious Bill we saw back in 2010. Change isn't necessarily a bad thing, but that doesn't mean your comedy has to suffer because of it. Between Paper Tiger and Walk Your Way Out, both back to back specials that just don't work, I'm afraid Bill might have tapped himself out.
Hopefully you return to form, Bill. Until next time.
Once Upon a Time in... Hollywood (2019)
Too Long, Too Uneven, Too Unpolished
After months of anticipation, I couldn't wait to hit the theaters on opening night to see Quentin Tarantino's 10th film "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood".
(sorry people, but it really is his 10th despite his incorrect claims).
So after leaving the cinema, I was disappointed. Couldn't believe the 8.9 rating on IMDB and people talking about Oscars for this movie. First, Brad and Leo give great performances. They really made this movie watchable and without them, I would've never made it to the end. Brad is especially fun to watch as he smirks and postures two and fro, looking totally cool and putting people in their place as they embarrass themselves left and right, i.e. Bruce Lee and the Manson family member at the Ranch. DiCaprio is the foil to Pitt's character as he's an anxious, neurotic, stuttering mess of a once super hot TV actor that is now struggling to keep afloat in 1969 Hollywood. The chemistry these two have breathes life into an otherwise stagnant script. If we could only isolate Brad and Leo's performances, I would give this movie a 10. However, they are not alone, and their performances cannot cover horrible plot, random cameos, unfunny conversations, dirty feet, and awful Kurt Russell voiceover.
The dialogue. Let it be said, it's not good. This is especially surprising, considering QT normally writes engaging scripts even if some of it's stretched thin. But with Once Upon a Time, the dialogue is completely throwaway and uninteresting. A couple one-liners from Brad and Leo are not enough for 3 hour movie.
Empty space. Lots of empty space for a nearly 3 hour movie. Many long, drawn out shots of Brad driving around Los Angeles, feeding dog, and jumping on roof to fix antenna. Yes, editing is for fools.
Random people. Too many random famous people who randomly appear on screen and leave never to be seen again. The whole supporting cast felt like Where's Waldo. Scoot McNairy, Michael Madsen, Damian Lewis, Emile Hirsch, Timothy Olyphant, Dakota Fanning, Bruce Dern, Luke Perry, and Al Pacino all do their best, but the script is hiding from them. Tragic underuse of a phenomenal group of performers.
Sharon Tate character. Margot Robbie is beautiful to look and is a great actress but the script hides from her, too. She had maybe three scenes in entire movie. Two of those scenes she sleeps and watches own movie. Yes, Oscar for Robbie is a must.
Boring storyline. Very boring storyline for 3 hour movie. The first 2+ hours are a complete unpolished bore filled with Tarantino self indulgence of bare feet and boring scenes and tired 60s pop culture references. It isn't until Brad starts killing Manson family members that the movie becomes a little exciting. You can finally see some plot breaking through the rubbish you watched from earlier in the movie. However, once Leo uses flamethrower to kill last Manson member in swimming pool, movie ends.
That said, I did enjoy the movie in patches and indeed there are moments of brilliance such as Brad on the boat with wife and the invisible crew talking offscreen to Leo when he can't remember his lines in the Western saloon with Timothy Elephant. The cinematography is gorgeous and Robert Richardson is a genius with his camera. Production design is top notch. But as it stands, the movie is too long, too uneven, and too unpolished.
5 stars for Brad and Leo and some great cinematography and 60s set pieces.
The League of S.T.E.A.M. (2010)
One of the few musicals I actually like!
I can't say even good things about this series. From beginning to end, it is a highly entertaining watch. The songs are super fun, the visual effects are superb, the choreography is excellent and the cast is top notch. The humor is also well balanced and complements the steam punk twist quite well. If you haven't already, check this show out!
Or So the Story Goes (2013)
Modernized Horror Done Well
This was a fun series. I enjoyed the modernized horror that was spun into these age-old stories. I really liked the title sequence and the anthology format was a nice touch as well. If you enjoyed American Horror Story, then you should definitely give this web series a watch.
Challenger (2016)
Terrific production values
To start, the technical aspects of this series are incredibly well done- the costumes, makeup, visual effects, production design, and soundtrack are all outstanding. Visually speaking, this series oozes with style. I also loved the title sequence and the Terminator homage that came with it.
On the flip side of the coin, the story suffered because of the constant voiceover. It really comes off more like a narrative crutch than a stylistic choice. It also doesn't help that the characters say next to nothing- instead letting the voiceover unload the plot and character exposition rather than letting everything unfold organically. Alas, this creates a feeling of detachment and makes it difficult to really invest in the story. I was mostly in awe of the high end production values instead of being engaged with the characters and storyline.
7/10. Certainly worth a watch for the impressive technical aspects!
The Hunted: Encore (2016)
Quirky and Offbeat Vampire Musical!
I went into this web series completely cold and was thoroughly impressed with the end result- in fact, I wound up binge watching the entire first season.
Along with "League of S.T.E.A.M." (another musical web series that I very much enjoy), "The Hunted: Encore" consists of a likable ensemble cast that have tremendous chemistry with one another, a slew of catchy tunes, a cool soundtrack, and in this case throws into the mix a nice little vampire twist to the musical genre- which was definitely an unexpected treat. Definitely looking forward to catching up on season two! 10/10 must watch!
The Holiest One (2019)
a well balanced series that delivers
Everything comes together quite well in this series- the performances, camera work, editing, music, dialogue, and overall story comes together to create this eerie yet strangely optimistic atmosphere. The performance of the lead actress is one of my favorite aspects of the series.. 10/10 Highly recommended!
Neem's Themes (2016)
Hilarious and Relatable!
"Neem's Themes" is an all around terrific sketch comedy series that's well-deserving of its numerous accolades. The conversations are both funny and awkward (in a good way), the characters feel like real people, and the overall comedy of the series stems from real-life situations that many of us can relate to! A 10/10 from me!
Clerks (1994)
A decent amateur flick- with flaws
I first saw "Clerks" when I was nineteen. This was in 2013. At the time, I thought it was quite impressive. I looked at it as being a prime example of a "don't wait, create" kind of film and even though I still hold it in that kind of regard, I can honestly say that after just five years since I first saw it, "Clerks" has become less impressive and its flaws more glaring.
1.) Acting. It's not good. Even for amateurs or even "non-actors", the performances simply aren't good. Everyone delivers their lines in a rapid fire manner and the conversations don't flow naturally as a result. It doesn't help either that little emotion is evoked. Save for maybe a scene or two (moreso towards the end), no one uses any facial expressions or body language when they talk. Couple this with the super fast line delivery and the acting becomes more annoying than anything else.
2.) Cinematography. Poor. Very poor. Ultra low budget or not, Kevin Smith could've moved the camera every now and then. So many scenes are shot through one angle which only makes it more obvious that this is an amateur flick. Add to this you have black and white colors to avoid the tedium of color timing (which Smith himself admitted) and the virtual lack of proper lighting, it makes for a disappointing visual experience to say the least.
3.) Dialogue. Now I get stylized dialogue. It has its place and can enhance a story if it fits the overall tone. But in "Clerks", which is supposed to be a semi realistic portrayal of life as a convenience store employee, it just doesn't work. These characters, who are supposed to be careless losers that never even attended college, all talk like scholarly poets without the slightest interruptance. It just doesn't work. At all.
4.) Plot. What WAS the plot? "Day in the life" type movies have always kind of bugged me because they seem like cop outs. The idea that, "hey, let's make a movie with no story, no arcs, no character development, but thrown in some random half funny jokes and call it a movie." It never works for me. "Clerks" might have even been able to pull it off if Smith had bothered to base his screenplay upon real life stories. The kind that people in this line of work can relate to. Myself having worked retail in the past, I can tell you there are so many more interesting stories that could have been included in this movie that Smith didn't even touch. Instead he opted for a ten minute scene about contractors working on the death star. Yawn. Also, if Smith had used his original ending where Dante gets shot and killed, THAT would've at least given meaning to the rest of the movie. There were even several lines of dialogue that foreshadowed that ending. Alas, we got the alternate ending of nothingness which rendered the entire movie an exercise in futility.
All this said, the movie still has its redeemable moments. Some of the jokes are genuinely funny, the characters are interesting to a point, and it's the type of film that can inspire young filmmakers to go out and make their dreams come true. It's just too bad that Kevin Smith never made another passable movie after this one.
Django Unchained (2012)
Tarantino's Worst Picture to Date (As of November 2017)
When "Django Unchained" first came out in 2012, it was instantly hailed as Tarantino's magnum opus and as one of the most thought-provoking and brutally honest films about slavery in recent memory. It won 2 Academy Awards and made a whopping 425mil at the worldwide box office.
Suffice to say, I saw this film back when it first came out and thought it was terrible. I re-watched it the other day on TV and thought it was just as bad if not worse, than when I first saw it in 2012.
This is easily Tarantino's worst movie (yes, even worse than the abysmal Death Proof) and provides absolutely ZERO insight into the horrors of American slavery. I found absolutely nothing of value in this picture and couldn't grasp how it was heralded as such a masterpiece by virtually everyone and their mother. I especially can't comprehend how ANYONE in their right mind can consider this joke of a movie to be saying anything worthwhile about slavery or even the times in which slavery was common practice. There was no message, no point, no realism of any kind, no authentic human emotion, nothing at all. The only real "message" that Tarantino tries to deliver (if anything) is that black people have the right to kill all white people because of slavery and stuff. Yep. This is some pretty revolutionary thinking right here. Give this man an Oscar, oh wait.
Aside from the completely cartoonish and irresponsible take on a real period in history, my other issues with the film are as follows:
Plot/Characters. There was very little plot to "Django Unchained" and what plot there is, was nothing special. In fact, the story was so linear and straight-forward that it was insulting. The entire first hour of the movie is boring exposition with very little if any, character (or plot) development. Django barely speaks. He doesn't emote whatsoever. He magically develops the ability of an expert marksman practically overnight. He doesn't behave like a slave (former or otherwise) in any way, shape or form. Dr. Schultz is equally bland in that he's annoying and smug. Never develops from there and he's not even interesting to begin with. To add insult to injury, he and Django have absolutely no chemistry. Yet, these two characters make up the ENTIRE first hour of this movie. It is mind numbingly dull in every which way.
Only when we get to the introduction of Calvin Candie, played by Leo DiCaprio, does the movie actually become slightly more interesting. Despite playing a one-note and thoroughly unoriginal bad guy, DiCaprio manages to bring a new level of intrigue to his character which makes the movie semi-watchable. All the scenes with DiCaprio are the best of the movie and that is only because of DiCaprio's great acting chops, not Tarantino's writing or direction. But when DiCaprio is killed off at the 2hr. mark, the movie goes off the deep end and fast. It's like the first hour all over again except more blood and no Christoph Waltz. We get nonsensical character decisions like shipping off Django to some random Aussie miners instead of torturing and killing him like any sane person would, pointless blood baths in mansion with terrible and unfitting rap music, random white guys getting gunned down left and right, Tarantino's pathetic cameo, more random white guys getting shot out of nowhere and in the testicles, and a very stupid ending that could only be dreamt up in the head of a five year old. Django became the only remaining major character for the last 40mins of the movie and yet he was the weakest and least interesting character out of all (even Samuel L. Jackson's character was more interesting and that's saying A LOT). Thus, the first and third hour of this movie is atrocious. The middle section with DiCaprio is only kind of watchable because he is such a good actor.
With no discernible plot, no interesting characters to speak of, bad music choices, boring narrative structure, overlong and useless scenes (like KKK scene), complete lack of realism, awful ending, zero insight into slavery, and pitiful Tarantino Aussie cameo, I am truly at a loss as to where all the accolades and praise come from in regards to this "movie". Even The Hateful Eight was better than this tripe and that made less than half of what Django did.
Oh, I forgot to mention how annoyingly often the "n word" (can't say the full word on this site) is thrown around in this movie. It clearly was not meant to portray "realism" as there is none of any kind in this movie. Which means, QT is behaving like a child who uses bad words all the time simply because he can. Between this movie and The Hateful Eight, he really needs to stop embarrassing himself.
The Deer Hunter (1978)
A "One Good Scene" Type of Movie
Just got finished watching this movie for the first time ever. For years, I had heard nothing but great things about "The Deer Hunter", such as it's a masterpiece, a classic, etc. Because of this, I went into this film with high expectations and was sorely disappointed with what I had seen.
"The Deer Hunter" is one of those films that has one (maybe two) fantastic scenes and the rest of the picture is complete rubbish. A similar film is Inglorious Basterds (another war epic) with the opening scene at the farm being terrific but the rest of the film is just awful. In this sense, The Deer Hunter reminded me a lot of Inglorious Basterds. The Russian Roulette sequence in the Vietcong hut is absolutely breathtaking- the acting is high caliber, the tension is through the roof, the cinematography perfect. This scene is one of the best in film history. However, this one scene cannot cover the other, various issues that plague the film such as meandering plot, useless and overlong (way overlong) wedding scene, annoying characters, unsatisfying ending, choppy editing (Oscar for Best Film Editing, seriously?), and unwarranted three hour run-time. The entire first hour is a poor and overlong build up to the fantastic Russian Roulette scene in Vietcong hut. After this scene, movie goes nowhere for another 2 hours.
I understand this was the first Vietnam movie to come out in the wake of the Vietnam war. As such, it struck a chord and was a big deal in 1978. However, outside of one scene I cannot say that I really found this to be an enjoyable or even a thought-provoking war movie like Platoon (1986) or Full Metal Jacket (1987). Ironically enough, the first Vietnam movie to be made is the one that had the least impact, at least for me.
5/10 stars for the Russian Roulette scene only.
The Hateful Eight (2015)
Nothing New
After viewing the trailers, hearing about the 70MM format, the roadshow version, the overture, the police boycott, and whatever other irritating marketing gimmicks were thrown around for the last few months, I finally was able to sit down with my coke and popcorn to watch THE HATEFUL EIGHT . . . and boy oh boy, what a disappointment it was. Nothing spectacular, but not nearly as terrible as QT's worst outing to date, DEATH PROOF, a film that I found to be borderline unwatchable, to say the least. However, I did enjoy this movie a bit more than I did DJANGO UNCHAINED, another QT flick that I think to be vastly overrated and self indulgent, so I guess that's not much of a compliment really. Oh well.
Now to sum up its plot (or lack thereof), THE HATEFUL EIGHT is about a group of strangers who get stuck in a cabin in the middle of nowhere during a ferocious blizzard. The tension (or lack thereof) builds up before a brutal showdown (or lack thereof) takes place.
Yeah, I know, sounds a lot like Reservoir Dogs.
What makes this film uninspired, in my opinion, is the fact that it's really just a regurgitation of everything QT has done in the past, except here it's not nearly as fun or exciting. He's been recycling the same themes, plot points, smartass characters, exaggerated dialogue, OTT gore, and basic story premises for the last fifteen years now. Note to Tarantino: please come up with something new. You have enough money to take the next few years off so you can just sit back and think of something fresh and riveting to offer us the next time around. I highly recommend you do just that.
With all that being said, I'll now proceed with the pros and cons of THE HATEFUL EIGHT.
SPOILERS AHEAD. READ AT YOUR OWN DISCRETION.
First, the pros . . . Ennio Morricone's score is quite possibly the best thing about this movie. The cinematography is also well done (for the record, this film being shot on 70MM was pointless and added nothing to the movie). The opening sequence sets the mood quite well, what with the dark, ominous music assisting a pull-back shot of Jesus Christ up on a Cross in the middle of the vast Wyoming wilderness. The acting is pretty good overall, although there was some obvious overacting from Kurt Russell and Tim Roth, in particular.
. . . . and that's it for the pros.
Now for the cons . . . the film is too long. Waaaay toooo looooong. Like other reviewers have already said, the story presented here could've been told better and more effectively in under two hours. Instead, Tarantino treats us to nearly an hour and a half of useless dialog before we even get to the damn cabin, that while is supposed to build the characters and create tension, really just drags and has no purpose whatsoever. Moreover, much of the dialog repeated itself far too often. For instance, whenever ANYONE mentions "the Lincoln letter". We get it, a black guy has a letter from Abraham Lincoln. Can we move on now? This also applies to some of the actions that take place. We get treated to about five different scenes of characters opening and closing a door, nailing one piece of wood into the door, no, two pieces of wood into the door . . . you get the point.
In addition to its unnecessarily long running time and annoying dialog, we get a storyline and group of characters that are too basic and underdeveloped to even care about. We never really learn much about ANY OF THEM, other than they fought for either the North or the South. Samuel L. Jackson has a monologue about raping and killing the Confederate General's son that is both tasteless and boring (and rather contrived as it comes out of NOWHERE), the astronomical levels of gore in the final act was predictable and amateurish, and in the end, NOTHING was resolved. But then again, not much really happened to begin with. Oh, and the political "subtext" in this movie was just downright insulting. PLEASE stay out of politics, Tarantino.
I give this movie five stars for the score, cinematography, and the acting. The script and direction leaves much to be desired. Please get a grip, QT. Before it's too late.
Inherent Vice (2014)
Every Director Has Their Turkey
I saw this movie at the cinemas because it looked like an interesting detective mystery with old fashioned noir roots and intertwining plots and characters. These sort of films are among my favorite and it doesn't hurt that I am a fan of Paul Thomas Anderson to begin with. I personally look at him as being one of the more exemplary filmmakers of his time with classics such as Boogie Nights and Magnolia. His style is much like Scorsese's and his execution reminds me of Kubrick in many ways, cementing him in Hollywood as a force to be reckoned with.
So you can imagine my disappointment when this film nearly bored me into a coma.
This film was so bad, that I not only walked out on it- reflecting on how I could have spent ten bucks on such drivel- but also wept at having wasted nearly 100 minutes of my life on absolute trash. Yes, that is right...100 minutes and this film seemed like it wasn't anywhere near the finish line. Just scene after scene after scene of some of the most boring, expository dialogue ever delivered by a million characters who have nothing to do with anything but talk about a plot that would require the viewer to trip out on DMT to even understand it. The structure makes no sense, the constant reminder that our main protagonist "Doc", a whacked out PI who never showers, is just a second rate version of "The Dude" from The Big Lebowski becomes very tedious, and that voice-over....why? And I thought Blake Lively's voice-over in "Savages" was bad. The voice-over in this movie did absolutely nothing for the meandering plot. It was nothing but a bunch of incoherent, pseudo- intellectual ramblings by a stoner hippie girl that grates your ears worse than a cheese grater. I always thought a voice-over should serve as sort of the icing on the cake. It should only accent the story, but with the viewer still able to comprehend what is going on even without it. If you want examples, watch any film by Scorsese. That's how you do it. This movie was just a train wreck. A 7.3 rating? I am still wondering how anyone who wasn't a doper of the 70s could call this an "entertaining movie". The only decent thing in this waste of celluloid is Josh Brolin's performance as the banana loving, wise cracking detective named Big Foot. However, one performance cannot save a pointless, never-ending drug fueled mess of a film.
Unfortunately Paul, you struck out this time. Absolutely terrible.