Change Your Image
muratmihcioglu
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Guilty as Sin (1993)
Guilty as charged for enjoying and recommending it
I came across this movie on TV many times but I guess it was only the other day that I watched it fully on RAI. I had no idea it was directed by such an important name, and it was only that notable ending that had remained alive in my mind.
Revisiting a film from three decades ago is rewarding in the sense that you notice today's "a dozen a dime" ideas were quite fresh back then, enabling filmmakers to invest fully on the crux of the matter, knowing the audience would not be bored. A lawyer's responsibility to her client bringing with an inevitable level of aiding and abetting is the Achilles' heel of the American justice system and today we are well aware of its implications thanks to countless series in the spirit of Law & Order. However, I guess the concept was quite open to cinematic discovery when this was made.
Rebecca DeMornay is a unique beauty who can embrace diverse roles in her petite and striking frame. And she handles the quest of this torn lawyer pretty well in this one. Even though the antagonist and his victim never sleep together -strange choice for the script writer I must say, given erotic thrillers were hot at the time- we still get a sense of sexual tension. Don Johnson rules his own territory while using gullible women freely and carelessly, forcing our suspension of disbelief to almost crumble under the unexplained nature of how his raw sex appeal actually works even for women who apparently know him to be a killer of his previous lover(s).
What I like best about Guilty As Sin is how rapidly that final scene develops, unleashing the dormant nature of the struggle building up to that point, providing us with a strange, impactful catharsis.
Even though the script may look underdeveloped, I believe there is quality to not forcing things, which today's cinema lacks.
So, yes, this is worth a watch, maybe even every ten years.
The Stepfather (2009)
Surreally bad script. Instead of making it make sense, they've struggled to create excuses for it not making sense!
This is one of those movies that I watched with my mouth open, not being able to imagine how such an undoctored script could have made all the way to a finished product. Dollar Store version of Dexter? Or even worse? Heck, there was an earlier movie with Nicolas Cage and Vince Vaughn, one that covered the same plot with a much milder, yet more credible tone.
Anyways... I won't tell you it's not worth a watch because you can get entertained thanks to the pace and the scenery, but you shouldn't expect anything serious as this one almost borders parodies of the thriller genre.
The way they set it up, our antagonist is a "serial stepfather" who approaches women with children (why?) to reign over some kind of ready-made family. As we will see later, his motivation is not to murder everyone and leave the house, but is really willing to act as a father for the household (why?).
The story opens with him leaving his latest massacre behind. And we see him 6 months later, approaching his current love interest / victim. This gal has a teenage son who will return from some military-like boarding school, and this older son becomes the last in line to meet our antagonist, even after his breathtaking girlfriend has had a chance to know him.
I will not discolose how many of the 4 stars I am giving the movie are owed to Amber Heard wandering around in bikini or underwear all the time throughout the movie. Nor will I comment on whether the film could still be watchable if there were no pool scenes involving her.
That said... It's impossible not to notice how crooked a premise the whole story is built on. This "serial stepfather" is practically jobless. So, how does he get by? For the sake of argument, let's say he leeches of on his targets and expolits those MILFs when he is "opearting". But how has he managed to survive in between them, for, like, 6 months? Not that he cannot hold a job - he is depicted as a guy who CAN work as a realtor. But paperwork and photo IDs are required, and he has to remain incognito, so he just can't get established via work.
Okay, now... The USA is truly a libertarian society whatnot... And yes, maybe one CAN wander around without proper documentation. But can a guy who desperately needs cover do THAT when chasing women with pre-established households? I mean, how credible is it to imagine that a total stranger can approach a mid-aged lady and get anchored in her own house without a single point of reference? Can women be so gullible before a good looking guy? YES THEY CAN! Okay, that was a trick question and YES that can happen! But can that happen with a MOTHER? Someone who is instinctively hellbent on protecting her children? The scheme this guy pulls could have been scripted in such a fashion that we could buy it. But NO, there are no interesting details regarding a well-thought conspiracy here. Not just his targets, but also their friends and family are depited as totally dumb people for the story to work.
At one point, we arrive at such a point that, the ex-husband who suspects our antagonist has somehow completed a background check on the guy and understood he was a fraud. And what does he do? He steps in to the house, with no backup whatsoever, talking loudly to him when he can't even see him, only to have himself murdered.
This is not how men react when their concerns are warrented. No one does that. The moment you understand that your ex-wife is being screwed by a guy with a fake identity, you storm in there with backup, preferbly by the police, first and foremost to confront whatever immediate danger your kids could be in. But the script is written in such a way that everyone are sitting ducks. Even worse! They are ducks who move their necks towards the knife!
Strangely, things grow even more nonsensical after that. I must say I was kinda excited when the older son and his Amber Heard get into an exchange about whether the stepdad is really a dangerous criminal or not. The boy presents all the valid suspicions, and his Amber Heard brings up weird excuses for every single one of them. WHY? Given you can no longer even reach your actual father who suspected this guy, why do you not simply go to the police and file a report? How come law enforcement does not even exist in the imagination of these people? What's the worst that can happen?
Oh, I forgot to tell: Before all this happens, their cat lady neighbor was also murdered by the stepfather. And the boy listened to a conversation between some dude and his stepfather, a coversation in which he suposedly just got the notice she was "found dead due to an accident", yet, reported the situation to the mother as "she fell down the stairs and broke her neck". And YES, naturally, the son asks himself how come he knew how the death occurred if he wasn't involved. And what has he done about that even AFTER his own actual father got unreacheble? NOTHING!
This was a really, really strange movie. There was some quality to how they tried to AVOID reasoning instead of trying to make it make sense.
I don't know... Maybe it was so unusual in that sense that it touched a nerve, making itself original.
I wanna skip certain other nonsensical stuff to arrive at the end game where the stepfather, after being glassed in the neck, is still not dead and confronting his older son, his Amber Heard and his mother. And what does this athletic, well-built, swimmer teen son do at that point? HE OPENS THE DOOR TO THE ATTICK SO ALL THREE CAN CLIMB UP TO ESCAPE!
WHAT?
The murdered, now a totally confirmed murdered, the killer of your actual father, is right in front of you with a shard of glass in his neck, and you have two other persons with you, and you try to ESCAPE instead of finishing the job? And escape to where you exactly cannot get out of?
The reverse logic of this movie was really mind-numbing. Do not miss it if you are bored of reason.
Mike (2024)
Bad opening, cool progress, impressive moments and some technical problems with the script
Writing this freshly after the first night of the mini-series (two episodes, that is) on RAI yesternight:
Well, after having handled similar ambiances involving Italo-American stories, RAI is now pretty good at handling the period piece aspect of such dramas. Being a fan of Italian television, of course I knew well how important Mike Bongiorno was in establishing it. However, I had suspicions as to what effect a biography of his could have, given it was already a life well-documented thanks to the profession he was in.
So, I began to watch the show knowing there was possibility of getting bored and not finishing even the first episode. Sadly, the first 20 minutes were about to show me I was spot on with the suspicions. Much as I admire Claudio Gioe, his portrayal of the character looked stiff and uninteresting, coupled with an extremely predictable way of opening such a series: We see the protagonist from the back as he walks through the studio, interacting with staff whatnot. Jeez... Was this simply "playing safe" or were they really out of creative ideas?
Anyways... Expectedly, things began to get interesting when the talk show he was being a guest to opened the path to his childhood and teen years. His involvement in the resistance to German occupation in 1943 was already established as the strong suit of his life story; the kind of defiance one might not expect from someone who was going to establish a name over game shows.
Before going further with the critique of the series, I'd like to open a paranthesis and focus a bit on what I find notable:
The young actor playing Mike Bongiorno the teen had way more screen time than Claudio Gioe. At least for the first two episodes, the series relied more on Elia Nuzzolo's acting than Gioe's. And to my surprise, he was really good. To the point that, I began to feel Gioe could have been miscast as the aged Bongiorno. Not even mentioning the slight (and maybe inevitable) physical inconsistency of teen Mike being taller than older Mike here: The young actor was given more crucial moments in the script, things that changed Bongiorno's life radically. Given he had more to work with as an actor, it's only natural that he began to shine. The scenes from 1970s Italy were totally uninteresting, even more so than could normally expect, while the spirit of the narrative was there in the 40s, 50s era Turin and New York.
Still... I think more could have been done to keep the two actors in sync, to make Gioe feel like the "matured version of Mike's teen self". However, the two look too detached to be the same man. The level of hubris we find in Gioe doesn't even exit in Nuzzolo. I mean, we don't see the "seeds" of such a self-centered approach. Nuzzolo's Mike is 90% down to earth while Gioe's mike is 90% self-esteem. Can time and experience change one so sharply? Maybe. But even if so, I think some opportunities to tie the two together were missed. Like, a certain gesture or a catchphrase could be used for both. And we could at leaast subliminally be convinced that it was the same guy after all.
Anyways... Getting back to how Turin 1943 opened up the potential of this biography: We got to saw emotionally strong scenes where death lurked around young people, taking some away very early. I'm not sure how much of an exaggeration there was when depicting Bongiorno's involvement with the Partizans but I don't think it was zero, so, while they were at it, they could have added one action scene (something he witnessed, maybe) to make things more interesting.
On another note, I'm kinda sick of this "Hollywood depiction" of how things worked backed then in Europe. Okay, Germans were the bad guys and every evil act had to be portrayed through them, but come on, from a European point of view RAI could find different tones and not get trapped in Spielberg-esque portrayals. I believe there was more nuance to the Nazi occupation of Northern Italy back then, and there was a fine detail in a later scene which supports this take: After being sent to the USA via prisoner exchange, Mike has a haircut in an Italian barber shop in New York, and among other Italian celebrities, a picture of Mussolini is there in the shop. He questions that of course, but obviously the perception of "Duce" for those Italo-Americans is much different than what almost everyone has of him in today's world. In order words, the way the historical aspect of the series is framed does not allow us to fully understand the mood. It functions more as an emotional shortcut.
Swinging between the boring 70s and the higher-octane 50s, we get to witness how Mike Bongiorno establishes himself as a notable journalist first in the USA, then in Italy, making him the ideal candidate to carry the magic of television to his fatherland.
I could have rated the show with a mere 4 if I had skipped after the first 20 minutes but haing seen in full the first two episodes leads me to a solid 7 or a potential 8 as of now.
I think what will remain crucial will be to see how well they can manage to tie the two actors' interpretations story-wise.
And I'm intrigued by something that looks quite like a plot hole: On that first night when they are captured, the Germans are about to execute all the Partizans who have been acting like Alpinists. They halt only because Mike's American passport, the document he decided not to destroy in a final moment, was found by them. And ALL are taken to prison just because of that. Now, the German officer says that the value of habving an American prisonor for exchange was what made them decide to keep him alive. Okay, that makes sense. But why did they keep ALL OTHERS alive at that point in time? Weeks later, when ten of these young men are executed, Mike is notified that it is again his luck that saves him, but it just doesn't make sense that Germans would bundle up with Mike's "Americanness" all the other Partizans when deciding their fate. Either the narration of that first night of being captured was true to facts, meaning the group was not considered for execution at all, OR, Germans were acting on momentary impulse rather than strict Nazi directives, the latter of which does not make sense, leading me to think they made a goof while trying to create some catarthic moments.
The Rookie: Under Siege (2023)
Quite a stretch but horror elements work with this show
I contrast to how the social media infused episodes suck at humor, The Rookie is quite good when it comes to incorporating elements of horror. This season finale was one such example as the story kept going bigger than life at every turn.
However, that "Die Hard 3" plot they revealed by the end took away from me what could have been an anxious waiting phase.
Yeah, okay... Masked evildoers are after our heroes, which provides great plastics and some exaggerated action scenes, incredible especially when Lucy Chen is shown like Ms. Jackie Chan, but still, this was a bit too unfounded, even for TV entertainment.
I hope Thorsen survives. And so does the show.
The Acolyte (2024)
Star Wars fans did not get fooled by this poisoned bait
I had heard and read things about this... this "thing" before I gave it a chance and made it grudgingly halfway into its second episode.
Something was off. Terribly off. I couldn't keep up with it because it was rotten in the spirit. It was almost like a man pretending to be a woman or vice versa.
Later, I learned that the people who had dared put their names on it were total aliens to the essence of Star Wars. One had even said all she knew about SW was "Harrison Ford in space with a giant dog" till she took on the project.
The way I get it, this was Disney's attempt at "naturalizing" George Lucas's legacy to their w0ke agenda, to open the gateway for further degeneration and abuse of the concept from the inside.
With the Leone-Morricone taste from The Mandalorian still fresh in my mind, I was really willing to embrace yet another SW spinoff. But no, this one was expressly produced with the intention of leeching off of my love for SW, to kick me out of my own home as if I were a Palestinian, to even make me involuntarily applaud for the abusers because they had shot a few cool scenes.
Had Disney+ given that opportunity and budget to a modest, random fan of Star Wars, something much better would have been achieved. When you employ people with an irrelevant agenda to come in an HACK an almost sacred concept of modern cinema, this is what you get. You get criticism, mockery and even hatred. And you should welcome all that if you had dared jump into this when your understanding of Star Wars was "Harrison Ford in space with a giant dog".
Far as I know, they have pulled the plug on this one. I hope that late but correct decision serves as a light house for any such sinister attempts at extremely bad faith social engineering via financially penetrating beloved concepts.
La liceale, il diavolo e l'acquasanta (1979)
A decent, modest reminder of the good old times
The review by lazarillo is almost perfect in putting this film into perspective. That said, I think there are other merits to this genre, especially for viewers of today who may have become tired of the USUAL OVERLOAD that harms and even kills the very basic premises and joys of cinema.
No CGI, no crowded crews, no struggle to achieve perfection even when it would be counterproductive - this movie relies simply on editing, even when showcasing the magical tricks of the guardian angel.
Yes, this is how simple cinema was at a time. Not even today's low budgets try that. What a shame! There really is more to enjoy when the film is modest and sincere, instead of being driven by some bloated woke agenda.
Too childish to be called a sex comedy IMO, this one is worth a watch to put a smile on your face as you imagine the simplicity of the times in which Gloria Guida reigned with her amazing looks.
The Rookie: The Dark Side (2019)
Worst episode so far. Ridiculous casting for "She-Hannibal"
I've been warming up to this show for a while now and I like it for its entertainment value. Though not as striking as Bosch, The Rookie manages to be fun while lifting some heavy dramatic weights - but for certain terrible choices like they have done with this episode. Here's what I have a beef with:
Basically, this is their shoutout to Silence of the Lambs. The elements they employ with the main story are so common that, as I was watching it, half a dozen movies came to mind. And I even got puzzled, asking myself had I maybe seen this very episode before, though that's kinda improbable.
For the drama to work well, they had to find a really cool Hannibal, or, if (for some reason) that part had to belong to a female, a cool She-Hannibal. Someone that had the gravitas, the beyond-your-wildest-dreams kinda psychopathy.
But they cast Annie Wersching for the role.
Not only did they do that, they also presented her to us in neat hairdo and makeup. A clean, glossy, pretty female serial killer.
Now, I could be down with such a casting had that been an episode of Monk or something. But come on guys, you're expecting us to suffer along with Chen as things get really serious. This can't be a cheap imitation of the source material you are basing the drama on.
Not only her looks, but also the way she acts makes the guest actress unfit for the part. I didn't like at all the scenes involving a smirky, sarcastic, unconvincing She-Hannibal.
Those who have seen Monster will get it - just remember how Charlize Theron looks in that movie. Not saying it's great cinema, but a female criminal better not look like she just came out of the salon. Nothing about the plastics or the acting even suggested any kind of life-long suffering expecting a criminal.
And that swept away a huge deal of the drama for me.
Night School (2018)
Fine premise wasted. Gets very degraded in the second act.
The gist of this wasn't bad at all for a light comedy movie to enjoy. However there's a certain level of undecidedness and chaos with the script, resulting in something that actually needs fart jokes to make ends meet.
Give the basic premise to Farrelly Bros and I bet they'd have crafted a notable comedy worth multiple watches. But this... Jeez, I don't know what Kevin Hart is even after! A year back I had sat down to watch a new movie of his, and turned it off 5 minutes in due to a filthy line where the protagonist delivers gender cult propaganda to his infant daughter, something among the lines of "you can be a boy in the future if you like".
Hart is not a horrible comedian but I highly suspect he is under the influence. The influence of that spooky "Hollywood spirit" that was hell bent on making Dave Chappelle wear a skirt as he was landed his first important role... What Dave has declined is, sadly, what Hart usually finds himself in.
Also due to editing, the flow of the movie was hard to follow, something you wouldn't expect from such a simple story. Constantly making moves for low hanging fruits, like unnecessary sex talk, farts, third grade action scenes etc, they have totally lost the plot by the middle.
By the end, things get wrapped up to make up for some of the unfunny silliness, alas, too little too late.
Sometimes it's easier to make a decent movie than to make a slapstick one. This crew had in their hands an option for the former but they have sadly preferred to cheapen the material in hand.
Grown Ups (2010)
Entertaining gag reel with crowded cast of high caliber comics
Okay, this may not be "cinema" after all. Depends of your definition. I don't tend to take such movies seriously, nor are they intended to be, so we shake hands on that front with the product. That's why I don't feel the need to trash it.
Adam Sandler and his gang seem to have fun themselves while trying to communicate the feeling of raw fun to their audience. Basically, this is your ticket to nowhere significant, with the premise that the journey itself will be entertaining.
Water slides, lakes, brutally honest friendships, failed men who somehow manage to survive... You can't say there are no stories here. It's just that, this mess is now normally how cinema tends to approach stories. And that's the crux of the matter: Even when watching highly successful examples to comedy like There's Something About Mary, the structure of the story is there for you, very solid, engulfing, ruling. But with movies like Grown Ups, you just have to accept the gags as the main course, and the story as the side dish.
It wouldn't matter if they had framed it anyway else - what matters here is the wild time these impossible people spend time together.
We got not just Selma Hayek but also Colin Quinn, Steve Buscemi, David Spade... Man, the result would be something even if you gathered all these people for no apparent reason without even this much of context, which maybe they have, for some scenes.
The level of disgustingness was not off the charts, considering what talentless abuserrs like Sacha Baron Cohen come up with. But still, they could have preferred to avoid farts and asses a l'il bit more to make this more appealing (also) as a family movie, something people would enjoy along with their infants.
I don't even know if today's audience is already okay with filthy humor or not.
And just one more thing: It was refreshing to notice once again that 14 years back movies were more liberated from the PC crap - I suspect a dozen of the jokes in this one could be given a green light today.
The Deep End of the Ocean (1999)
Great example to cross-genre where Pfeiffer shines as the mother... Was Whoopie edited into this for PR/PC reasons?
I like this kind of movie: It has a very simple yet potent premise and successfully produces different angles from the perspectives of all characters involved. I haven't even bothered check if it was based on some real-life event as that wouldn't affect my evaluation. Holding on to Pfeiffer's experience and perception as the center was a great choice that paid off, even though I imagine a mother in such a position would lose her marbles more often and more significantly in the course of 9 years.
We have some lost and found story in the core, and the gap of time between the two breaking points does not harm the movie as the grown up versions of the kids have been picked up perfectly via spot-on casting. So, after all the sorrow and grief, can things be back in order? That is the question.
Despite the heaviness of the subject matter, this movie is blessed with a zest for life. I'm pretty sure most directors would push the actors to further express rage with explosive scenes, but no, the negative energy is moderated here, as you'd expect how parents with two remaining kids would act, for their sake at the very least.
What I cannot wrap my head around is: What's Whoopie Goldberg doing here?!? Her character has nothing to do with the flow or the gist of this story. It almost looks like producers have sat down, looked at the material in hand and went "This movie is just too white. We gotta have a Black character. And while we're at it, let's make her gay! And, even after her functionless presence is over with, let's keep her in the story, tagging along with the people whom she failed to help, like, having established a personal friendship."
As the character herself confesses to, she miserably FAILED in finding the kid, though it looks like she SHOULD considering the circumstances. The family reuinte due only to happenstance and Whoopie keeps appearing in scenes even AFTER that, AND in scenes that have nothing to do with her being a cop, even while there WAS a scene where her being a cop could have been used of (Vincent's prison days).
Does Whoopie add anything to this movie? From the story perpective, I'd say no. But maybe they wanted to make the overall feel of the movie more diverse, inclusive or something, and such an actress could serve with PR.
I won't say Whoopie ruins the movie, no... But her irrelevance is quite odd. If you throw in such a character, better give her some other function than expressing how sorry she is for having failed.
And another thing: The mechanics of how the kid got snatched in the first place are pretty foggy. It was just a matter of minutes, and a person known to all others was able to grab him and walk him out (or, up? To her own room? Rooms of the hotel weren't searched?) without being noticed? Such venues may not have had cameras back in 1988 (though I guess most did) but still, something's off here.
I loved how the story got wrapped up not thanks to the interventions of the adults, but mostly as a result of Ben / Sam putting his own agency to work.
Watch it along with your family if you can. It's great to still have parents, sisters, brothers, if you do. Because they are missed terribly later.
Somewhere in Queens (2022)
"Everyone's scared"... Cinematic greatness with plot out of thin air!
Ray Romano's world is as pure in this one as it was in Everybody Loves Raymond, yet, kinda more troubled and more matured in delivery. Forget Woody Allen - this guy is much better at diving into actual, emotional depths effortlessly via focusing on this and that. Somewhere In Queens is the kind of movie that reminds you cinema never needs gunshots and over-the-top displays of nervous breakdowns to make sense. Even the most conflicted scene is quite moderate in this one, yet, it functions.
Ask me what the story was, and I can reply with telling you of the plot. Yep... There's not much difference between the plot and the story here, just like there isn't between the story and the screenplay and the screenplay and the improvisation. So, it all boils down to the plot, which is in fact extremely simple. Not just simple - by Hollywood standards, it looks underdeveloped. You'd say there wasn't enough going on, nor enough characters.
But it works perfectly well.
Sadie Stanley was a fresh face for me and you should watch out for her - a magnet, a charming blend of Julia Stiles and Jennifer Lawrence, an external power for the Italian family in question here. It's also interesting that Jennifer Lawrence came up with No Hard Feelings recently, the plot of which coincides with what we have here. Plagiarism? Inspiration? Happenstance?
Speaking of which: There's this great, underrated and cancelled cartoon series called HOOPS. Several lines from this movie strangely coincide with some of the most notable moments from HOOPS. That quote from Rocky, "Women weaken the legs", being one. I wonder if Ray Romano was a secret fan of HOOPS or if there was a writer involved with both projects while in development, but I tend to think there's some solid connection here. Yes, Rocky can be quoted the same by several filmmakers, but no, not under such similar circumstances where the crux of the matter is an emotional basketball player. Something to think on.
To sum it up: This is worth a watch. Even though what happens is "almost nothing", the way this movie makes you dive deep into your own emotions is amazing. "Everyone's scared", yeah... And we're driven by fear most of the time we make a move.
Madame Web (2024)
Great lead actress and a fresh take... BUT...
Was that it? Really? Have we seen a feature movie?
Jeez... I didn't even understand the physical dynamics of the end game where the, uh, "villain" (?) was being confronted by the heroines. It looks like the filmmakers forgot they had to come up with some MAIN EVENT of sorts, something that'd make the story relatable to the people of the city OR to those watching it.
As for the upsides:
I wasn't too familiar with Dakota Johnson but her acting is marvelous without being MARVELish - kudos to her! Gonna look out for other projects she will be part of. I honestly don't recall many comic book adaptations where the lead character can flow in to the story so naturally. I believe this movie would be much less bearable with someone else in the title role.
As for the other three: Well, Sydney Sweeney as a teen in high school skirt is... Umm... I dunno how to put it but may they have tried to extend the audience of this picture to really faraway profiles? The other two girls were okay. Well, SS was okay too, but the casting preference raised my eyebrows.
Adam Scott contributed as best he could. After all, there is limited space for actors to change the course of a movie when the script is basically some blend of Next (with Nicolas Cage) and "spinoff of Spider-Man".
I have no idea why this was set in 2003. She needed to have matured to take place in some MCU joint event in 2024? Pfff...
I was totally on board with the spider people of Peru having a part in the story but why introduce such rich texture when you're not even interested in using their potential anywhere in the story?
Also: What WAS that guy? He was no Luthor or Dr. Doom, all he did was steal a spider to reach "power". But HOW? And what exactly did he (allegedly) gain, and what did he do with it in the 30 years following the murder of our heroine's mother?
They didn't have proper story because they had failed to construct a proper villain. Or vice versa. Chicken/Egg.
The three girls never even get to don costumes in real life, and what we see during the movie is nothing other than some teaser itself, maybe to be used as teaser for the promotion of the movie? Come on!
I don't get the kind of script doctoring they practiced on this one. However I did enjoy the development of what is basically a "side story". Reminded me of some X-Men comic by John Byrne where Kitty Pryde was babysitting and losing the kids in a wild NY night.
This was really a weird experience for me and I don't think I'd vote higher than 5 if the lead actress wasn't so good at whatever it was she was doing.
The Ron Clark Story (2006)
Lovely, colorful film... Something to remember the late and gentle Matthew Perry by...
You won't know whether to cry or to smile all the way as you watch Matthew Perry jump ropes with his elementary school students. Oh my... This proved to be bigger than some random TV movie.
I'm one of those people who watched the Friends canon more than 20 times, possibly even way more than that. Having watched Matthew Perry as Chandler Bing along with my then girlfriend/wife for hundreds of hours, anything with him kicks in the memories of an era that can never be replaced or replicated. Yes, there is more to our affection with shows and actors than the conent: We remember our own past, our younger selves as we see these people keep living on film.
I had no idea what this movie was, nor when it was shot. I even thought it could be from the 90s, but no, it was a post-Friends role for the now-deceased actor. He looks so healthy, energetic and hopeful in many scenes that you just don't feel like he is no longer in this world. I was kind of afraid watching for the very first time a Matthew Perry film could depress me, however it did the opposite and revived me a bit.
I wish this character he gave life to could have actually touched Perry as a mentor during his own childhood. Who knows, maybe such help could have make it possible for him to battle addiction and avoid getting loaded up with ketamine, only to be found dead in his pool at 54.
It's kinda hard to talk about anything other than Matthew Perry after seeing this, and I guess it's normal, because 90% of this film depends on his performance. It is proof that there is more to him than Chandler Bing, and that Chandler Bing consists solely of the material Matthew Perry brought to the screen with his unique interpretation. Yes, Hollywood lost more than a Friends actor: I had enjoyed not only The Whole Nine Yards, but also Fools Rush In, despite it unpopularity.
The child actors are great, too. I will look to see what they have done after this movie, hoping they reached success without having to pay the price Matthew Perry did.
I loved how easflowing and colorful The Ron Clark Story is. Thankfully, they have not added in pics of the actual Ron Clark and his students in the end credits, maybe missing out on that odd pracite by a few years. Now it became a tradition and most of the time it does nothing other than alienate the viewer to the realm of the movie.
It's sad to watch Matthew Perry alone, especially if your fondest memories of him take you back to a time in which you watched almost nothing alone. May he rest in peace, and may we find peace and love again.
Monk: Mr. Monk and the Lady Next Door (2009)
Great example to the ups and downs of this series.
I'm planning to write something on the whole run of Monk soon, but couldn't help dropping a line after watching this particular episode. Because it shows very well the Achilles' heel the series has suffered from, while managing to be touchy and entertaining.
If you take the emotional angle, it's a great story. It not only shows the vulnerable side of Monk as an OCD patient, but also turns the tables on the viewer by providing a false catch in the first place. Really successful on those levels.
However... If you approach the criminal element with the slightest of criticism, the whole episode is rubbish. Like in most other episodes, the perp on this one, too, is going to extra lengths to overengineer a plot.
No one robs a guarded museum first just for the convenience of allegedly providing a false alibi by using a piece from that museum, before stepping in to rob a much easier, unguarded store.
If all you need is for your drums to make noise while you are committing your actual crime, you have thousands of simpler ways to achieve this.
There are Monk episodes where you take off your hat and feel like slow clapping, thinking they have come pretty close to Columbo ALSO on the criminal element. This just isn't one of them. And sadly, such stories galore in the 8-season run of Monk. We see criminals do nonsensical things just so the elements of the story serve the spirit of the series.
That same tone could work wonders if only they had thought better on the kind of criminal plot that neighbor could come up with.
Where the Crawdads Sing (2022)
Wholesome and impressive. Suspends your disbelief in the old fashioned way as it gets bigger than life unapologetically.
I liked this more than I thought I would. The way it was summarized and presented signaled a much more dull, lifeless, Nell-like pretentious tribute to womanhood or something. But no, there's a story here, one that is quite odd in some aspects while successful in creating its own ambiance and rules.
Even though we start off in 1969 and revisit the protagonist's childhood, the overall attitue is quite linear. We do not get stuck with the courtroom drama side of the "present day" of the narrative too much. The background story of our character is narrated in the safe, traditional way. The Black couple who run the neraby shop show affection to her and help her out as her almost eternal loneliness begins as a child, and it takes till her teens to hear of social services for us. Now, that raises eyebrows but who knows, maybe it was like that in South Caroline back in the day. If not, there's always the poetic license card for the filmmakers to use. It was exceptional to see the White character being so neglected that she needed the help of the colored minority even back then. For certain reasons, nowadays most stories tend to steer away from such aspects of historical accuracy.
Anyways... The way she bonds with Tate was lyrical, even utopical. Not just their love story itself, but also the way it was told gave me the vibes of the 1960s. This film manages to look and sound like it was shot back in that era, which I consider a huge plus. The way Kya and Tate fall apart was, again, convincing when looked through a flexible scope. So was how she met the other guy, the one that was gonna be trouble.
Well, at this point some inconsistencies pile up... Like, how far does she live from the town center, actually? That house is not her Neverland, as we hear the lawyer say it is not even 5 miles from the court house... How come she remains "the Marsh Girl" for the townspeople even after having her book published? 1960s or not, you'd expect that to change a lot about what's been going on with her social dynamics... There's even a greater enigma to come by the end, but let's keep it at this: Now, is that movie realistic?
I'd say it is realistic within the confines of how the story could best be told. A girl being left by every single member of her family like that is hard to imagine, but it's not improbable, at least not in the cinematic world we are invited to enjoy.
I loved how Kya looked beautiful, even stunning at times, while occasionally the portrait was very different. That house she lived in was almost blessed with magical qualities as we saw in a scene she having it redecorated with new furniture, after being paid by the publisher, while it being far from society enough to provide her loneliness a cover under the lie that her father still lived there.
That house is like the ring from Lord of the Rings. It can shrink, enlarge, be protecive or vulnerable depending on the situation. I'm saying this while somewhat relating to her conditions as I, too, did spend long periods of isolation in an old house that could be seen different in the light of who you were and what means you had. I guess this a psychological thing rather than a question of topography or real estate. We see Kya's world from inside her own spirit, which makes it legit for us to accept the house however she feels about it.
Without giving a spolier: The finale was kinda predictable for me. It made sense. And yes, I can side with Kya on her secret decisions. But I think we had to see her under a greater and more constant threat. Also, the technicalities narrated by her lawyer make it confusing for us to understand how she could accomplish her personal goal.
Logic may go down the drain if you enjoy a movie enough to embrace it as colorful fiction. And "Where the Crawdads Sing" gave me enough moments of changing, even conflicting natures that, I welcome it with its flexibilities and inconsistencies. It was good to see a female hero who knew to stand up for herself while being honest about the man whom she understood to have always loved and needed.
Why she held her stomach while leaving the court room signals another buried story, which is also fine.
No Hard Feelings (2023)
Quite good, actually
Jennifer Lawrence can carry a movie on her own, that's for sure. The gal's got everything you can ask for. This one needed a strong actress like her to work as intended, and yes, she's done the job.
The plot is reminiscent of a couple of notable movies in different ways: It has elements from Pretty Woman (reversing many aspects of it, though) and can also be seen as a follow-up to The Book of Silver Linings in which Jennifer Lawrence herself portrayed a more deeply troubled version of almost the same profile. And some of the dialogue had vibes of The Graduate.
What I didn't like much were the scenes in which her nudity was exploited in an intentionally non-sexy-but-rather-grotesque way, turning her into the "maneater" or something like that. But I gotta admit, the movie works also on that level, reminding us of The Heartbreak Kid with Ben Stiller.
I suspect the presence of Matthew Broderick was made use of as well as it could. I thought the parts for the dude's parents could have been worked better. And we could as well have some sharper finale where our protagonist made more unexpected decisions.
The movie didn't end on a high note but it had enough highs in its course to keep me satisfied.
Eraser (1996)
Cool action flick that gets derailed a bit by the end
Walon Green is a screenwriter you can trust when sitting down to enjoy a movie or a TV show. His talent in pacing and setting shows also in this one where we see a quite young Arnold do amazing stuff on camera. Especially the scene where he confronts the plane while parachuting down is memorable.
Yes, both Arnie and James Caan know to fill the screen with their strong presence and delivery of dialogue. However, their characters are at best two-note people. And when you ponder on it a little, it doesn't really make sense how and why the teacher has preferred the "dark side" after a long career, and under the nose of his best student. The films's reality totally neglects whatever might have happened in the recent past with these people. And that is part of why the great acting by Vanessa Williams stands out: The variety of her facial expressions and body language come from a much more realistic, much more established and deeper state of existence. She's quite 3-dimensional in the world of these 2-dimensional men. If you adopt her point of view, you can enjoy the movie on a different level.
Looking back at the visual aspects of Eraser, I see some heavy influence from The Punisher comic books that were hot back in the day. Especially the design and the usage of those shocch wave rifles make you think there WAS an actual The Punisher scene behind, maybe even that famous Jim Lee cover in which he stood in front of NYC skyscrapers in the night. I have no idea if back in the day people did notice some "bootleg Punisher" with Arnold's attitudes, especially by the end of the movie. Given Marvel was not a movie trademark by itself in the 90s, I guess minor theft of visual ideas was not a big deal.
What I didn't like was how the poor alligators were treated by the protagonist in the zoo scene. "You are luggage!" is an entertaining line only if you totally don't care about animal rights, poachers and other crucial, ethical stuff. Much as I detest today's woke metrics, I guess they wouldn't let the protagonist mock a dying animal like that today, which is fine.
I have some issues with the ending as well: Yeah, we get it. The justice system was unlikely to put the relevant people in their well-deserved places. But given how Arnold had remained legit and stuck with his agency's clean(er) side during the whole process, it really doesn't make sense for him and his friends to take an absurdly personal (and if you ask me, technically improbable) way of handling things out of court. Had it not been for that ending, I'd give this an 8.
And one other important thing to note: It's really amazing to see that, within the context of such one-or-two-layered narratives, "selling weapons to terrorists!" passes as THE crime, while the very existence and livelihood of the military industry complex is not put under ethical scrutiny. Had the "bad guys" of this movie simply accepted donations from AIPAC and legally delivered all those hi-tech weaponst to Israel, there would have been no problem. Israel would have used them to mass murder and expel more and more Palestinians, and there would have been no "evil conspiracy!" for Arnold and his friends to uncover and stand up against. It's all about the business being done by the book or not.
And this brings us back to WHY the protagonists of such fast-paced action movies just need to be somewhat dim and on the surface: The moment you inject into their soul a true analysis of what they are doing in this world and how their actions affect others, you'd have to go fully political and expose stuff that couldn't be solved merely by running around and getting into gunfights.
Ticket to Paradise (2022)
Reverse "Parent Trap"... For once, woke tones help with making the rom-com better
Yep, this was enjoyable. It did drag a bit by the end, and for sure it was predictable from the very start, but the chemistry between Clooney and Roberts works fine as it should,
The praise and respect for Bali seems to have been embellished by today's PC /woke standards BUT it is in perfect tune with the essence of the plot, hence very much welcome. I don't know if every single tradition they made use of actually exists, but I guess so. Had it been me, I'd go with a made-up culture in a made-up land to free my hand better when feeding the story with trivia. But yeah, Bali is cool and the seaweed we can puchase at Whole Foods is as good a thing as any to structure a love story around.
Not much to say on the overall thing. It works fine, we get to enjoy the acting by stars who enjoy being in such movies.
As for the details:
I guess they tried to les-up Lily's friend and the the groom's sister, but didn't go all the way, just threw out some hints.
Pilot Paul the French lover and the chattery oldlady to sit between our protagonists were too standard ideas to embellish such a concept withbut they fell into place and provided us with enough smiles along the way.
The colors, the tunes, the people... Yep, the plastics and the ambiance of this movie help you relax. It's like a trip to Bali.
Clooney bringing up Hawaii and Roberts saying "You were never in Hawaii" may have been a shoutout to The Descendants, a better film with more to analyze, where Clooney was in the shoes of a similar character, one that had NOT been divorced from his troubled marriage. Watch that one. It's really interesting.
Colossal (2016)
One of the greatest cinematic ideas to come within the past decade
This is just how cinema should be. Simple, intriguing, rich in and of itself, and decent. First and foremost, I applaud the writer/director for the essence of this movie. Along with "Yesterday", this one shines as one of the best cinematic ideas to come our way in recent years.
The Charlie Brown - Pepperment Petty dynamics of the story show themselves kinda late, which is interesting as the core of the enigma is related to that aspect. The acting is good and the twists and turns do manage to keep us interested all the way till the ending, which was handled skillfully short and to the point.
That said, I do have a problem about how the premise is supposed to tie in to the protagonists. Was this supposed to be read as a "women's liberation" story or something? Nah... Doesn't work that way, at least shouldn't... Our female protagonist is no victim and her friend from elementary school is far from being a bully, at least not till he discovers he CAN be one. In other words: The clash was never between good and evil. Every character in this story has faults. And it doesn't really make much sense to witness one being destroyed over his.
Let's change the angle a bit:
Random people with their own problems and greed jumping up and down somewhere, causing the destruction of a far away city. Does that sound familiar? Well, yes it should, especially in 2024 when Gaza is being erased. Though the story was obviously not intended to cover genocide from a "what if?" perspective, there actually are connections between the behind-he-doors personal stories of certain people and how their simple actions can cause mayhem elsewhere.
What puzzled me was how no one in the world made the connection between the robot - monster duo and the toys that were apparently in the hands of kinds 25 years back. That may be the single most solid inconsistency with respect to what the story delivers in its own way of suspending disbelief.
I loved how the "physical explanation" didn't even exist and the theme was never really approached as a sci-fi, regardless of how the movie may be classified.
In short: A better movie could have been with the same idea, one where the protagonist really got what they deserved. But even the way it is provided a fresh breath of air for me from among a dozen a dime films which basically copy one another.
Good job!
Red Lights (2012)
Weak
It's strange to see this being done many years after The Prestige. The premise of the script could have been impressive had it been shot sometime between the 50s-70s, but by 2012, skepticism and debunking of so-called paranormals had already become so mainstream knowledge that nothing we see impresses us even a tiny bit.
With regards to good acting performance: Sigourney Weaver was the bestamong the cast but her character's background story did not really make sense, especially considering the crux of her endeavors.
To be honest, after having seen it a few times on TV, it was only last night that I tried to watch with attention and in full, but the unimpressive overall tone of the movie itself made me disconnect so bad that this time I missed some of the details which I guess were supposed to make us gasp in awe.
It was ridicuolus that the most obvious trick of Mr. Silver was left unnoticed by the protagonists till the last minutes. I didn't even get if the audience was supposed to have discovered it very early on or not.
I'm kinda surprised that De Niro actually accepted that role. He must have tried to dive deeper into the character, but obviously there was no depth whatsoever.
Again: Why was this movie at least 40 years late?
Solace (2015)
Tough one to comment on
I knew nothing about this and it had somehow escaped my attention for 9 years till I watched it on RAI.
Or maybe, I actually DID see it earlier on TV, and it failed to leave a mark for some reason.
The very idea behind the premise is one that can confuse you on whether you are or you are not familiar with this movie. It also helps that a frequent and basic means of narration they used has previously been used in NEXT with Nicolas Cage.
Now... As a work of art, Solace is stylish, mature, confident and powerful. But... As a 2015 movie, it's kinda confusing what they actually tried to achieve. Because, NO, this is not Hannibal in reverse, nor some CSI-type mental gymnastics game. The premise DOES have a philosophical point, and the way they have created the suspension of disbelief with the talent of the two men, while sticking perfectly well with realism, is notable.
Maybe they could have emphasized more the existential, personal aspect of the whole deal, leading things to unfold in some Malick-esque way. That could have signaled better we were not diving into some commercial man hunt story.
With regards to cinematography, I believe Bladerunner 2040 did steal some very impactful images from this one.
This is the kind of movie that is bound to be underrated and forgot, but not due to its own internal dymanics, only due to how the movie industry is rolling.
John Mulaney Presents: Everybody's in LA (2024)
Love the live format! This can give birth to our generation's new thing!
I hope John Mulaney totally saves himself from addiction and goes on with this for many years to come. As someone who's been having several issues with Netflix's recent choice of comedy, this one at the very least signaled freshness in framing humor.
The opening act was great, what with the map, trivia and all... The way it was constructed reminded me of another Netflix show, a special named Red States, Blue States. It always helps to mix fact with not-so-facts to get that mockumentary taste while still establishing the grounds for what we will be experiencing.
Yeah, this show is about LA after all - the unstable nature of the format helps underline the chaotic nature of the city as well. Mulaney being laid back and not too jumpy allows the guests to roam free, which helps each in different ways. That joke by Stavros vs Seinfeld's good boy humor. Etc.
Seeing Will Ferrell in character is always great and maybe that was what elevated my score from a 7 to an 8.
Now, was it really too funny? No, not really. But what matters at this point in streaming is the mood you offer. And they did offer an original mood that brought with enough laughs.
Let's see if other episodes will be even better.
Aladdin (1992)
One of the best movies ever made
I love it. Everything's just perfect - not in terms of that synthetic, overworked, exhausting techno-perfection, but the way a genuine, slightly flawed but totally well-intended, sincere work of art should be.
This was made shortly before computers took over the final outcomes of animation cinema, so it has the delicacy of "hand made" artifacts, which makes it even more precious.
I have no idea why Disney+ is showing this with a disclaimer put before, talking about stereotypes whatnot. I see nothing problematic here. Maybe the abundance of Indian fakirs was somewhat distracting or misleading for a story set in Arabia but who cares.
This movie is about pure love. The kind of love you can find only once in a lifetime. As the couple sings "A Whole New World", you get to experience how that feeling or romance breaks down all your past boundaries and opens you up to a whole new, inner world.
I salute every single person who has worked on this. It's just marvelous. A fairy tale, a story too good to be true, top class entertainment with noble things to say.
Aladdin (2019)
I thought I'd hate it but no, I embrace it as a fine reboot of the classic cartoon
It was like a lifetime ago that I went to the theatre with a friend and watched Aladdin, the amazing cartoon, for the very first time. Come to think of it, more than aquarter of a century back!
Maybe it was targeted at younger people even back then, but I still did fall in love with the idea of romance itself as Aladdin and Jasmin flew on that magic carpet, singing together.
What happened then? Well, I grew up, loved someone, married her, then got divorced, and in time I began to close the doors of my mind to any promotion of true love, as it was what I had experienced and bitterly lost.
So, no, I did not really want to see a live action reboot of that masterpiece. I didn't need it to revisit my in-love self. The real deal was out there, with those great songs and impressive scenes.
Also, I was kinda mad at Disney for its twisted promotion of certain stuff while still targeting kids and family.
Still, though with a delay of 5 years I guess, I did watch Will Smith as the Genie on Disney+, finally.
It's okay. Even more than okay. The variations and additions do not disrespect the source material (meaning, the classical cartoon) nor do they drive the experience further away from the actual source (meaning, the tales on which it was based).
The opening scenes looked somewhat stale and overdecorated but the coreography and the CGI were fine. I did get emotional as I identified with poor Aladdin. Will Smith did notch the act up well via references to the "magical negro" tradition, while respectfully borrowing from the amazing performance of the late Robin Williams. Kristin Scott was amazing as Jasmin. I don't know her at all, so, throughout the experience I kept believing she was an actress of Arabian descent.
The night of the magic carpet ride looked somewhat too dark and less developed than it was in the cartoon. I think they could have made it much much better, and that's the major reason I'm not giving the movie a 9.
It was a cool surprise to notice how the story got tied to the opening scene. I wasn't even expecting there to be a tie there, so, that nice touch elevated the whole deal for me.
I'm still not sure Jafar was played by the best option of actor (Al Pacino would have been wonderful!) but the overall balance between characters did make sense. While we're at it - Bassem Youssef would have been marveolous as Jasmin's father, looking back from today!
Love hurts. Not in movies, though. You get hurt only if all those lines and looks now echo something you've been kicked out of. It's not the fault of filmmakers if we are no longer in magical relationships. Or is it? Depends on how much influence we allow fairy tales to grow on our reality, I guess.
Road House (2024)
Got mixed feelings on this one
First off: Why does a real-life axhole like Conor MacGregor get to receive a paycheck over a movie that is supposed to put axholes in their rightful place?
Everything else aside, I cannot manage to wrap my head around that kinda casting. Does he do the job well, providing some weird plastic value as a wild creature? Hell yes! But I don't like this type of people and I don't think movies should go so overboard with their options when trying to convince us to what the story is supposed to really mean.
That said... Yeah, this was some entertaining reboot of the 80s classic. But had it been someone else and not Jake Gyllenhaal in the titular role, it'd suck big time. More than half the film's appeal and energy is owed to JG's acting skills and persona. He's developed a character from scratch, exchanging the coolness of Patrick Swayze with a moderately fun character who falls not far from Mel Gibson in Lethal Weapon. And it works. Yeah, the emotional trauma does not really blend well with how he can take things so lightly, but there are all types of responses to dark memories, who knows. The character wasn't too unconvincing after all.
What wasn't convincing was the dynamics of the story. Even though they have kept an important deal of the no-holds-barred chaos from the original, this one is less credible when it comes to who does what for which particular reason. They have paid just too much attention to certain, incredibly well-shot scenes, while totally ignoring to give some credibility to the love story.
We got four major detachments from the source material, each of which hold this movie back:
1. Where the F is Wade Garrett?!? This film has NO Sam Elliott! He was the surpise, the soul and the ace in the hole for the original! Why have they paid money to a professional oaf like Conor and didn't even care to put into the script someone who could be today's mid-aged Sam Elliott? Where's the friendship between two tough fighters who are there for one another?
2. Yeah, the original Road House was violent AF, too. But this one pushes the boundaries to some nasty grounds. Generally speaking, I don't like to see this kind and level of violence on film. Auteur cinema like Kill Bill can absorb certain graphic details, but the Fast and Furious kinda excess with action scenes do not make up for the underlying loss. Especially with this reboot, it does not.
3. Where are the townspeople? Where is the town itself? Look, the source material may have been absurd in many aspects but it actually DID fall well into the Western patterns of "stranger saving the day", like in how Sergio Leone had adapted Kurosawa's Seven Samurai. Lame, unconvincing or cliché as it may be, that underlying theme STILL could serve as a backbone. Why have they skipped it so easily?!? Yeah, the girl at the book store was a moderately-developed character who helped point at why they might have tried the "shortcut" to placing the hero into the story, kinda like breaking the fourth wall, but it comes just too short when the interaction with "the spirit of the town" is almost inexistent... There are too few secondary characters in this reboot to help strengthen and solidify the dynamics as needed... FFS, they have even replaced the "bad guy" with his son, putting the actual dude in prison, but we don't even get to see the man!
4- Swayze's Dalton was a "cooler", a "man of the trade" who developed fame not only over how he had once killed a man, but also over how well he knew to control patrons of such joints. Especially in the earlier scenes, he was to nightlife security what Miyagi was to Karate. There's not even a trace of that in this remake. Gyllenhall is just a fighter, not a professional when it comes to road house security. Hard to figure out why they totally skipped that. It was a major selling point with the original.
The four major deficits listed above account for 90% of what's wrong with this IMO.
But still, it's watchable as an action flick, mostly thanks to its star.