nixolympica-10055 Reviews

Matt Rife: Only Fans (2021 TV Special)

Worst stand-up special ever?

[1/10 · 18 October 2023]

I was shocked at the lameness of this special. Was it supposed to be funny? From what I can tell Matt Rife is a young comic on steroids who panders to mondern day political correctness. The best comics are never p.c. He tries to inspire white guilt in some members of the audience while "talking street" or eubonics to the black people in the front row. He asks the white audience "How does it feel to sit in the back?" A reference to the Montgomery Bus Boycott, that occurred in 1955. No black person in that audience has ever had to give up their seat on a bus to a white person. What is he even talking about? Avoid this special like the plague.

What to Watch: 5 Top-Rated Ryan Gosling Movies to Watch (2023) Season 4, Episode 34

Backwards

[4/10 · 24 July 2023]

I would have put them in reverse order. Blade Runner 2 was boring and Gosling played a lifeless robot, not even a human being. Drive is his greatest performance and by far the best movie on this list. La La Land was not even watchable. Even for fans of musicals I can't see La La Land being at the top of anyone's lists. It will best be remembered for the famous Oscar snafu where it accidently "won" best picture only to have it immediately recinded. The Notebook is now a modern classic so I can see that being at the #2 spot. The movie would be less charming without Gosling in it. I have not watched The Big Short since it was released so I can't remember much about his performance but one thing is memorable and that's his horrible wig!

M3GAN (2022)

Pretty bad!

[4/10 · 2 March 2023]

There is nothing realistic or believable in this movie. Suspension of disbelief is impossible. The writing is terrible, cliched, awful. This concept could have been turned into a genuinely scary move, but this has no scares. Not a single one. It's a b-movie with a budget. The doll M3GAN is nicely done, but wow is this movie cheesy. It's not worth the time. The filmmakers should actually be ashamed.

Plot holes abound, so large you can drive a truck through them. So a tech/toy company is going to do a worldwide tech demo with one prototype? That is just one example of many. Allison Williams is unbelievable, but she had nothing to work with.

2/5.

The Banshees of Inisherin (2022)

Best to avoid

[2/10 · 27 January 2023]

Typical Oscar trash. Colin Farrell is not a good actor. Just watch "Alexander" if you don't believe me. This is an unrealistic, gory, gross, disturbing horror movie. There is no comedy. Not one single funny thing about it. I don't know what kind of person writes and directs a ridiculous movie like this, but getting all of this Oscar attention surly won't make him stop.

And just a warning to animal lovers, there is a typical movie trope that if a character has a beloved animal companion, that animal will be killed as a plot device.

Do yourself a favor and avoid this nonsensical story about insane characters. 1 star outta 5.

Avatar: The Way of Water (2022)

The Most Expensive Screensaver of All Time!

[4/10 · 17 December 2022]

The true reviews for this film will not be available until it is released on home video. Currently, it is clear that the majority of reviews on IMDB and elsewhere are based on 3D theatrical viewings. However, when viewed in 2D, the film does not impress as much. 3D films tend not to age well, and this one likely will not either. The use of rendered objects thrown at the viewer for the purpose of creating a thrill in a 3D theater loses its effectiveness when viewed at home in 2D. It essentially becomes an expensive screensaver. It is unclear why this film had to cost $400 million. Was it necessary for the Na'vi to be CGI creations? They are similar enough to humans that they could have been achieved through makeup and possibly some CGI enhancements to their eyes. As a result, the film feels like an expensive cartoon, with only one major human character and all other characters being digital aliens. The renderings are polished, but they do not appear photorealistic, particularly when the characters speak. The movement of their mouths reveals their animated nature. It is one thing to have a CGI character in a film, but when every character and environment is animated, the film resembles more of a cartoon like "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within" than a live-action Marvel film.

The story, such as it is, could have been told in 45 minutes. The majority of the runtime consists of filler meant to evoke a sense of awe at the beauty of nature. The film does not delve into the darker aspects of nature. It is assumed that life on Pandora evolved through the process of eliminating the weak from the gene pool. Yet there is little depiction of predation on Pandora. The Na'vi and animals live in harmonious coexistence, except for the fact that it is acceptable to kill fish for food but not whales. Characters from the previous film, such as Neytiri (Zoe Saldana), have minimal roles and serve only as one-dimensional cameos. Jake Sully is no longer the main character, replaced by his children. In fact, he has so many children that it is difficult to keep track of them. All of the Na'vi look similar to one another, with the sea people Na'vi being a lighter shade of blue. It is not clear why Jake would choose to have so many children, considering he is living on a world under attack by invaders and would therefore be bringing them into a dangerous situation. It is also unclear why everyone is naked and why Jake, being from Earth, would not have a greater interest in clothing to protect his skin from the sun and the plants and animals on Pandora. The character Monkey Boy (Spider) also raises questions as he walks around without clothes or shoes. The story does not make much sense, as Jake was previously tasked with defending the forest, but he now easily abandons it.

As numerous reviews have stated, the film is excessively long. It could easily be edited down to 90 minutes, as much of it is CGI filler. There is no reason to spend such a large sum of money on a film that ultimately feels like a waste. The amount of electricity used in rendering alone is staggering. If you do decide to see the film, it is recommended to view it in 3D. That is what it was meant to be, a demo reel for 3D TVs. 2/5.

Black Adam (2022)

It's a bad movie

[4/10 · 19 November 2022]

The DCEU delivers yet another stinker. I would recommend that they abandon The Snyder Plan and start over. Once again they have written a movie based on beloved DC comics characters who are those characters in name only. Why is Shazam not in this movie? Black Adam is a Shazam villain. If Hawkman was around in this universe then why didn't the Justice League show an interest in him? This Hawkman is not the Carter Hall from the comics. Here he is portrayed by bug-eyed black actor Aldis Hodge. He is just one example of token casting in this movie. Carter Hall has traditionally been white in the comics. If he were a well written, interesting character then I suppose it wouldn't matter as much, but since he is not it's just obvious diversity pandering. He's really not a very handsome actor either, his eyes are somewhat freakish looking. It is obvious that the filmmakers have seen The Avengers films as Hawkman has a ridiculous nanobot helmet that digitally comes and goes. It's another example of there being too much CGI in this movie. At least they put the obscene amount of money spent on this box office flop on screen. The Rock and Pierce Brosnan are the only big name actors. Brosnan is way past the age where he should be playing a DC superhero. He is nearly 70 years old. For some reason they decided to remove Dr. Fate's eyes for no reason. Black Adam has the same tropes that you see in every crappy DCEU movie like skybeams and a 100% digital villain. The Rock is one of the only good things about the movie as he is perfectly cast as Black Adam. The writing, casting, and music are all poor. If you like vfx heavy films then you will probably go see this, but I bet that the next day you will remember very little. Warner Bros has apparently forgotten how to make movies.

Snowden (2016)

2 Hours 18 Minutes of Elizabeth Holmes

[2/10 · 15 November 2022]

Joseph Gordon-Levitt (in maybe his worst performance) tortures the audience for over two hours with his terrible Elizabeth Holmes - ahem - I mean Edward Snowden impression. Nobody actually sounds like Elisabeth Holmes so we know that it's an act. The same with Gordon-Levitt in this film. He doesn't look like Snowden so why did he think that he had to sound like him? In his scathing review Sam Donsky said that the actor sounded like a person who was hit by a tranquilizer dart lol. But it's true. He sounds ridiculous and it ruins what is already a boring movie. Director Oliver Stone managed to turn a very interesting life story into a snorefest that jumps back and forth in time, destroying any plot momentum. Shailene Woodley as Snowden's main squeeze is mere eye candy and gives an unbelievable performance as a vain photographer. The positive reviews I am seeing on IMDB seem to be from people who admire the real Snowden and fail to even mention the merits of the film. Apparently any movie that is about him will do, because this one is an absolute must miss even if you think Edward Snowden is an American hero. Just watch the documentary that Joseph Gordon-Livett obviously watched a few times, Citizenfour.

W. (I) (2008)

Terrible

[1/10 · 11 November 2022]

"W." is a one star piece of trash. This is from someone who thinks that George W. Bush was one of the worst presidents in American history and that he (and some of the other characters in this movie) should be in prison for war crimes. This is not an honest or intelligent examination of a blue-blooded mass murderer. Stone couldn't be bothered to make a real film, this is more like an unfunny comedy skit where none of the badly written jokes land. The film can't decide if it's a comedy or a tragedy. Josh Brolin's performance is ok, but not as good as Will Farrell's take on the character. At least his work was not as bad as Anthony Hopkins in Stone's other presidential disasterpiece "Nixon." Stone uses his typical flashbacks and flashfowards to make the film even worse. The only thing I liked was Richard Dreyfuss as Dick Cheney. Most of the acting is poor and the characters are one or two-dimensional. Instead of showing real history Stone resorts to the kind of character assassination that he did in "Nixon." Bush is constantly eating, drinking, pooping, wiping, picking his teeth, putting his pants on awkwardly... things that make him look like a slob and a buffoon. This is a sad display of bitterness and weakness from Stone. He couldn't show Bush's negative effect on the world honestly or intelligently. This is just another piece of character assassination like he did in his previous films about people that he hates: Nixon, Jim Morrison, and Alexander the Great.

World Trade Center (2006)

Dull story of survival

[4/10 · 11 November 2022]

This by-the-book TV-style movie (with no swearing or gore) was clearly Oliver Stone's attempt to repair his reputation after the disaster of "Alexander." Gone are the kooky camera angles, terrible acting, character assassination, crazy editing, and bizarre music choices from his previous films. This a movie that anyone could have directed. As one reviewer put it, if Stone didn't make this movie, someone else would have. Michael Pena is really the star, not Nicolas Cage. I never saw the appeal of the chubby, unimpressive Pena. I suppose he has an everyman look that gets him cast in movie after movie as a supporting character. The film is dull as Cage and Pena lie trapped under rubble for the majority of the running time. The flashbacks to their life before 9/11 are clichéd and pedestrian. 9/11 is depressing material to make a film out of, so I can't see many people enjoying this. It's not Stone's worst film, but it's not something that I would recommend. 2/5.

Any Given Sunday (1999)

Saved by Pacino and Foxx

[4/10 · 8 November 2022]

This otherwise awful film is saved by good performances from it's cast. Pacino carries the movie as a coach who has worn out his welcome. Although he's not the most interesting person. Apparently a back story with his son (Jim Caviezel) was cut completely. All we know about Pacino's character is that he likes sex with hookers and he likes the game of football. It can't be an Oliver Stone movie without hookers and blow. Whether or not you enjoy this movie may have to do with your tolerance for American football. I find it (along with all sportsball games) to be infantile and boring. I don't see the appeal of wasting three hours watching 300 pound millionaires chase a ball. They do it year after year after year, reenacting the same game over and over again. So only the characters would make this an appealing show. Unfortunately this is no "Rocky" or "Rudy." Jamie Foxx delivers a great performance as a spoiled rich quarterback, but that's all he is, rich and spoiled. Besides his moves on the field, there isn't much to him. Cameron Diaz is also spoiled rich, but she has the interesting dilemma of trying to break out of her famous father's footsteps as owner of the team. This is probably the best acting she has done. LL Cool J and some of the other supporting cast make this otherwise dull film interesting. The action sequences are atrociously shot and edited. Stone adds ridiculous animal noises to make it seem scarier and more like a jungle or war zone. Editing in clips of older films, like he did in Natural Born Killers, just breaks the movie. In the end, why was this movie made? Why should I care about all of these wealthy characters and their problems at work? This isn't based on a real team like in "Rudy" and it's not inspirational like "Rocky," so why should I care? Football is lame so that alone doesn't sell it. There are no real stakes. If the team wins or loses who cares? They will just do it again next year and again the year after that. They try to make the stakes high because the coach might lose his job. But so what? He had a good run. 2 stars outta 5.

8 Million Ways to Die (1986)

Dull

[2/10 · 6 November 2022]

Jeff Bridges plays the alcoholic cop trope to the letter in this dull '80s skinemax flick. He is not a likeable character and neither is anyone else in this movie. Everyone is just kind of gross. Bridges wakes up in a drunk tank/rehab with dried saliva all over his face. Rosanna Arquette vomits in his lap later on. Andy Garcia and his ridiculous rat tail and designer suits yells and gambles constantly. Oliver Stone integrates his love of cocaine into the plot. Drug dealing is portrayed as evil like in so many anti-drug movies. James Newton Howard's electronic score gets tiresome after awhile. The poster promises an action movie, but it's false advertising. There isn't much action. It wants to be more of a noir thriller, but it ends up just being a sleazy drug/sex movie made for late night TV.

House of the Dragon: The Princess and the Queen (2022) Season 1, Episode 6

The first episode I didn't like

[4/10 · 5 October 2022]

I'm glad to see other viewers who felt the same way I do in the reviews. I don't see how "The Princess and the Queen" has an above 8 score. This was truly a hard episode to watch. Viewing birth, to me, is not very different than watching someone taking a huge dump. It's not a pretty sight. It's gross. Crying newborns are also no fun to hear... and they did it TWICE. The new actors do not seem to share the charisma of the previous cast. I don't really get why they felt the need for a 10 year time jump. It seems like a big mistake. I also don't understand why they only recast the female leads, but kept most of the male leads the same. There are so many things that I don't understand. Character motivations and actions don't seem to make any sense. I was really into this show until this episode. Rhaenyra as a mom of a brood of bratty kids isn't very interesting.

Atlanta: The Big Payback (2022) Season 3, Episode 4

A non-event

[3/10 · 8 September 2022]

This episode is someone's (presumably Earn's) crazy dream. As it is a dream, nothing matters. Dreams may inspire interesting fiction but a dream itself is not interesting. Many are comparing this episode to The Twilight Zone. However, in that show and in other sci-fi, the strange events that are happening are real to the characters. Within the story, William Shatner really is seeing a monster on the wing of the plane. In this episode I was just waiting for the dreamer to wake up. The POV of the writers does seem to be pro-reparations. Which is strange because it's a ludicrous stance to take. It's like saying that if someone defrauded my grandfather, I can now sue that person's grandchild to pay me. It makes no sense.

The Power of the Dog (2021)

Fails to Deliver

[4/10 · 27 March 2022]

There is a lot of suspense in this film which is entirely driven by the score and ambiguous character moments. It all seems to be leading up to something terrible. The ending for me landed with a thud. It doesn't pay off for the two hours of suspense I just sat through. The ending, like much of the film, is ambiguous. It's a slow, dull burn and it could have been so much more interesting. The constant and annoying score by Jonny Greenwood took me out of the film. It's as if the director knew that there wasn't much here to work with and had to force the audience to feel with music. The acting was fine, but nothing to write home about. Kirsten Dunst is probably the stand out. New Zealand looks nothing like Montana which also took me out of the movie. 2 stars out of 5.

Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021)

Force Awakens, Phantom Menace level bad

[4/10 · 6 March 2022]

I don't understand how people who hated the 2016 remake can somehow like this movie which suffers from the same problems. Such as token diversity casting, lack of originality, lack of one single laugh, and shameless pandering to nostalgia. Like The Phantom Menace it casts an adorable Mary Sue child as the star. This is a mistake that should always be avoided. Like The Force Awakens the original cast does not appear until the very end. If anything this film will inspire boredom, or outrage at it's ridiculous plot, and little else. There really is nothing at all interesting to see here as this is a pure fan fiction money grab. Just rewatch the orignal for a much better time.

The Marksman (2021)

Terrible

[4/10 · 3 March 2022]

What a waste of Liam Neeson. I am a fan and watch all of his movies. This is one to skip for sure. Neeson would be the only reason to watch it. It's a weak PG-13 bloodless action movie with needless animal cruelty. The co-star is a 10 year old boy so.... avoid. I don't like dogs or kids in movies. If a dog appears in a move then you know what's going to happen. Neeson's character makes many stupid decisions during his adventure of "saving" a child he doesn't even know. It's a very dumb film that wasn't thought through and might have been more of a political screenplay that has a heavy handed pro-immigration message. For a "marksman" Neeson's character actually misses many of his shots.

Excessive Force (1993)

Failed to capitalize on Karate Kid Pt III

[6/10 · 10 January 2022]

The most interesting thing about this film is that it failed to lauch a leading man career for Thomas Ian Griffith. Griffith had a starring role as the villain in 1989's The Karate Kid Part III. I remember at the time seeing the trailers for this that I wasn't surprised to see the actor who brought the terrifying Terry Silver to life being given his own film. It seemed like an obvious move. He had good looks, impressive physical martial arts skills, and was a charismatic actor as well. So why did it bomb at the box office? Having just re-watched the film, these are my thoughts.

It's just not a good movie for one. Excessive Force is what is known as a "star vehicle." A film written solely to cater to an actor's strengths. Interestingly this vehicle was written by the star himself. The real problem is the film's premise, so it was doomed from the start. Griffith should have starred in a martial arts themed movie rather than a karate cop crime thriller. Just imagine if Jean Claude Van Damme had tried to start his movie career in a cop thriller where he does spin kicks rather than the martial arts tournament films Bloodsport and Kickboxer. He may never have had a career. Griffith was trained in taekwondo, which specializes in kicks and especially head kicks. I lost count of how many spinning hook kicks Griffith used to defeat an enemy in this movie. It just doesn't seem as tough or as useful as Steven Seagal's aikido strikes and joint locks. Something should have been mentioned about how unusual it is for a six and a half foot tall cop to be karate kicking crooks all over town. But as I mentioned earlier, the story is the real problem.

Terry (the same name he had in The Karate Kid Part III) is involved in an action scene in the beginning before we even know a thing about him. And we never really do learn who he is. He plays the piano, he dresses stylishly, and he's a cop. We don't really know much else. Griffith's height was a bit of a problem for him being a leading man. He towers over everyone else. He really does seem better suited for the role of the villain. The supporting cast really help this film and it's worth watching for Lance Hendrickson, Tony Todd, and James Earl Jones. I should also mention Burt Young who made a good mobster, but is sadly not in the movie enough. That also hurt the movie, that as the layers of the plot unfold, the bad guys keep changing.

If you like violent rated R action movies I think you will like this one. It's just a missed opportunity more than anything. If they wanted Griffith to play a cop then they should have cut back on the taekwondo, maybe had him take out the dangling earring, and not make him so chic looking. He would have been better off with the slicked back Seagal style haircut he had in The Karate Kid Part III rather than the feathered styled look he had here. He just doesn't look tough. He looks like a model.

The Lost Daughter (2021)

Character piece, no story

[3/10 · 10 January 2022]

If you find screaming screeching children to be as annoying as I do then avoid this film. There is basically no plot, just characters acting strange and making bad decisions. No one in the film is relatable or logical. There is no one to root for or get behind. Olivia Colman almost saves the movie by being so good, but even she can't save this. It's pretentious, it goes nowhere, and by the end you will just be saying, "Huh?"

Don't Look Up (2021)

Bad and Obvious

[3/10 · 2 January 2022]

This film is not clever or original, it is stupid and ridiculous. It takes place in some parallel universe where the events of the plot could actually happen. It's like someone were making a movie about a dream. I expected Leonardo DiCaprio's character to wake up at the end. The writer/director clearly saw Melancholia as it is stylistically similar in parts. It tries to be a comedy, but I didn't laugh once. Jennifer Lawrence and Cate Blanchett were wasted on this.

Zone 414 (2021)

Enter the Cliche Zone

[4/10 · 2 January 2022]

This film rips off Blade Runner without mercy. The plot is boring. Guy Pearce is doing a weird accent. Is it Australian? British? American? It changes from sentence to sentence. Travis Fimmel's make-up is terrible. He doesn't look like an old man, he looks like a potato. I am growing so tiresome of movies that take place in the future yet everyone uses LAN lines, smokes indoors, listens to record players, and records on magnetic tape. I would pass if you're on the fence about watching it.

Lady Vengeance (2005)

Quite Terrible

[3/10 · 16 December 2021]

This is a pretentious, artsy fartsy, boring revenge/torture film. There are no likable characters. As the "heroine" of the film shoots not just a dog, but an innocent little puppy in the face for target practice then you understand what kind of a POS this film is. The characters are all cruel a-holes. The narrative goes back and forth in time making it hard to understand wtf is even going on. This is a bad film and I want my two hours back.