bonsai-superstar Reviews

Katla (2021)

Suffers the Fate of All Overly-Ambitious Shows

[4/10 · 4 January 2022]

I just turned this off (season 1, episode 6) and, not only will not continue watching, but will never watch it again and/or recommend it.

Remember Lost? Every show was just more mysteries and questions. These types of shows are definitely initially interesting, but when it comes time of supply actual answers to those (many) questions, they inevitably fall short.

Katla is especially annoying / disappointing in this regard, as the acting, setting, and sense of mystery are truly great - in the beginning. But, yup, as soon as actual answers are required by the viewer to attempt to make sense of wtf is going on, the writers can't deliver.

I put in the time on this show, but was ultimately let down by the lazy writing. If these characters are so blindly accepting / flat-out stupid in the face of clearly magical events, they deserve what's coming to them. Thus, it's difficult for the viewer to relate to and care about them. There's enough dunces out there in the real world to make life annoying to us - who wants to watch a show about them?

Fantasy movies and shows are great - they make us ask, what would I do in that situation? How would I respond to this problem? Some characters are heroes because they make interesting or smart choices. Watching this show, not only would I make such ridiculous choices, but I don't know ANYONE in the real world who would react so blandly and stupidly. Hey, writers - the more fantastic your antagonist, the more realistic your protagonist(s) have to be. Pretty surprised you don't know this.

I first rated this a 6, due to the quality beginning, but I realize now that just created higher expectations - and thus greater disappointment - so I downgraded it to 4. Writers, don't promise what you can't deliver. Padding out what could have been a complete, satisfying story with stupid character decisions is not only an insult to the viewer, but also to your reputation.

An American Pickle (2020)

Leaves a Sour Taste in the Mouth

[3/10 · 7 September 2020]

Who is this guy related to? Seems like it's *gotta* be nepotism: there's no other way such utter nonsense could be made and released - like a post-Taco Bell bowel movement - upon an innocent and unsuspecting public. This alleged comedy has exactly zero laughs and as a drama, well....let's just say a movie starring Seth Rogen with this plot ain't high art.

The *cough* "message" is unclear: people were racist and biased in the old days but that's somehow charming and something we should strive for? All this science, technology and convenience is bad while a primitive, suffering life and - notably - religion hold the *true* answers to happiness?

If "hipsters/millenials are lazy and entitled" is the message, then Rogen is near the top of hypocrite mountain - that this very movie exists is the result of laziness (the writing) and entitlement (while other talented artists struggle to get their work made, this character apparently has to snap his fingers and we're blessed with yet another cinematic discharge from him), and Rogen would not even have an audience if not for pothead millennials.

Check out Rogen's resume here on IMDB - SuperBad was good, but the rest were just super bad. This guy's been coasting on that rep for over a decade now.

P.S. - Don't trust the 10/10 shills here! "An enjoyable romp" etc. Now *that's* comedy! Pretty difficult to "enjoy" something that makes the viewer angry at the parties that thrust this used TP under our noses. But, hey - don't trust me either - watch it for yourself and if you also truly believe this Burger King of movies is equal to Citizen Kane, well then, I wish you luck.

The Wailing (2016)

Curiously overrated

[5/10 · 10 July 2020]

Strange. Take 10 minutes to check all the reviews here. The cautious reader will notice a large amount of repetition in the wording of reviews, allegedly by different people. The word "masterpiece" is thrown around quite a bit and many gave this film a 9 or 10 out of 10. I am here to say that this is not a perfect film as claimed by these reviews.

Go ahead. Give this movie half an hour. Do you agree it's a masterpiece yet? If you're worried about unfairly judging it, sacrifice the whole 2-and-a-half hours of your life. If you believe it's a masterpiece as alleged by that point, please post your review explaining why.

My issues:

* As pointed out by many reasonable viewers on this site, the main characters were laughable - Korean keystone cops! Literally falling around on the ground, screaming and yelling at every opportunity, and just generally doing a poor job. Hello writers - your protagonist has to be relatable and no-one wants to relate to a bumbling fool.

* Which reminds me - to preemptively shut up the patronizing racists who gave this movie a 10 out of 10 (!!!) simply because it's Korean / "foreign", no, it's not a cultural difference thing. Memories of Murder was a great Korean film featuring cops that suffered few if any of the ridiculous flaws that this alleged masterpiece has.

* The movie didn't know if it wanted to be a comedy, action, horror, thriller, mystery, or....anything. Many simple tropes are thrown around, most with no clear resolution.

* Uh, The Irishman was too long - and this ain't no Irishman. There is no excuse for dragging this mess on for 2 1/2 hours. Poor editing.

* Terrible writing. What was the point of the priest and / or the shaman? Was the villain a Japanese guy just because of racism? What was the real story with the female ghost? Was the kid still haunted at the end? Whatever happened with the dude in the pickup truck? Come on - after giving hours of our lives to this thing at least throw some basic answers our way.

Stay cautious. Most critical reviews are trying to warn / help you. The glowing reviews are almost certainly shills or idiots ( 10 out of 10? Really?). Don't waste your time like I did. Yes, this movie delivers on wailing during the movie - there's a lot of it - but you don't want to be wailing AFTER it.

Faster Than Light (2017)

Are you a voter who's "still on the fence" about Trump? You're gonna love this!!!

[1/10 · 7 July 2020]

An old, overweight man who would never even be realistically considered by NASA outweighs all odds and is inexplicably hired to conduct the first "faster than light speed" (!!!) mission in mankind's history is (apparently) kidnapped by (apparently) aliens and reasonably rejected right into his own oversized backyard mere minutes later.

This movie is a fascinating glimpse into our possible shared future (subtly crediting the movie Idiocracy as a documentary), possible alien life (they have really big spaceships that are round! Had so many interesting ideas after watching this!), yet we can relate to it because the main character is just as stupid and boring as we are. It's about time there was such an everyman hero for the rest of us.

Some say the main character is a bad actor because he expresses concern even when things are going well. They say that this might give the wrong impression of what's happening in the movie, and that is especially important in such a short film. I say COME ON! Apparently, this guy (name either not mentioned or I can't remember it for some reason, sorry) loves Star Trek and wants mission control to say "make it so!" - who can't relate to that? And he has tattoos! Cool!

Yes, we are not shown what is (arguably) the most important part - human's interactions with (apparently) advanced (apparently) aliens. Yes, there is no "plot" to speak of this movie. Yes, we can't remember a single person's name, character, or point of existence after watching this. But you, like many of the other posters here who are DEFINITELY NOT INVOLVED IN THE MAKING OF THIS MOVIE will have to agree - it's a masterpiece! Why else would the ratings be so high?

The Lost City of Z (2016)

Well Done - Ignore Ignorant Reviewers

[7/10 · 3 August 2017]

Ignore the rantings of the fool on the front page who completely missed the point. Sorry, buddy, but the movie is not about "white ignorance" and "a modern feminist perspective". In fact, it was excessively kind to your apparent heroes, the colonialist British. Crack open a history book and be forced to admit the truth (or, more likely, continue to wallow in ignorance).

The true stories in this movie were about a man (Fawcett) trying to make his family name mentionable in polite society again (by pursuing glory at all costs) and the struggle of a woman forced to raise their children alone in the face of this. It's told subtly, yes, so any viewers expecting robot cars smashing things may be let down or, as in the case of that reviewer, confused.

Any concessions made by the filmmakers to modernize the film were clearly done to make it understandable to a person such as peter-stead-740-486963. Again, to dumb it down for him, the movie WASN'T ABOUT "the people of Z" or "how they operate" (?). Looks like somebody didn't stick around for the postscript of this movie. Dear Pete: the movie is based on a true story. "The people of Z" were never discovered, so "how they operate" can sadly never be explained to you. How does IMDb choose which reviews are featured on the front page when such an ignorant review is prominently featured?

Was it a great movie? No. Was it better than average? Yes. Was it a "massive let down" (chuckle)? To Petey, perhaps. To a critical thinker, it was a good movie. Stick with this year's Spiderman, Pete, and you won't have to worry about any political correctness, or any ideas at all.

Baby Driver (2017)

Unwatchable Dreck

[4/10 · 30 July 2017]

Horrendous.

Incredibly cheesy opening scene (hmm, bank robbers dressed in black suits walking in slow motion at the same time - never seen that before!). Then we're treated to what passes for cinema these days: a ridiculous, CGI-based Crank/Fast and Tedious clone car chase. But the most insulting of all to the audience is the main character: a bland, autistic dolt constantly prancing around like an idiot, wearing stupid-looking Ray Bans: "Hey, I've got an idea! Let's take Tom Cruise's "Risky Business" dancing, Ray Ban-wearing fool and put him behind the wheel! He doesn't need to have any character or really personality - audiences today will lap this crap up because every other movie is a cartoon or comic-book CGI fest! Those characters don't have any personality, and audiences flock to the theater in droves to see Avengers 17 or this year's Spiderman "reboot"!".

I guess they expect the audience to identify with this clown "Baby" because the creators of this film assumes today's audience members are just that: children. It appears they are correct: this predictable, insulting time-waste is highly-rated here. I guess it's unfortunately reflective of the times we are living in that a mess like this is not only acceptable, but praised.

Forrest Gump (1994)

Why is it so popular?

[6/10 · 26 December 2016]

The masses relate to it because it offers hope. Who needs hope? - the hopeless. See also "Shawshank Redemption" for a similar, simple story.

This movie, like all movies, is a fantasy: in this case, a fantasy for lazy, simple (minded) people who fantasize about fame & celebrity (Forrest is on TV and in the newspapers multiple times, meets presidents and inspires celebrities, etc.) and money ("fate" sees to it that his shrimp business makes him a millionaire and emphasis is put on how even his most mundane musings end up making people millionaires) without actually doing any work or coming up with any ideas to deserve either.

Life happens to Forrest, and these luckless layabouts relate to Forrest. Unfortunately for them, life is not like a box of chocolates where you don't know what you're gonna get, rather, it's based on natural selection where doers earn the good chocolates and people like their hero Forrest usually end up with nothing at all. Forrest Gump is a poor role model and this is an average movie.

All Things Must Pass (2015)

Karma At Work

[6/10 · 7 November 2016]

Unlikeable men fall into a CANNOT LOSE business (baby boomer, rock buying generation) and milk the customer dry for decades. Despite making millions, and eventually billions, this is not enough for these offensive parasites. These supposed "businessmen" (actually simple-minded drunkards and coke heads), fail to see digital coming and greedily refuse to offer their goods at reasonable prices. Now that these people are exposed for the lowlife scum that they are, they can only weep at the loss of their jobs (and at the loss of a fellow drunk, a gentleman who hilariously, literally wears a lampshade on his head. What a cutup! This, and the David Crosby / walrus-mustachioed Cletus are these people's idea of interesting people.

Despite each working for decades, adding up to centuries worth of experience, in a music-related field, it is notable that music - remember music? - is never a discussion point for these selfish greed heads, only the good times they enjoyed and the incredible profit they were making, both at the customer's expense.

Tower Records was a good store in spite of these people. Everyone loves music, all you needed to do was sell it to them at a reasonable price. See the Beatles' Apple Records for a similar example of what happens when you put burnt-out hippies in charge of your business. It's a shame alright, shameful actions.

Tony Robbins: I Am Not Your Guru (2016)

I really hope this was paid for by Robbins...

[5/10 · 11 August 2016]

because it's an excellent piece of propaganda / advertising, not a documentary. No doubt, it was interesting to eavesdrop on one of Robbins' seminars and check out what the decades-long fuss is about. However, there is an astonishing lack of questions, offstage (or even backstage) interviews, critical questions raised, skeptical viewpoints (or even viewpoints of anyone other than Robbins, his sister/assistant, or his acolytes) or just simple commentary in this "documentary". There IS an alarming amount of emotionally manipulative music, scenes of people weeping, and fables and general statements offered by Robbins.

In addition, for some odd reason, every featured participant seems to be a naturally or artificially hot woman with simple, selfish concerns (weight, sex life, etc.). The few true sufferers ( the suicidal dude, the abuse victim) do seem to be comforted by Robbins' platitudes (the abuse victim is $100,000 and a career richer by the very next day, the geeky suicidal guy appears to be comforted by a few minutes of Robbins growling at him). Throw in a vacuous hippie (mr. white dreads) and a weak guy dragged there by his gf (the "lion") and you've got the whole picture.

Sure, these burnouts & simpletons are free to throw away thousands on this cultish, empty self- help time waste and Robbins is free to exploit them. Both sides appear to be satisfied. Sometimes, placebo does work. That's not the issue here. The issue here is that this infomercial is being presented as a real documentary, which is laughable. Save it for Scientology.

Drunk Stoned Brilliant Dead (2015)

Questionable Legacy of Burnt-out Hippies

[6/10 · 23 May 2016]

It's notable that none of the truly successful / funny people who got their start via Lampoon- related ventures (Bill Murray, Harold Ramis, etc.) are in this movie, vouching for the quality of the Lampoon. Why is this? Because they owe their start to Second City, not to the Lampoon. Just as the Lampoon blames Lorne Michaels for taking "their" talent wholesale, they took this talent from Second City - people like John Belushi, Gilda Radner etc. ever wrote for or even had anything to do with the Lampoon. Animal House had a few laughs and, as noted in the movie, created a genre, but a realistic viewer will suspect the laughs are the result of (non-Lampoon) Harold Ramis. Caddyshack was crap. P. J. O'Rourke is (still) a pompous, unfunny drunk / conservative. Chevy Chase is here, promoting the Lampoon because the Lampoon is affiliated with his glory years 3 decades ago. The National Lampoon may have been considered shocking, new, or different, but it simply wasn't as funny as this movie makes it out to be. A truly timeless work will stand on its own. What is the legacy of the Lampoon? Quite a few people spell it out in this movie: "tits". Pictures of breasts and juvenile cartoons. Breasts are great, but (generally) not funny. If the Lampoon had classic, funny articles, people would still be referencing them (people still reference the Marx Brothers or Shakespeare). But they don't - why do you think that is?

Hardcore Henry (2015)

Pretty good video game, terrible movie

[5/10 · 16 April 2016]

The poor man's Crank, done shaky-cam style. Wants to be District 9 but ends up closer to Plan 9. Unwatchable. "Star" Tim Roth has about 1-2 minutes total screen time. If you liked Kingsman, you may like this. First person shooter, shooting blanks. Obviously inspired by RoboCop but ends up RoboCrap. Had to fast-forward through most of this. If you're going to ask ME to be the main character, I should at least get paid a star salary! Tries to be Terminator but turned out Terminated. IMDb reviews require 10 lines of text. However, this movie does not contain enough content to inspire 10 lines of text. To reiterate, this movie does not contain enough content to inspire 10 lines of text.

Concussion (2015)

You almost have to admire the 1%

[5/10 · 23 December 2015]

6 corporations control 90% of all media in the US. So, of course, the same people that made this movie are the same people that own sports teams and suppressed the truth about concussions. So, while they may have temporarily lost money due to the expose, they are making some of it back selling this tearjerker back to you!

Are the facts about concussions true? Of course! Even a layman should be able to figure out that literally thousands of hits to the brain are not a good thing. It's likely that it wasn't figured out for so long as most of the winners that choose to play sports don't have a lot of brainpower when they start the sport, so the effects weren't immediately apparent. And it's no secret that a full / real education is not exactly a priority for these apes.

The movie? Well, the simple title is a spoiler for this slow (no pun intended) burner. The editing was awful, as the viewer is forced to suffer through a bunch of boring montages. Will Smith was pretty good, as always. The good Albert Brooks and great Alec Baldwin did as well as they could do, given the bland characters they were written.

Disconnect (I) (2012)

Tries to be a modern-day "Crash" but...

[5/10 · 28 June 2015]

ends up being an unwatchable, embarrassing after-school special warning about "kids today" and the dangers of all their new-fangled technology. This is (relatively) highly-rated here and I actually found it on a site recommending lesser-known, offbeat movies, but I honestly had to fast-forward through about 40% of it. If you believe my review is thus unfair, you are of course welcome to view the whole thing. Personally, I found the presentation insipid: schmaltzy music, predictable "story" (such as it was), forgettable characters, offensively old-fashioned ideas (just as Requiem for a Dream was a latter-day Reefer Madness, this hackneyed film is yet another dire warning against the dangers of technology), etc. A waste of time, talent, and money.

Danny Collins (2015)

Yet another sappy Hollywood time waste, this one not coming through on the offer of even one good song

[5/10 · 18 June 2015]

An aging, Neil DIamond-type pop singer who is unhappy with his young lover and estranged from his son discovers he missed receiving a letter from John Lennon. Oh, who could ever guess what will happen? I could forgive the ridiculous predictability if this supposedly music-based movie - created with input from Dan Fogelberg and Ryan Adams - actually had some good music other than the sappier John Lennon 70's ballads. However, it doesn't. Realistically, the cloyingly offensive ballad the main character (Al Pacino playing Al Pacino) has written to honor the hotel manager he just met (apparently Elizabeth Warren playing a hotel manager), would never be successful, even in today's "American Idol" level of pop balladry. Well, I suffered through the entire film just so you can't criticize me for criticizing a movie and not having watched the whole thing. It's not "bad", just after-school special-level boring and predictable. Pacino - sure, you're "charming" on some superficial level, but there is absolutely no chemistry between you and any real human. Bill Murray - this man connects with real people on a basic level. Pacino - you seemed to be playing a version of Murray's cheesy lounge singer character. Ultimately, the viewer is the loser. Congrats Hollywood, you have wasted my time yet again!

Fuzz: The Sound that Revolutionized the World (2007 Video)

Depressing, yet Fascinating

[7/10 · 24 January 2013]

I'm surprised that there aren't more reviews of this movie as, though it's certainly a low- budget/amateur production, it rarely fails to be interesting.

Ostensibly about fuzz pedals - the rectangular electronic boxes guitarists use to add "fuzz" (a distorted tone) to their sound, it quickly reveals itself as a socio-cultural study. The viewer might be expecting simply a basic explanation of the fuzzbox and interviews with popular guitarists interspersed with a history of the device (popularized by Hendrix, etc.). However, this film has deeper ambitions as it examines the motivations not only of those attracted to these tools, but also the inspirations and character of the creators of the devices.

It is these designers that are the focus of the film. The virtual flip side of the "cool", popular guitarist with a strong image on stage, this crew is a decidedly uncool misfit group of gearhead geeks and hippie/drug burnouts. The well-known guitarists that are interviewed are much closer in character to the effects designers than movie stars: Dinosaur Jr.s J. Mascis displays his Fuzzbox collection sitting unused in his closet, ZZ Top's Billy Gibbons entertains with tales of chaining effects together, and Shellac's Steve Albini is a major electronics nut himself, known for running a studio and collecting obscure microphones (to be fair, however, Albini appears to be one of the few electronics people who actually considers music/sound when utilizing electronics - the film shows many boutique pedal designers are simply operating using a hit or miss, I'll-try-anything- once method).

In the end, no-one is spared. Many pedal purchasers are shown to be either crass manipulators, buying a "boutique" (homemade by one or two people) pedal solely with the purpose of reselling it for 300%+ on ebay or poor players looking for a magic fix to their crappy playing. The guitarists reveal their basement/boy roots, geeking out over the effects box art, transistors used within, or even the knobs. The effects box creator guys - and they are all guys, basically - don't appear to be motivated by either money or fame. It's unclear if some of the cloners (those who copy the schematics of popular devices) are even musicians or know about how electronics affect sound themselves. They reveal too much about what the effect means to them simply by naming them: Electric Mistress. Fuzz. Box. Screamer. Etc. Albini displays some of the attitude that may have enabled him to rise above these roots when he is asked about one particularly rare pedal: "Oh, I'd miss it if it were lost, but I wouldn't miss it as much as, say, my penis".

God Bless America (2011)

Idiocracy did it much better

[5/10 · 27 April 2012]

It's not funny at all: the word "hilarious" peppers the reviews here for some reason, but I didn't laugh once at this mess. For those who found the movie so "hilarious", could you provide any examples of this supposed hilarity?

It's preachy: look, I agree with most of the main character's points about modern (North American) culture: it tends to be mean-spirited, vacuous, punishes rather than rewards intellectualism, etc. However, the personality flaws of the main character perfectly illustrate those of the movie: nobody wants to be preached at /lectured to. What's the point? I agree with your points already and those that don't won't be swayed by this movie (if they even see it at all).

It offers no solutions other than violence: the recent movie "Super" was eerily similar to this one in many ways (unattractive everyman vigilante killing those he finds morally objectionable, young, crazy female sidekick who is romantically interested in him, etc. However, that movie was braver than this in that it showed the true ugliness of violence and that violence is NOT the answer to life's complex problems. VIolence is the tool for those this movie professes to despise, yet the movie hypocritically offers violence as a solution. The true solution to ignorance is education, not a shotgun. Perhaps the filmmakers realized that yet another violent movie would be more entertaining than a movie about a person actually _communicating with_ and changing the lives of others. Violence certainly brings in the bucks and is easier to write...and appeals to the very people this movie claims to condemn.

See Idiocracy instead: Unfortunately, "Super" was ultimately just as unwatchable as this movie. The movie "Idiocracy" brings modern society's obsession with convenience, fast food, celebrity culture, soulless "Idol" music, etc. to its logical conclusion. Further, it's funny!

We Bought a Zoo (2011)

Of Lasagna, Pizza, and Sandwiches

[5/10 · 21 March 2012]

Do you relate to women who base not only an entire relationship, but even love not on conversation or shared experience but on simply bringing a person a sandwich? Do you consider simply throwing money at life's problems an "adventure"? Do you fantasize about meeting a rich, available man who pines for his dead wife (showing he is capable of LOVE)? Are you desperately lonely and wish you were blond and beautiful? Do you wish your neighbors were all silly, non-threatening stereotypes? Do you wish the worst thing your kid did was to draw some angry pictures (with a professional style, of course)?

If so, have we got a movie for you! Based on the user ratings for this movie, most women agree: We Bought a Zoo is a classic!

This is the tale of the aptly-named Benjamin Mee (as in, "it's all about mee mee mee!"), a supposed adventure-seeking reporter. Though he acknowledges in the beginning of the movie (his lame human interest pitch to the editor) that he is a hack, he expects the viewers to trust that this movie won't be just another one of his forced tearjerkers. One can't help but side with his son, who realizes early on he is simply a pawn in yet another one of his father's stories. And, yes, ultimately, this "adventure" (uh, yeah, he bought a zoo. Any problems? Just bring out the checkbook) also ended up being a book and this cheesy movie.

The movie is a fantasy not only for women, but also men (well, mostly Benjamin Mee): this guy lives in a magical world where beautiful blond women just can't get enough of him and his son! Beginning of movie: His fridge is jammed packed with lasagna from blond mothers who are filled with lust for him for some reason. Middle of movie: just his arrival to the zoo is enough to make his blond neighbor and her blond niece fall in love with him and his son ("Shut up and bring me a sandwich" has been the male chauvinist catchphrase for years and Benjamin Mee creates a character (blond, natch) who does literally that!). End of movie: a trio of blond teenagers pass by the guy in his zoo, giggle, and nudge one another. The film ends with the blond pair staring at this guy and his son and gushing about how they prefer humans to animals (this, from zoo- workers, after Benjamin selfishly lets an animal suffer in pain and his son kicks another!). Now we know the hair color of the girl that turned down Benji for prom.

However, it is mainly women that rated this movie highly. I can understand the appeal of a rich, brooding guy (check out that scene where iMovies of his dead wife come to life and start dancing around his kitchen to empty "majestic" pop!) who loves children, but I can not respect any woman who would relate to these pathetic characters. Scarlett Johannsens' takes a page from the desperate housewife in Jerry Maguire, revealing how desperately lonely she is to a complete stranger who doesn't respect her. Signs of trouble? Like the similarly desperate mother in the beginning of the movie, Scarlett's character shows up with food (pizza, in this case). Her niece is even worse - though Benjamin's son utters nary a word to this person and treats her like crap (rolling his eyes, sneering, telling her that his "friends" (who never visited) are more important than her, etc.), she brings him sandwiches (!!!) daily then goes away. After he admits to her that she means nothing to him, she puts up a sign (yes, a real sign) confessing her love for him. You've come a long way….baby.

So, yeah, if you enjoy being manipulated by bland/insulting stereotypes and don't necessarily require a story or believable/relatable characters, check out this movie!

Still Walking (2008)

An average movie overly praised by ignorant reviewers

[6/10 · 23 February 2012]

"Few other nations can capture the beauty of family drama with such subtlety and grace as the Japanese can." (as Japan can, you mean? "the Japanese" is not a "nation") "While watching the movie, I found it hard not to be immersed by the beauty of Japanese suburbia." (immersed _in_, surely?).

Poor grammar aside, statements such as these are notable for their exoticism of Japan, likely based on ignorance of what life in Japan is actually like. As a non-Japanese living in Japan, I am unfortunately all too familiar with approaches such as these. Japan is mystical. Japan is futuristic. Japan is strange. Japan is etc. If only all the reviewers here (notably non- Japanese, notably positive reviewers) would actually come and live and/or work in Japan, they could experience this supposed "beauty of family drama" and "beauty of Japanese suburbia" themselves. Then, they might see this movie for what it is: a Japanese version of a Hollywood movie: appealing to the masses, simply confirming family values (Dad might be grumpy, but he loves you after all!, nobody's perfect, etc.) and most definitely nothing special or new. A bad movie? No. But do you really believe, as another reviewer here wrote, "Only Japanese movies seems to be able to go so deeply into subtleties of family affairs as this one."? (again with the poor grammar - I think they're trying to say, "Only Japanese movies such as this one seem to be able to go so deeply into the subtleties of family affairs.")

This is a mediocre movie with ratings/reviews inflated by reviewers who exoticise Japan. If this movie was set in the United States with Hollywood actors, it would be recognized for what it is: a cheesy, average film. Discrimination, whether positive or negative, is still discrimination. Yet another reviewer here wrote of the Japanese, "They're not like American people. They're not ordinary people." Uh, they are ordinary humans like the rest of us and this movie proves it.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011)

Good, but unnecessary remake

[6/10 · 24 January 2012]

The original (2009) movie version of the book was gripping, stylish, and original. This version, while adequate, adds nothing to the original. Hollywood's mania for remakes of everything notwithstanding, it is difficult to see why this movie was remade at all. The film only differs from the original in that it offers a laughably cheesy intro filled with meaningless MTV-style graphics and a ludicrous version of Led Zeppelin's already overblown (but great as it is) "Immigrant Song". The score, by Nine Inch Nails frontman Trent Reznor and partner Atticus Ross is better than average, but this minor addition does not justify remaking a million dollar movie. Please, Hollywood, enough with the remakes of movies, TV shows, comic books, and the like!

The Expendables (2010)

Waste of talent

[5/10 · 17 August 2010]

Yeah, all the big names are here, but there is absolutely no story. I guess it's a "classic" 80's type action movie in that:

• the storyline is predictable (Hmm, what will happen with the Gunner character? the general's daughter?)

• what little dialogue there is, is cheesy

• the editing is bad (lots of useless shots of people walking, planes landing, etc.)

• there is absolutely no character development (unless you count the embarrassing soliloquy by "Tool")

• there's lots of "American savior" stereotypes (including some fairly obvious symbolism in a church)

All of this could be forgiven if the action scenes were worth it, but they simply aren't. Recent flicks such as "Taken" or even the A-Team remake had better action than this. There's simply no excuse when you consider the big names involved.

This movie currently has a high rating here. Check back in a year when the hoopla after the big names has died down. Will this movie be worth watching again? I'm betting no.

Whatever Works (2009)

An Unfortunately Apt Title

[6/10 · 11 October 2009]

I was looking forward to this: Woody Allen, Larry David, and Michael McKean. Yet, the writing was for a play (loud, talky, soliloquies, etc.), David played his usual unlikeable self but without the laughs of Curb - I didn't laugh once, and McKean was simply wasted.

After the appearance of the young woman meeting the older man, I was a bit surprised that Woody chose to take his usual route of creating a romantic relationship between the two. To be clear, I find it natural (not "creepy") and thus believable that an older guy would be attracted to a younger woman, but that vice versa is not so common unless the man possesses money or power. Here, Woody expects us to believe the latter: that a lively, beautiful young woman will fall for a (relentlessly) misanthropic, unattractive older man who is _not_ sexually attracted to her. Right. David is so convincing in his role that it only serves to reinforce the unattractiveness of his character, and thus stretch believability to its breaking point (perhaps it's self-parody on the part of Woody, but the juvenile ruminations on mortality just made me question similar statements in other Woody films). Further, that his character would later fall for someone who claims to be psychic is the final straw: this guy would more likely be alone, and possibly happier that way.

Ultimately, a disappointing effort from a guy who has given us some really funny / thought- provoking films. The quality (if not quantity) of his output can seemingly best be described as "sporadic", so it's par for the course, I guess. I'm looking forward to the next good one. This flick is best forgotten - in this case, "whatever" did not "work".

I Love You, Man (2009)

Ironic Choice for a Title.

[4/10 · 25 July 2009]

The creators of this movie not only don't "love" men, they apparently don't respect them that much either, portraying them as either weak or disgusting.

Here are the things this movie tells us are important: weddings, watching TV with your girlfriend, caring so much about what your girlfriend's friends think that you obsess over it, making money for your girlfriend, etc. Here are the things the movie tells us are trivial: men's natural instinct to pursue sex, enjoying music with your guy friends, creating things with your guy friends, etc. Do you notice a theme here? Even though is a Sydney is a great friend to Peter, even to the extent of sacrificing his reputation (the speech) and his money (the loan) for him, both these things are perceived as negatives until they are approved by the girlfriend: the speech is okay because she likes giving **s and the loan is okay because Peter can make money to buy the property for his girlfriend.

Why, when Peter is searching for male friends, does he not ask _his father_ for advice? Why does he instead ask his mother and his brother (a gay man)? "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy"? Further, why is he so overly concerned with the opinion of his girlfriend and her gang? In short, Sydney is a (great) guy while Peter is a weak (wo)man ( "Metrosexual"?) Yet, this movie tells us it is _Peter_ we should emulate.

Why are only _male_ qualities shown as negative while those of women are never questioned? For example, no guys I know have a "masturbation table" or whatever set up in plain view as a discussion topic, no guys I know let their dog crap everywhere without cleaning it up, no guys I have ever met are fart experts, etc.). Also, Jon Favreau's character is just a total knob for no reason. This movie reminds me of that female band L7, that tried to be "masculine" by mimicking only the negative qualities of men. It seems the writers felt for some reason that they had to exaggerate the negative aspects of Sydney. Otherwise, I guess he'd just be a good friend, and we can't have that.

"Bromance"? They already have a genre for this and it's good enough: the buddy movie. Wedding movies are for women. This movie tells us every single person (Sydney, the girlfriend's single friend, etc.) needs to get married to live a "real" life. I like Paul Rudd but, though this movie was not funny, the premise was laughable.

Adventureland (2009)

A Great Date Movie

[7/10 · 13 July 2009]

The plot was not much to speak of - no twists and fairly predictable. For a comedy, the laughs were good but few and far between. Why then the 7? Well, I'd even give it a 7.8 if I could. This movie perfectly captures the feeling of being young and in love. Kristen Stewart, full of weird tics in Twilight, is here utterly believable as the cool love interest of Jesse Eisenberg. The latter, while playing basically the same confused kid he played in Rodger Dodger and The Squid and the Whale (both great movies in their own right), is not surprisingly also good at his role. The supporting characters also have their own charms and there's really no weak point there.

If I have one complaint, it's not with the movie proper. It's that I totally relate to Eisenberg's character as well as his musical taste ("Satellite of Love" is one of my favorite songs) as well as Stewart's: I love Husker Du and the Mats), so I kinda resent that it's cool _now_ to be like him or like that music. Nobody knew who they were then.

Ultimately, both guys and girls should enjoy this movie. Not only a cut above most teen flicks, it's also a strong romance. Well done.

Rachel Getting Married (2008)

Pitching "Rachel Getting Married"

[6/10 · 19 May 2009]

Okay, check it out! What was one of the biggest movies last year? Right, "Juno"! We need a bigger star, though...let's get Anne Hathaway. You know, she's in those Disney movies. It'll be an "ironic", "hip" choice and she'll do a good job as she wants to leave the kids movies behind.

Yeah, it's a wedding pic. Story, well...did you see "Margot at the Wedding"? No? Good! It's like that. But those were low class people...we'll make 'em wealthy and troubled, like "Igby Goes Down" or "Garden State"! That way, we can have some nice scenery and good looking people.

Actually, let's make it really multi-cultural! "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" pulled in the big bucks. But we won't hold back - we'll throw in every kind of culture so no-one's left out! Yeah, those Dogme / cinema verite type films are popular now. Have you seen Mike Leigh's stuff? No? Well, kinda like Altman. No, don't worry, we'll film it practically real time so we don't have to hire an editor. You'll save money! Hey, actually, herky-jerky camera stuff is actually really trendy now (see "Blair Witch", "Cloverfield", etc.). We might not even have to hire a professional camera person!

Did ya see "Lost in Translation"? No? Well, it was pretty popular. Another slow-moving movie made by the daughter of a famous filmmaker (Sofia Coppola, daughter of Francis Ford). Guess who we got to write this one? No, not her. No, not him. No, not... anyway, we got the daughter of Sidney Lumet! Yeah, yeah, the "Network" guy. The story she has is a bit of a downer, but if the test audience finds it too depressing we'll just pad the drama scenes with wedding toasts and music performances and bill the whole thing as a comedy!

It's a sure-fire winner!

Powder Blue (2009)

Light as powder...

[5/10 · 16 May 2009]

Why "Powder Blue"? One can only assume it's a reference to the (seriously fake-looking) blue snow that the ex-priest plays with in front of the church. It represents hope, get it?

The writing: I _have_ to mention the extended soft-focus Hallmark scene where the dead grandfather meets the dead grandson IN HEAVEN! ON THE BEACH! I literally said, "Oh my god" when I saw it. I can't believe they actually filmed this cliché in the 21st century. Keep in mind that this is only minutes after the scene where the ex-priest meets his dead wife in a graveyard (considering it was him who put her there, you'd think she might not be so friendly!).

The characters: a stripper with a heart of gold, a priest who has lost his way, a geek, and an old man (not really a criminal as the back story is not really developed). The snow may be fresh, but these characters ain't.

The plot: a geek, though he passes out merely at the sight of a plain girl, gets it on with a beautiful one (and _she_ suggests it!), a father chooses to reunite with his long-lost daughter in the sex room of a strip club, a woman suddenly offers sex to a doctor so that he can somehow better "help" her dying son, a waitress who is working late suddenly goes home with (and then comes on to) an unkempt stranger who was passed out at her diner only moments before, a guy loses his wife on their wedding day because he's fooling around with the video-cam in their car, the same person somehow has his car stolen in the dead of night while he is only a few feet away (this guy has bad luck with cars!), a male prostitute, though he refused a lot of money to kill a willing victim, suddenly kills _himself_ for no apparent reason, the youth of 2009 are readily entertained by a puppet show (with only one puppet, no dialogue, and a visible puppeteer!), a guy rejects a beautiful girl's offer to come in, a guy thrusts a gun into the hands of strangers and asks them to kill him, etc. Perhaps "unlikely" is the kindest word that can be used here.

Casting: casting Ray Liotta as a walking dead man was apt, as he certainly looks the part. I thought Swayze and Phoebe from Friends were "ironic" choices, but it looks like...not. As far as the stripper actress, most here seem concerned only with her nude scenes, but she was passable as the main character.

It's not well-made, no matter how you slice it and it's certainly not "excellent" (!) as some here might have you believe. It's a made-for-TV Crash, is what it is.