Change Your Image
RafiSteinger
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Turn (2014)
Not Historically Accurate, Nor Worth Watching - It's a drama for people who wish history was more exciting
If you're interested in history then watch a documentary or read the book. Turn; Washington's Spies is based off a book by Dr. Rose of Cambridge that accurately portrays the people involved in the Culper Spy Ring. However, the transition from book to film add's unnecessary drama and vilifies otherwise arbitrary historical figures. For example, the main villain Simcoe in real life wasn't a villain at all - but a hero and founded the modern city of Toronto (yes - this is a good thing considering the fact that Toronto is amazing).
Regardless of this inaccuracy, it should be noted that almost the entirety of Season 3 was made up. Yeah all those love triangles...made up.
The only reason I'm giving this a 2 instead of a 1 is because the production value is pretty decent and the acting doesn't suck compared to tween-girl vampire shows.
Overall it's a made-up fairy tale based on actual events, not a depiction of said events. I'm not too sure why people want to fantasize about history occurring in some dramatized fashion, but overall if you're not concerned with historical fact then this is for you. If you're intelligent and want to actually learn about the Culper Ring, then read the book.
As Robert Redford once said about books, they're like TV for smart people.
Pacific Heat (2016)
Extremely underrated, under appreciated, and overlooked.
To start, everyone has been and probably always will compare this show to Archer; while it is clear that Netflix executives probably intended to offer pretty much the exact same product, the creators did a brilliant job creating a new show that actually is very different than Archer in both delivery and humor. Most people will not see this as the animation is strikingly similar however the jokes, representation of characters, comedic style, and premise are much different. The premise is the most obvious; instead of the obvious stereotype of an ultra super spy, Pacific Heat follows a team of law enforcement agents in Australia who ultimately are forced to work together despite only one of them actually being capable of her job. As many reviews will compare the differences between this show and Archer, the show in and of itself absent of Archer maintains an original and hysterical perception of Law enforcement.
I would rather have to not address this point, but many unforgiving reviews falsely and ignorantly accuse the show of being racist and bigoted by comparison to Archer. However, in reality many of the cultural stereotype jokes are either similar or much more mild mannered compared to that of Archer (many times executed in much better test), which also is not a racist or bigoted show. If anything, (it's difficult to explain to someone who isn't smart enough to comprehend this) the racial references of both shows are quite humorous because they don't actually intend to make fun of the races being portrayed, but instead to poke fun at those who are ignorant enough to actually believe the stereotypes or make those types of bigoted remarks. The best example of this would be comparing some of these jokes to when Cartman of South Park makes fun of Kyle for being Jewish (or some variation); the actual humor is that Cartman is ignorant, and the show makes fun of those who would actually be dumb enough to believe in making fun of Jews in the personification of Cartman. The same goes for characters in Archer and Pacific Heat. An example in Archer is when Malorie Archer shoots a member of the Yakuza and says "That's for Pearl Harbor!" The humor lies with the fact that Malorie Archer is bigoted enough to make that type of remark, and not that there's anything correlating Asians (specifically Japanese) to the actions taken at Pearl Harbor.
The same goes for Pacific Heat in it's representations of Asian or Middle Eastern criminals or bad guys; many jokes in pacific heat again poke fun of the main character's ignorance rather than the racial backgrounds of people who are actually Asian or Middle Eastern, although it's more subtle than Archer and in some forms juxtaposes those cultures against mainstream western culture. It should also be noted that Pacific Heat only has one season, so the depictions of "bad guys" are much more limited than the many seasons of Archer. If anything, Pacific Heat portrays "bad guys" in a multitude of diverse backgrounds for only having one season.
Steering away from bad reviews and Archer comparisons, Pacific Heat offers viewers a great experience and hysterical jokes that are original and well delivered.
I would suggest giving this show a chance and watching it with an open mind. If the viewer can't get past the visual resemblance of Archer then it won't be worth it, but I highly suggest giving this show a chance.
Archer (2009)
One of the best shows of the post 9/11 era
Hands down one of the most innovative ideas for a show in the post 9/11 era.
To begin, it's hard to ignore that the war in Iraq / Afghanistan has taken military culture into the mainstream through news / media, but an overt byproduct of post 9/11 culture among many 20- 30's men is the rebirth of male dominated delusions of wartime grandeur; and specifically that of the personification and dream of a world-class super spy.
Archer delivers the ultimate satirical representation of our own concept of a super-spy, and takes it a step further by picking apart different facets that comprise our understanding of espionage. From the initial obvious comparison of the main character to say a "James Bond" type, Archer takes the traditional thought of the type of man committed to honor and integrity and breaks down the true stereotypes of the type of secret agent/military man who, either by experience or predisposition, is incapable of actually living his or her life with that type of integrity on a daily basis. While well intended, Archer personifies the extreme social byproducts that surround the culture of espionage. It also references mainstream characters, movies, and shows that have contributed to the perception of spies or would influence the type of person that would fantasize about becoming a super spy.
Additionally, the show brilliantly ties in professionally void characters that in reality would play a significant role in the business of espionage; from Pam in HR, to Cyril in accounting, the support network that makes up the business is also fair game and as the show progresses, the characters and their importance to the value of the show progress as well.
Overall, Archer is amazing. I highly suggest watching each season in order as it will provide a more enjoyable viewing experience as the viewer may pick up on progression in the show and it may flow easier.
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)
Michael Bay Should Be Ashamed
The reason most sequels fall short is because they rely solely on the material in the first movie. The first Transformers movie had all the makings of a good action movie; action, a decent enough plot, suspense, and a good climactic action sequence. Revenge of the Fallen dragged on and focused a lot on the quick laughs and cheap gimmicks that sell tickets and moved away from a story line that could have made the movie much more interesting. In all, this movie exercised "salesmanship" rather than effort ("Salesmanship" being a practice in trying to sell something sub- par rather than focus on making a good product). In all, this movie isn't worth the time. Go see the first one and forget that they made anything afterwards.
Dinner for Schmucks (2010)
Disappointing movie, not worth seeing
This movie starring Steve Carrell and Paul Rudd had the potential to be blockbuster comedy but falls far short. To start, Steve Carrell's character while seemingly packed with potential humor, ends up being more like a fly on the wall. Steve Carrell portrays a socially awkward taxidermist that seems to fall just short of being mentally retarded. Paul Rudd plays an ambitious young executive who sees an opportunity to use Steve Carrell's character to his advantage. While this pair seems to have a lot of humor on the surface, the movie projects more of a message than viewers probably want to see; the movie isn't packed with the entertaining humor that old Steve Carrell and Paul Rudd fans probably want to see. Instead most of the jokes are "forced" and the situations are more ridiculous than a reasonable individual would believe. Most of the reason why people are fans of "40 year old virgin" and "Role Models" is because we can relate to the material and style of humor that the movie projects. In "Dinner for Schmucks", the tone of the movie is much more serious and it's coupled with even more outlandish situations than a reasonable human would be able to relate to; leaving the overall feeling of the movie mildly uncomfortable. Overall, it's just a disappointing movie. If you're expecting something entertaining and funny don't go see this movie. If you want to watch a mediocre movie that tries to convey moral fiber through forced comedy, then this is your movie.
The Usual Suspects (1995)
Brilliance in Movie Making
The film "the usual suspects" is brilliant by means of many different facets of film making; and brought together perfectly to comprise one of the most historic and critically acclaimed films of all time. To start, the plot alone is intelligent and baffling, so much that the general public is challenged to piece together a seemingly surrealistic account of mystery and murder. However, there's more to this movie than just the mere genius behind the plot. For starters, the cinematography, editing, and acting are captured perfectly to not only portray a story, but involve the audience as though they were to experience the story themselves. Additionally, the actors are brilliant and capture each character as precise as necessary to accurately forshadow the climactic point of the movie that leaves audiences breathless.
However, behind the brilliance of the film, the editing, the acting, the storyline, the script, and the cinematography; are the ingenious facts hidden within the movie's composition. The antagonist himself was based off of a real-life serial murderer, whose actions are depicted in the film under alternative pretenses.
In all, this movie portrays the perfection of cinematography and should be the precedent that movie-makers strive to achieve.
Romeo + Juliet (1996)
Shakespeare would roll in his grave!
This movie was not only pathetic, but a mockery of theater in general. West Side Story is an adaptation of the original story - and did well in theaters. This however, was nothing more than unoriginal work with special effects and catchy music riffs selling unnecessary bad-taste to suburban white kids with access to mommy and daddy's credit. When this movie came out - the "teen generation" ate it up - and Hollywood cashed in on it's success; regardless of the fact that this feature had no depth, class, or innovation. It was simply the same dialogue and setting of Shakespeare's original, with enough polish on it to get everyone to want to buy a piece. Shakespeare had a beautiful vision - this wasn't it.
Wedding Crashers (2005)
Not just Comedy Genius, but a realistic look at American culture
While this movie has reached critical acclaim, many people don't realize the realism behind the scenes. While these realisms are significant, many examples come from the very small specifics behind the acting and scenarios. A significant part of the success of this movie is the ability of the story to relate to modern day American single males ages 18-35. The movie portrays 2 men who are sexually motivated in their extra-curricular activities. The movie does a wonderful example of portraying American cultural flaws through classism, culturalism, and sexuality. Particularly, the movie shows the consistencies between money, family, relationships, and their effects on one another.
One of the best parts of this movie is the fact that every character is properly cast, and provide brilliant performances. Even a late cameo by a reknown star provides effective enough humor for the hysterical atmosphere; although most would argue that the cameo isn't meant to be taken seriously. While the movie does drag on a bit towards the end, it provides effective entertainment all the way through.
The only shortcoming behind this movie is the fact that many older crowds won't be able to relate to the material at all. In fact, many of the elderly crowds won't want to accept many of the cultural portrayals as reality seeing as though there is satirical implications to the upper class and the male sex drive. Additionally, women (usually older women as younger women now have commonly reformed to open sexuality or befriending Men who relate to these characters) won't be able to relate to the characters or necessarily want to sympathize with them due to their sexual motivations; the main characters while being portrayed as "heroes", in theory are motivated in a sleezy fashion.
Overall, most people don't recognize that the reason why these jokes work, is the ability to make fun of the cultural identifiers that people recognize about the upper class and men looking to have a good time. This movie should be cherished by anyone who's looking for a good comedy. Anyone who doesn't appreciate this movie can't relate to it, and doesn't want to accept these characters as realistic.
Casino Royale (2006)
One of the Best Bond Movies Ever
Over the years, there have been countless attempts to capture the essence of Ian Flemming's master spy, James Bond. However, only a few movies have accurately portrayed the exoticism behind the character correctly. This movie is the current classic that Bond lovers were searching for in the mistakes behind Pierce Brosnan's reign. Daniel Craig brilliantly captures the careless charm and renegade attitude behind the character that makes Bond so unique. While Craig portrays Bond with a good heart, he accurately portrays a secret agent willing to break protocol while sacrificing life and limb to get the job done.
Additionally, the filming of this movie could not have been more perfect. The best part of this film is that nothing here is over the top; at least not by comparison to previous Bond attempts. The locations were beautifully selected, the gadgets were realistic enough for anyone to find believable, and the characters were complex enough to capture the essence behind big screen allure.
Something most people won't notice while being ridiculously refreshing, is the fact that the Bond-girls were selected for the parts and not their media hype. In many of the previous Bond films, most of the Bond-girls (such as Denise Richards, Halle Berry, and Teri Hatcher) were only cast because of their wide-spread pop-culture popularity, in turn affecting their over-all weak performances. However, Eva Green and Caterina Murino give stellar performances giving justice to the Bond-girls.
Overall, this movie is the best Bond film since the days of Sean Connery. All comparisons aside, this is everything any movie-go-er would want in an action film, and everything Bond fans love about this classic action film icon.
A Night at the Roxbury (1998)
One of the Worst Movies Ever Made
Movies made after shows or sketches are usually clever, witty, and full of enough original material to keep an audience entertained; even when the audience has never seen the show (ie - South Park, Family Guy, Simpsons...etc). However, SNL movies haven't been original or clever since the days of Dan Akroyd and Bill Murray. If making this movie was in the wake of SNL's hype popularity amongst the garden variety ignorant average joe, it's no surprise that the movie itself turned out to be a joke with no punchline.
There isn't any new material here different from the SNL sketches, and whats even more depressing is that the jokes just aren't funny. There's nothing amusing about this movie in general, other than seeing which big-time celebrities degrade themselves by making ridiculous cameos. Overall, this movie is a mockery of the entertainment industry. Saturday Night Live just isn't funny, and is a shining example of why people who enjoy this type of mockery have no taste what-so-ever.
Austin Powers in Goldmember (2002)
Worst Movie Ever
The 3rd Austin Powers movie tragically fails to not only bring justice to the trilogy, but to the movie industry in general. While attempting to close plot holes and introduce new characters, the movie sells out with advertisements and B grade celebrity cameo's (such as Britney Spears, whose presence displays a mockery of the entertainment industry in general). The portrayal of Dr Evil also tragically does no justice to the original movie. Dr Evil was a recreation of a classic Bond villain, who was a calm and twisted genius. The funniest part of Dr Evil was that behind his maniacle smile, his plots fell apart. Adding the dancing, songs, and ability to get out of his chair (a joke from the first movie) took away from the originality that made him funny. Overall, his character is ridiculously over-the-top. Additionally, there aren't any new jokes behind the glitz or glamour. Instead, the movie tries to sell the audience on repeated gags and finished plot lines that ultimately make this movie a wasted ticket. Furthermore, it takes away from the innovative style Myers brought to the forefront when he introduced the Powers character. Overall, don't see this movie. Buy the first Austin Powers and forget that the rest of them exist.
The 40 Year Old Virgin (2005)
This is a piece of comic genius
This movie did not impress me the first time I saw it. However, it took multiple times for me to watch it to appreciate the humor and in conclusion this movie is a piece of comic genius, not only for the puns, punch lines, and one liners; but for the way it accurately portrays each personality type depicted through each character. Andy (our hero played by Steve Carrell) represents innocence and integrity, and is portrayed with naivity, fear, and curiosity. Many kids 16-30 can not only relate to one of the many characters, but ultimately know other people who do as well. None of the characters are mean-spirited or necessarily "bad people", but each have a varying sense of morality. Additionally, the situations are real to life and modern day singles can relate to the material as well as the characters. What's scary is that many of these scenes are improvised, and some of the best jokes that have been used in the movie and DVD outtakes are on the fly. Many of the one liners can be heard repeated throughout college campuses everywhere. In conclusion, this movie is a diamond in the ruff and takes a unique personality to appreciate.
The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (2004)
Comic Genius
This is all around one of the best "made" movies of 2004. With so many complex shots, sets, characters, dialogue, and settings, "The Life Aquatic" encompasses the purpose of movie making into an artistic portrayal of Steve Zissou; an Oceanographer who's on the brink of self-destruction.
The plot is simple enough to follow, even for the current movie-going audience; but the portrayal and complexity of each character is explored throughout; providing the audience with a mix of emotions depending on which character provides the strongest sympathies.
Overall, this movie provides intelligent humor and precision acting by each player involved. Truly a work of comic genius.
Batman Begins (2005)
Bad Attempt at a Potentially Great Movie
The further down cinematographers attempt to recreate the legendary character the worse it gets. The look and premise of the movie comes from the deeper collection of comics that have been written about Batman such as the extremely underground success of the "Batman; The Dark Knight" series. These comics portray a true grit to the Batman legend, and Batman Begins attempted to bring the look and appeal of the comic to life using some of the same characters and plot.
Unfortunately these attempts fell short due to a weak dialogue and sub-par cast that were only obtained as an attempt for BlockBuster success. Furthermore, the general public probably wouldn't recognize the shortcomings of this movie due to the obvious similarities it shares with it's predecessors (with the exception of the original Batman). Overall, there's more action and better fight scenes in this movie; Enough to fool the generic movie go-er into thinking that there's some kind of novelty because it looks cooler. Overall, applaud Christain Bale for a "good enough" portrayal of Bruce Wayne, and forgive the rest of the cast for signing onto the project.
The Boondock Saints (1999)
Most Over-rated Movie Ever
Don't waste your time. While this movie could have potentially provided great jokes, beautifully artistic scenes, and cinemagraphic innovation, it falls into the category of failed Film School projects that simplistic audiences are duped into liking. Ironically enough, the cast is extremely strong and the script was absolutely wonderful. However, the director's abuse of power ruins any merit providing a few ridiculously melodramatic "detective-recreation" scenes by Willem DaFoe coupled with a Cliché'd depiction of our "Hero's" in Church and surrounded by G-dlike figures.
Overall, this movie doesn't deserve the cult following it has and provides people an excuse to claim they support something artistic. Unfortunately, bad taste and art go hand in hand.