Change Your Image
lobotomyboy63
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Sophie's Choice (1982)
Great story, fantastic acting
This is one of those movies that drains you so much emotionally that you don't come back to it very often. However it is haunting, and that brings you back now and then. One thing that saps some of its appeal to certain viewers is that because some of the dialog is not in English so you have to read it. All that aside what a fantastic story and great acting to support it all. I wonder about "the scene" and the little girl who played the part because wow, she hit it out of the park. But I don't think we should get stuck on that particular choice---Sophie had other choices to make as well, which makes this a story that resonates on many levels. Very highly recommended.
Cocaine Bear (2023)
Yeah, no
I heard of the movie but didn't get worked up about the hype. Honestly I see very few films in the theaters any more---there's so much to watch at home for free. That said, I just couldn't finish this. I got about halfway through and if it was supposed to be funny, it wasn't. If it was supposed to be scary, it wasn't. They say it's based on a true story---ok. I got it free on amazon so it cost me nothing extra to watch, but also nothing to "walk out" of before the end. I'm mostly disappointed that Margo Martindale was in this because I think she's a really good actress, so what did she see in the script? The CGI wasn't especially convincing to me, either.
After.Life (2009)
Disappointed
I saw the trailer, thought it looked interesting, and gave it a watch. With Liam Neeson I figured it had to be decent. If you watch the trailer it isn't a spoiler to say a woman wakes up in a funeral home, apparently about to be prepared for burial. She can't seem to move and the funeral guy told her she's dead. Later though you see she's moving around, brandishing a knife and more. I know they're aiming for some clever explanation of what's going on but it still doesn't make sense. It's enjoyable enough but in some respects it turns out to be like a shaggy dog joke where the mystery is prolonged without some "a-ha" moment to make the time you spent watching it redeemed. It had nice mood and visuals and good acting but IMO it didn't play fair because the explanation didn't cover the bases. And I would be ok with a revelation that there are supernatural forces that cover it but I'm just some sniveling mortal who isn't bright enough to understand, but it's consistent. However, I don't get that here. Sometimes after a really bad movie I think, 'I want those two hours of my life back.' Well this wasn't *that* bad. Sometimes you think it was ok but given ticket prices you definitely feel cheated. Well, I watched it on amazon prime for free, so money isn't the issue. Sometimes it's that M. Night Shamalan (sp?) vibe where it turns out that the film has a twist that sort of makes it a different thing, not what you wanted. Yeah, it's a little like that. It presented a few interesting points and maintained a vibe. Unfortunately the trailer wrote a check that the film couldn't cash.
The Covenant (2023)
Didn't totally work for me
I very much liked the idea of this and I've seen good things from Guy Richie before. I couldn't get past disbelieving some things. First, I couldn't see how the interpreter could push a cart with the injured Jake G up and down 100 klicks (100km or about 62 miles) worth of mountainous roads. A really brisk walk is 4 mph, so on a flat surface etc. That's 15 hours. Up and down unpaved paths in the mountains? Probably double at least. Pushing a heavy cart with a man on top? And Jake was shot, losing consciousness...if this journey takes days or even weeks, wouldn't he bleed out or end up losing his leg or...? For my taste a lot of the shooting scenes seemed unrealistic as well. Our heroes plink guys from a distance but they miss. Heck, an airplane flies by and wipes out a bunch of bad guys while not harming the good guys that are a few hundred feet away. It's hyperbole, I guess. But I'm glad they brought attention to interpreters and how they helped us, the price some paid.
Extreme Unboxing (2020)
We liked it
As others have pointed out, it's true that you can't expect to buy pallets of goods and resell everything at full MSRP. Maybe you could list things on eBay or somewhere, but it's going to take time and then you'll have postage and boxes etc. Eating into profits, plus it's consuming your time. If you operate a brick and mortar store, then that's eating up profits too. Factor in that sometimes the pallet is a dud and so on, and you wonder how many of them make money. So I don't see it as a viable business plan, but like "Storage Wars" some may have the knack and will do ok. For many it's a get-rich-quick scheme that will fail. All that said, it's entertaining to see how much they paid vs. What's in the pallet.
The Many Saints of Newark (2021)
Glad I didn't pay for it
In this age of streaming, I often notice new offerings that tantalize us. If something like this comes out on HBO and we don't have HBO, what to do? Well they usually offer a free trial but my wife and I just aren't going to go to that trouble, then forget to cancel, etc. Now that this has found its way onto Prime, we watched it. And what a huge disappointment it was. Much as we loved the Sopranos, we kept waiting for something to happen. There were a few mild surprises here and there but it didn't hold up to the series at all. It just kind of rambled on with characters we didn't much care about. Sometimes they should just leave a good thing alone.
Jury Duty (2023)
Knocked this series out in an afternoon
It's the Truman Show meets doing your public duty. One juror is a person who thinks he's in a documentary about what jury duty is like but in fact, everyone else is an actor. Nice premise! I'd just like to know how they prevented people from recognizing any of the actors. Kirk Fox was in Reservation Dogs...I would have picked him out, as much from how he talks as from how he looks, even if I couldn't have told you his name. Still, great fun and it's very interesting how they prepped the actors from day to day and told them what to do for various contingencies. Episode 8 is where they reveal to the subject what was going on. Fun, inventive, definitely worth your time.
History of the World: Part II (2023)
Selling out?
I really wanted to like the first four episodes of this but so far I think they're a big disappointment. One thing that leapt out at me is how many f bombs are in there. In other Mel Brooks films the language was pretty clean. The profanity seems pretty unnecessary and it makes me think they don't have much funny to say, so they resort to that. The pieces themselves are disjointed, spread out across episodes and never evoke a big laugh, much buildup with little payoff. Mel Brooks is 96 years old so I wonder how much he simply attached his name to it, narrated some parts, and cashed the check. If you already have Hulu, as I do, it doesn't cost you anything to watch it. I may try a few more episodes; I may bail.
Mean Creek (2004)
Missed the mark
I saw this was highly rated on imdb and it was free with prime, so I watched it. It didn't work for me. As someone else pointed out if this kid was "bullied" why would he touch the other kid's camera? I think the leap of faith I wasn't willing to take was that they could invite him on a trip and he'd just believe they were forgiving the way he treated the kid up until that point. It's strange to me that he wouldn't smell a trap. And if he thought the kid was bullying material, why would he want to spend time with him? When he goes off about the father's suicide, really? He isn't talking to some kid that's smaller than him---he's talking to a kid who's much bigger and could pound him. But he goes on and on, escalating it? Then when he goes in the water, why isn't the girl screaming at others to rush to his aid? All in all the premise was interesting but it didn't deliver.
Sorry to Bother You (2018)
Not bad
Included with amazon prime, I decided to give this a look. It was more entertaining than I suspected it would be. Acting was pretty consistent, reasonably believable. I think it took some chances and before the big twist, I wondered how it was going to end. I wished they had spent a bit more on special effects and tightened the story some. The summary talks about this being in an alternate reality of present-day Oakland CA but I don't quite see that. The sci-fi part, yes. When you reach the end of a film, if you're like me you ask yourself if it was worth your time.
With this one, I say yes. It left me some things to think about and that's always a plus. Directed and written by Boots Riley? Keep an eye on this one. I'd give it 6.5 but the system doesn't allow that.
Downsizing (2017)
Late to the party
I had never heard of this until I stumbled across it as free with prime. I liked the first part a lot. The second part I didn't like as much. I think in the first part I could suspend disbelief better...if they're living in a controlled community, ok. I liked some of the social commentary. One character said something like "If you have any money you can afford things here. But if you're poor, you're just small" whih alludes to something later. But when they go to Norway, it seems like they should be encountering real, enormous, un-downsized phenomena...shouldn't the grass all be waist-high, or encounter mosquitoes the size of chickens etc.? I wish they'd sweated some more of the details but it was still enjoyable.
A Quiet Place (2018)
kccatfish wrote a good review
I agree with a lot of it. I think post-apocalyptic works need some rules. They don't have to explain every element of operation, but they have to be true to the rules they do assert. E.g. I'm glad I'm the only one who didn't question the neat rows of corn. But how do you plant, harvest, etc. without making noise? When I write this I can't see the other comments but...did anybody else think the scene in the silo (the boy fell in, the girl joined, the critter came after them) was cartoonish when the critter blasted out directly through the steel? In the end there were some good acting performances but too many plot holes.
Race with the Devil (1975)
An old fave
I saw this in the theater, back in the day, and I thought it was awesome. The basic story still holds up OK...gotta love it though, if you can access a little latent paranoia. I mean, nowadays people google things but back in the day you had to go to the library and hope it had the book you needed. Back in the day the phone lines were down...now we have cell phones. Suspend disbelief a bit. Pretend there's no wifi and no signal.
Red Sky at Morning (1971)
I adore the book
I had been waiting for this to come out on DVD but I don't know if it ever will. Then I happened to find it on youtube.
The book is a real gem. I've read it many times. I have my own ideas about who should play the various characters and so on. If I only had the money to finance the production, right? So it's just a question of how far this falls from the ideal.
Short story long, this drops the ball. Too much nuance and delight are lost. I guess I'm glad they made the movie to bring it to a larger audience, but you really need to read the book.
If all you can do is see the film, do so. But the book is out there. Take the time.
Sneaky Pete (2015)
Not perfect, but very good
I really enjoyed this, which didn't surprise me much since it was created by the same guy who created House and had Bryan Cranston from Breaking Bad. I found it intense, gritty and fast-paced. It grabs you pretty quickly and doesn't let up. I had a few issues with the final episode of season 1---I didn't find it totally believable. Still I hope to catch subsequent episodes in 2018.
I guess some people didn't like Cranston in this, but I think he's very good. Marin Ireland reminds me so much of Joan Cusack in her mannerisms when she talks. Jacob Pitts as Lance---I think he's weaker than the rest. All in all, an excellent job by the cast.
In contrast I began watching episode of Orphan Black because it's supposed to be similar. I couldn't get through it. The story of Pete is like the Return of Martin Guerre, where the protagonist learns another's life story through repeated telling from close proximity, but to think Orphan Black could just step into the role and start faking her way through it, is much harder to believe.
The insight into the scams and con tricks was interesting, too. They left some unresolved issues and I liked how they set up season 2.
Mars (2016)
Withholding judgment
(Spoilers ahead) I'll rate this a 5 based on the one episode I've seen...that rating may rise or fall, however. It's an interesting approach, putting documentary footage of current figures like Elon Musk alongside a fictional future. It makes me hopeful that they will get the science right. Colonization (and possibly terraforming) of Mars is a topic of great interest to me and some of what I saw in the first episode made me question what I'd read. Like I thought the atmosphere wouldn't sufficiently protect them from the radiation---how are they going to walk 75km in that? But maybe we're supposed to assume that their spacesuits have advanced to the point of being able to cope with that. So we shall see. Ron Howard did well with Apollo 13 so I remain hopeful.
Nice Guys Sleep Alone (1999)
Had hoped for better but not disappointed
I'm giving this movie a 7 because I like what it tried to do. It had some funny bits and other redeeming qualities. The buddy's cynical, ironic take on matters (like his coaching for the phone call) were possibly my favorite parts. They seemed true-to-life and humorous, when you think about it.
I don't feel like I totally wasted my money or time on the film but I had higher hopes for it. I wasn't convinced by the two principal female characters.
**Spoilers follow**
Sometimes there's a point in a movie where I disconnect and the rest of the movie can't rise beyond a certain level after that.
1) The moment where Maggie breaks up with the drinker would be that moment in this film. If she knew he was such a lush, if he really didn't interest her, etc. then... A) Why "take a rain check"? B) Why say, "If you gave up the drinking, maybe this could work" or whatever?
She didn't seem that charmed, enamored, starry-eyed, or anything else up till that point. My cynical reaction: he has money and if he just quit drinking, she'd give him a chance. If he drank but DIDN'T have money, she probably wouldn't have allowed for the rain check etc.
2) When he sends her flowers (at the friend's house) and they appear in the kitchen with brass knuckles, gun, etc.---that just didn't work, didn't work in spades. I viewed that as, "We had the same chance, decided to ignore the drinking, and how dare he..." because after all, they talked about how he was so eligible and all that when the flowers arrived.
It's themselves they should be blaming. Maggie called a spade a spade and he balked; she got off easy.
3) Maggie dissed Carter twice. First, she flipped him off (thinking he was Rufus's kid) and second, when she yelled on the phone, thinking he was the rich guy. Then they end up together? I don't think so. His self-esteem and/or pride won't allow it, and she isn't going to respect him for it.
I'll give it a 7. More realistic than most, but it still falls very short.
Lost in America (1985)
the hook
You have to laugh at the character Albert Brooks portrays. After starting off with some righteous indignity, things just go from bad to worse. For me, that's the funny part.
The whole adventure would seem to be some great adventure, they lose all their money, he tries ingratiating himself to the casino manager, Garry Marshall, who's having none of it. Then he gets beat up by that guy ("The way he tells it, the guy was already dead when he got there"). He looks for a job...a six-figure job...in Podunk Arizona, ends up as a crossing guard where the kids don't even respect him. And his wife has a teenage boss. This whole domino effect keeps pushing him down and when they pull out of there, they don't even roll up the awning.
Maybe it throws off some viewers because we're usually rooting for the protagonist. But I think it's an Albert Brooks pattern, like in the movie with Charles Grodin et al where the "unintrusive" documentary about a family causes them to melt down.
Go Fish (2000)
Couldn't hack it
Bad acting, uninteresting...once I start watching a movie, I rarely quit on it. I remember once, in fact, that I went to see a movie (The Cable Guy) with a group of people, and they couldn't take it any more. We had planned to go for coffee afterward, so they left, went to the coffee shop, and I caught up. I guess I have a stubborn streak or something because it was at the $1.50 second-run movies, so money wasn't the issue.
But this...I couldn't finish this. I got it as part of a 2 for 1 DVD pack at Wal-Mart, so at $2.75, I wasn't totally disappointed. I'm not insensitive to the plight faced by the character, and in fact I have someone with a similar problem in my family. But for me, the acting fell flat, I didn't believe the dialog, and so on.
Glam (1997)
I get it...I think
Where's the 0 on this rating? I guess I get it. Yeah it's a look at how evil Hollywood is etc. OK.
It reminds me of those artists who do something bizarre, like put worms in a paint can and let them crawl over the canvas, then call it art. Here, it's having Frank Whalley repeat every line five times or something. OK.
I'm stunned that they could get this many reasonably big names to sign on for such a movie. I can't imagine at whom this was targeted...it's too soft to be hardcore and too hard to be mainstream. So I guess it's a highfalutin' indie film that you're not supposed to criticize because then you'd be showing your ignorance. OK.
This must have had "direct to video" written all over it. Too bad it wasn't dubbed over in Sanskrit. By the way, I marked this as "may contain spoilers" because I want potential viewers to get a full, unadulterated whiff of this baby.