nick.johnson Reviews

The X-Files: My Struggle (2015) Season 10, Episode 1

Entertaining and a little disappointing

[7/10 · 26 January 2016]

The first episode of the X-Files 2016 was a fun ride. There were many familiar and enjoyable elements for fans of the series, but I felt there were some major problems with the plot that took me out of the story.

Spoilers here:

1. "Alien" abductions are done by humans:

It's not believable that Mulder would not have heard about claims of MILABS abductions before; these claims have been around for a long time. Learning of the possibility of humans, rather than aliens, being the abductors should have prompted Mulder to launch into a monologue about what he already knows about such claims, including whether it's true or whether the memory of humans being involved is really just a "screen memory" to avoid even more trauma to the abductees.

I thought Mulder was always most entertaining when he knew just enough about something to know that he didn't understand it fully. It seemed out of character for him to dive in completely with just a piece of an explanation and act like he finally understands everything. Even when another character asked about a fundamental part of his "understanding" (why the genetic experiments / embryo harvesting), he admits that he doesn't understand that part, yet he keeps acting like it all makes sense. This part of the episode seemed so wrong for the character that I felt I was just watching Duchovny acting (and struggling) rather than Mulder explaining.

2. The alien DNA test:

Scully comments that the Sveta's alien DNA test came back negative....Right, like there's a checkbox on the form at every lab to run that standard test to look for alien DNA in the sample. Any medical professional or anyone who's ever considered the question of detecting alien DNA (e.g. Google Lloyd Pye's Starchild Skull) would know that it isn't believable that anyone could find alien DNA in a sample or two until you've already seen it elsewhere. OK, so Scully did a complete DNA sequence of the genome for both Sveta and herself, in a couple days, and also analyzed the results and determined that she an Sveta aren't totally human (I think that's what she said). It's conceivable that a team of experts could sequence two complete genomes in several weeks or months, and then conclude that there's something anomalous in that DNA. It's absurd that one, non-expert, could accomplish that task in a few days, and then also conclude what that anomaly means.

3. So...what happened in Roswell again?

The nicely-produced flashbacks of Roswell showed us that a saucer crashed there in 1947 and that there was at least one very alien- looking survivor of the crash. After Mulder's "realization", he concluded that "Roswell was a smokescreen". This episode also included a statement like "Roswell was a Russian ARV". Which is it?

I guess it is typical of the series to ask more questions than it answers, but it seemed sloppy to include three different, conflicting "conclusions" of the same event....OK, so maybe we're supposed to be seeing that Mulder's conclusions were wrong, or else the flashback scenes were not Roswell?

The Dam Keeper (2014)

Dam Confusing

[6/10 · 16 February 2015]

This short tells the story of a pig who's responsible for "keeping the dam", a critically important job inherited from his father. We're shown that this involves winding a crank tied to a windmill on top of a dam overlooking a small town. This job must be performed at regular intervals or else the town will be consumed by...uh...water?...no, it's a dark cloud of...pollution?...What?!?

I was very confused and distracted by why the windmill on top of the dam needed to be wound, then later in the film we do get to see what happens when the dam doesn't get "kept" properly....I thought we were seeing dark water over-topping the dam and flooding the town, but it is later described as "dark clouds". The animation was so rough and impressionistic, it wasn't at all clear what we were expected to be seeing.

So...the windmill isn't a windmill but a giant fan, powered by a wound-up spring, which blows the pollution clouds away? Why is it on top of a dam? Since it's on the dam anyway, why isn't it powered by the water pressure that the dam is holding back? Also, if this job, whatever it is, is so important to the health of the whole town, why is it left in the hands of a grade-schooler?

The titular part of the story made so little sense that it took away much of my interest in appreciating the other part of the story, about isolation, loneliness, and bullying that this youngster experiences at the hands of his school classmates. When a new kid, a fox, comes to town, a unlikely friendship develops. That story was interesting and touching, but it would have been more effective without any dam keeping.

Louie: In the Woods: Part 1 (2014) Season 4, Episode 11

Best Episode of any Television Show Ever

[10/10 · 20 June 2014]

This review is for the whole "In The Woods" story line; I didn't even realize it was actually counted as 2 episodes until seeing it listed on IMDb. I guess I watched a later airing where it appeared all at once, which seemed like the best way to see it, because this was more like a 90 minute movie than any TV show I've ever seen.

As given in the short plot description on the main page for this episode, Louie catches his 12-year-old daughter smoking pot, then he recalls the first time he tried it. The present day sequences are really only a few minutes here; almost the entire time is spent in flashbacks to Louie's childhood in 1981. We get to see an extended story of young Louie's life, and I won't reveal any details of that, but suffice to say that quite a bit happens. The whole time I'm watching the flashback and wondering how this experience is going to affect adult Louie's handling of the situation with his daughter. When we do finally come back to present day at the very end, I was not disappointed.

The story is told so beautifully and with such care, it was amazing. Touching, poignant and funny in parts, this was far more of a drama than a comedy. As any fan of the show knows, Louis C.K. is not afraid to take risks with his show, and it pays off big time here. "In the Woods" was better than 99% of the feature films I've ever seen. Brilliant!

Failing Better Now (2010)

Great Independent Film

[9/10 · 12 September 2013]

I just found this little gem in the Starz On Demand list on cable.

The story follows Mia, an under-achieving writer, through a series of misadventures, mostly centered around her cat-sitting for her more successful sister. The title is a perfect synopsis of the story arc here. There is no earth-shattering, life-changing epiphany, but Mia does have some significant realizations about how her behavior and beliefs have affected her life.

This is obviously an independent movie, as I hadn't seen any of these actors before, except Janet from Three's Company (Joyce DeWitt), but hers isn't really a major role. Also I did notice a technical issue in at least one scene, where one character's dialog was almost inaudible. All of the main characters were very believable and realistic, but some of the minor characters seemed like they were trying a little too hard to be quirky and funny. Some of that worked, but a few of them were just over-the-top silly.

The actress playing Mia (Lindsay Michelle Nader) was great in this role. I thought she was like a cross between Parker Posey and Juliette Lewis. I hope to see more of her work in the future.

Overall, great story, solid film. 9/10

Seven Psychopaths (2012)

No redeeming qualities

[4/10 · 22 October 2012]

This movie is kind of a mess from the beginning. Sometimes it's clear when a scene is a flashback or someone telling a story, but other times it's not. The lines are definitely blurred enough that it's hard to follow what you're seeing. That might have been OK if there were some redeeming qualities in it, but I couldn't really find any. To be honest I walked out after about an hour, so it's possible that the ending was much better, but it's hard to imagine how the ending could have made up for the hour I did see.

In addition to the silly plot, the violence in this movie is somehow cartoonish and extremely graphic at the same time. To call it gratuitous would be an understatement. There are so many gory deaths (even just in the first hour!) that I lost count. There was hardly any character development and very little reasons were given to care about anyone on the screen. It seemed that the primary reason for the violence was to prove that these people were psychopaths.

I enjoyed this writer/director's last movie "In Bruges". This one isn't even in the same league.

To Rome with Love (2012)

Beautiful and Awful

[3/10 · 13 July 2012]

Four interweaving and completely independent story lines: 2 of them all in Italian, 1 all in English, 1 mixed language, all featuring gorgeous scenery, but dreadfully written. Two of them were, as others have said here, one joke premises with zero payoff (the one with Roberto Benigni and the one with Woody Allen). The only time I even chuckled in the whole movie was when the lost Italian women was trying to get directions from strangers on the street ("go the next road over, take it down to where it ends at the fish restaurant, you can't miss it, turn right there over the bridge, go past the stairs then take the next two lefts and it's on your right", etc.). Alec Baldwin's character had some witty lines, but his capricious presence/absence in that story line was so confusing it was hard to appreciate anything he said.

I guess it doesn't bother me when the dialogue is funny, but when it's not I find it very annoying how many of the characters in Woody Allen's movies seem to be doing an impression of him constantly (in addition to Woody being himself on screen in this one).

So many of Allen's movies portray (often multiple) characters committing (and usually getting away with) adultery and/or murder that I don't think you could call it a spoiler to reveal that this movie is no exception. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but it's getting tiresome.

This is no "Midnight in Paris."

Brick (2005)

Interesting story with utterly unbelievable, often incomprehensible dialog

[7/10 · 25 July 2011]

I watched this on DVD last night with my wife. I had selected it based almost solely on the high IMDb rating. Within 5 minutes I had to turn on the DVD sub-titles just to have a chance at following the dialog.

Almost everyone in the movie delivers extremely pretentious lines, about as fast as humanly possible, throwing in jargon that I've never heard before at least once per scene. In several cases, I had to pause the DVD and read the sub-titles just to know what words were being spoken. Reading it 2 or 3 times would sometimes make the meaning clear, but often not. (I still don't know what a "yegg" is.)

If there's one high school kid in a city that talks like this it might be believable. This movie has about 10 of them. I can only think of a couple characters (the Pin and the jock) who had even remotely believable dialog. There are some very clever lines that actually work, but in most scenes it seems like everyone's just trying way too hard to be clever, and it ends up sounding ridiculous.

If you're thinking of watching this, read through the "Memorable Quotes" section here in IMDb. If you love the dialog, you'll probably love this movie (and vice versa). My wife thought this was the worst movie she'd ever seen. I actually enjoyed the story and the characters, but the bizarre dialog was a huge detraction for me.

Unknown (I) (2011)

Started out strong, then fell apart with plot holes

[5/10 · 19 February 2011]

You probably know the setup already if you're reading this. I found the story intriguing and engaging for about half-way through, but then the plot holes just got bigger and bigger until by the end I almost didn't care what happened anymore. The weakest point: after it was explained to us what was really going on, I thought Neeson's character's motivation to do what he did was pretty far-fetched.

As for the action, is anyone else getting sick of the way fight scenes are shot nowadays? It's just one fraction-of-a-second cut on top of another: a close-up shot of someone swinging, a close-up of someone ducking, someone crashing through something, jumping off something, blah blah blah. This disconnected, quick-cut, patch-it-together-in-the- editing style looks like a sloppy way to avoid actually choreographing a fight scene, and it seems to be in almost every action movie anymore. It's even worse on the big screen. I find it nauseating and tiresome.

Eagle vs Shark (2007)

Reminded me of "Mozart and the Whale"

[8/10 · 23 November 2009]

Both are unconventional love stories where two offbeat misfits meet at a costume party. In "Mozart and the Whale" we are told that both characters have Asperger's syndrome (a mild form of autism), but it wouldn't be surprising to learn that one or both of the leads in this movie have had a similar diagnosis.

Both movies do a great job of showing realistic portrayals of people with less-than-perfect social skills without making fun of them. It's refreshing to see characters like these depicted not as stereotypes, but as real people worthy of being the center of the story.

Having seen several episodes of "Flight of the Conchords" I was almost surprised that "Eagle vs. Shark" wasn't written by Jemaine Clement, as it has a similar quirky and subtle comedic style. This was actually co-written by the director (Taika Waititi) and the actress who played Lily (Loren Horsley).

The Invention of Lying (2009)

Virtually Laugh-Free from start to finish!

[2/10 · 4 October 2009]

I could have gotten past the whole Religion=Lying premise, had it been funny. It was not. It didn't even make sense. Somehow the inability to lie meant that people were unable to refrain from saying everything that came to mind. Huh? There were several big name comedic talents in this that were apparently prevented from being funny because they couldn't lie. All of them were playing straight against Gervais, and it doesn't work at all.

If you're looking for a *good* Ricky Gervais romantic comedy, go rent Ghost Town. For a *funny* movie that mocks religion, see Life of Brian or Dogma.

Skip this one.

Up (2009)

It's a "guy movie" (says my wife)

[4/10 · 4 June 2009]

My wife and I saw Up in 3D last night. Just us 2 adults, no kids. We have seen most of the animated features in recent years and liked most of them. I thought Up was decent, not great, but OK. My wife HATED it!

I agree with pretty much everything *negative* that has been said on this board about the movie, but I haven't seen mentioned the thing that bothered my wife the most: there are NO female characters past the first few minutes! The only female (human) even in the movie is Elie, very briefly as a tomboyish child in the very beginning, then as an adult in a short, silent montage. So by 5 minutes in, it's all guys. I guess the bird was female, but that fact is so far from obvious that she gets named "Kevin" by the little boy. (Maybe some of the dogs were female too, but you couldn't tell.) I didn't even notice the lack of female energy until my wife pointed it out but it's true, and I think it contributes an overall imbalanced feel of the movie.

As for the 3D, I thought the scenery was very nicely done, but the overall use of 3D was more subtle than many other 3D movies. I don't remember any "coming out at you" shots at all; most of the 3D images were at or behind the screen rather than in front of it. I think this may be why many have commented that they didn't even notice the 3D. Also there were too many "flat" scenes that might as well have not been in 3D, such as long closeups of items in a scrapbook and long segments of black and white old newsreel style footage on a TV screen.

So I'll average my 7 opinion with my wife's 1 and say 4 out of 10.