Change Your Image
filmaker2002
Reviews
Rookie Blue (2010)
Frankly, one of the worst police shows ever made
If you are a fan of great police dramas like The Shield, Southland, and NYPD Blue, then do yourself a favor and stay away from this show. There is nothing authentic about it, and the acting is over the top.
I watched two episodes last night, and somewhere in between one cop calling his partner his "BFF" and a female cop screaming hysterically at a man who just tackled her partner, I realized that the writers of this show did little to no research on what exactly goes on during a day in the life of a police officer.
Im amazed that Southland was canceled by NBC and has struggled to get a renewal on TNT, while this debacle has been already picked up for a second season by ABC.
Terrible, just terrible.
Southland (2009)
Most authentic cop show since the original Dragnet
I am a fan of the "The Shield". By that I mean a really huge fan of "The Shield". When I got "The Shield" seasons 1 through 4 on DVD, I watched one disc a night, every night until all discs had been viewed. I lost an average of 5 hours of sleep every night for at least two weeks. So when "The Shield" wrapped up, I truly believed that I would never watch another police drama as long as I lived, because I couldn't imagine another police drama rising to the level of greatness that "The Shield" maintained for 7 seasons. And then came "SouthLAnd".
Though not as emotionally gripping as "The Shield", "SouthLAnd" succeeds because of how authentic the show is. Notice I said "is" and not "feels". Any one familiar with gang culture in Los Angeles has to really appreciate the research that the crew of "SouthLAnd" does from one episode to the next. They seem to really understand the structure of Mexican gangs and they way they relate to the Mexican Mafia. The episodes in which they break down the power structure of the Avenues gang, one of the most notorious gangs in LA, is pretty accurate, down to the portrayal of the matriarch of the gang, whose sons are among the most powerful gangsters on the street, and, according to reports in the LA Times and Daily News, are closely associated with the Mexican Mafia.
In another episode, we see the kidnapping of an elderly man by a recently paroled drug user who walks away from a halfway house and forces his victim to withdrawal funds from an ATM machine before he attempts to kill him. This story line is a modified version of the Lily Burke case, where a 17 year old girl (Burke) was kidnapped by a recently paroled drug user (Charlie Samuel) who escaped from a halfway house and attempted to make her withdrawal money from an ATM machine before killing her in the backseat of her car.
There is also the season long case of the Bentley shooting in which two unknown individuals shoot the driver of a Bentley on the 3rd street bridge in an apparent mob or cartel assassination. This mirrors a similar shooting with the same kind of car that took place on the 101 freeway just a few months prior.
Now these aren't the normal "ripped from the headlines" type of plot lines that appear on "Law & Order" and other police procedurals. Rather, they are cases that have been specifically selected because they represent the type of crime that is uniquely associated with the city of Los Angeles, which is home to the largest county jail system in the world, the birthplace of some of the most notorious gangs in the world (MS-13, 18th Street, Mexican Mafia, Bloods, Crips, et al), and the largest recipient of cartel drugs in the United States.
In an era of television that is saturated with "CSI", "NCIS", and "Law & Order" spin-offs, it is refreshing to see a police drama that is grounded in reality, finely acted, and extremely well researched. Sadly, this show was a casualty of the Leno-Obrien Late Night War, and was canceled after its first season to make room for the doomed "Jay Leno Show". The series was eventually rescued by TNT, and is about to conclude its second season. As of this posting, it has yet to be renewed for a third one. If there is any justice in the world of prime-time television, "SouthLAnd" should be pushing for a lengthy run.
An American Carol (2008)
I was looking for an intelligent satire... instead I got "An American Carol"
Because of the controversial subject of this film, I will start off by saying that I am not a liberal. I am a constitutional conservative and also an Iraq War veteran. That being said, "An American Carol is an absolutely horrible film. Besides the type of low-brow, kindergarten humor that it shares with such films as "Scary Movie", "Meet the Spartans", "Date Movie", and every other modern spoof, "An American Carol" also fails in its attempt to rebut left-wing rhetoric.
I read one user review that said "if you're a Republican you will find this funny." Republicans should find this comment very offensive, as it suggests that a film filled with ignorant and inaccurate information would appeal to them. Any educated Republican should avoid this film, because what it implies about them is almost as bad as the filmmakers are trying to say about the left.
The film presents poorly thought out arguments to debunk supposed left-wing myths. An example of this is when the character of Michael Malone comments that President Kennedy would never have gone to Vietnam. In the scene, Kennedy appears before him and suggests that he would have indeed gone to Vietnam, and as evidence the film quotes a line from his Innaugural Address where he mentions that America will "pay any price, bear any burden". The speech itself makes no mention of the on-coming war in Vietnam, and to use this quote as evidence for his position on that war is laughable. Although Kennedy alludes to being willing to fight a necessary war, there is no evidence to suggest that he would have fought the war in question.
Another example is when Bill O'Reilly and Rosie O'Connel are arguing about the terrorist threat. One of the arguments made by Rosie, which is a common argument made by many liberals, is that Christian terrorism is as big a threat as Islamic terrorism. Any student of international and domestic terrorism will tell you that this is simply not true. And a good way to refute that claim is to show the number of terrorist attacks and subsequent death tolls from both Christian extremist and Islamic extremist and compare them. The numbers will clearly show that in the present time Islamic extremists have engaged in far more destructive acts that Christian extremists. However, that is a point that the filmmakers failed to address. Rather than approach the topic intelligently and in a manner that would educate the ignorant, the film dismisses the argument and responds by pointing out the Christian terrorists don't commit their crimes with the same modus operandi that Islamic terrorists do, and the film attempts to make its point in very juvenile fashion.
The film carries on like this for its entire run time. Its extremely disappointing that a film that is supposed to represent the opinions of the right comes across as a Larry the Cable Guy skit. Any one looking for an intelligent argument about right versus left politics should simply avoid this film. I recommend reading "The Revolution" by Ron Paul instead.
Public Enemies (2009)
Saw the same Sherman Oaks Screening
I was at the same Sherman Oaks screening and I logged in today to say exactly what the other guy thought. He took the thoughts right out of my head! I and a few other viewers had a nice conversation as we walked to our cars hitting pretty much every point that was made by the previous author. For the people that have stated that the movie is remotely watchable, I think we may have seen different films. Channing Tatum is in the film for less than a minute, so I don't understand how we are supposed to feel anything at all for him. Depps' Dillinger and Bale's Pervis are both characters with no incentives or motivation to pursue what they do. They seem to exist only because the script demands it, but there are no risks vs rewards, nothing to gain and nothing to lose. Bale's character is completely flat and uninspiring and truly wasted the gifts of a fine actor. Depp's Dillinger is, according to the movie, motivated by his love of Billie, who needs to be reassured in every conversation with him that he will never die/go to jail/leave her alone/stop loving her, etc...
Also, the film completely ignores the cultural impact that John Dillinger had at the time, helping shape and define the careers of many Hollywood actors including James Cagney, who always played a gangster until Dillinger was killed. He subsequently starred in the film "The G-Men" in which he played and FBI agent.
At the conclusion of the film we are shown a bunch of captions about what happened to all the central characters in the film, but we could care less, because we knew so little about them throughout the film that what happens to them later is insignificant.
On the plus side, the shoot out scenes were excellent and reminiscent of "Heat".
Other than that, it was a terrible film, and not worth the trouble that Nielson made us go through to watch the screener.
Oldeuboi (2003)
Fantastic!
Oldboy is simply one of the greatest thrillers ever made, and one of the finest films of the last 20 years. It is the rare film that ignites furious conversations and debate after a screening, and it's impact is felt for weeks after the initial viewing. Mr. Park takes his sadistic tale of revenge from Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance and multiplies its brutality to the 10th degree. It is not an easy film to sit through by any means, but when the credits roll at the end, you feel as though black is white, left is right, and day is night. The villain in the film is one of the most sadistic characters to ever appear on screen, and I would he think he even gives Hannibal Lecter chills. This tale of revenge goes places that no American made film today would dare to dream to even get close to, and its slice of ultra-violence delivers more than anything Kill Bill dared to serve. This one is a must see; it is the rare perfect movie.
When the Levees Broke: A Requiem in Four Acts (2006)
Fine film-making
I am a fan of Spike Lee's, but have been disappointed with some of his latest films. However, this film is the first documentary that truly feels real. I am from Los Angeles, and was in Iraq when Katrina destroyed New Orleans, so I never truly understood what happened in the Gulf Coast, other than that it was tragedy, and some one in our government dropped the ball. I watched When the Levees Broke in one 4 1/2 hour sitting, and I was moved from beginning to end. The first 2 hours frightened me in ways that no other film has ever come close to. For the first time, I felt like a helpless child in the hands of incompetence, and if this is what I felt like watching the travesty, then what the hurricane victims felt was beyond my comprehension. The first two acts were truly disturbing, but Lee does a fantastic job of showing the optimism of the residents of New Orleans in the final two acts. After all the chaos and uncertainty that they faced, the residents are still showing courage and determination that most would not be able to summon after such tragedies. When the film concluded, I was not sad any more, but eager: I was eager to see what great things these people would accomplish as they rebuild the land they love. When the Levees Broke is a wonderful, inspirational story about loving and losing, fear and determination, and every human emotion in between. But most importantly, it is a film about the human spirit, and the will to survive.