Change Your Image
fhj52
Reviews
The New World (2005)
The worst best movie I have ever seen.
I put off watching this for a long time because I knew any semi-historical account would be plodding and require patience. In the meantime read review after review saying what a great film it is. Many saying it is Oscar worthy and has breathtaking scenery. Many said performances were outstanding and the vision of Writer & Director Terrence Malick was not to be missed. ...
Supposedly one of the best movies of the decade.
I tried. 1 hour and 13 minutes of plotless, meandering nonsense that ended with an insane Englishman yelling nonsense at the camera and splitting saliva and food while doing it.
I have better things to do with my time. I learned absolutely zero from watching the film and rather than being entertained was disturbed. Sitting through another hour was beyond possible. This film is a waste of perfectly good film ... a travesty.
The who saw this 2 hour waste of time as anything outstanding are(must be) on drugs that I have never had or even heard about. It's faux metaphorical scene after scene after scene leaving the viewer to guess what the heck just happened and if it had any significance for the previous scenes or is to be important for some scene to come.
Malick must have been hallucinating/tripping when he wrote this, or the editor was smoking LSD laced weed.
There are, no doubt a few who will find it mesmerizing, inspiring and brilliant.
To understand why the movie is only for a few one needs to know that Malick graduated from Harvard with a degree in philosophy in 1965. If one understands what that means, one might be able to judge whether you are one of the few.
I'm certainly not.
Game Night (2018)
Slapstick humor taken to extremes
If one likes slapstick, then most likely one will enjoy this film.
Someone else said, "Viewers Require Alcohol" and that immediately explained why it appears to be funny to so many because it is not to me.
So if you like slapstick humor and are a regular drinker who likes to get drunk and does before this film, this will probably have you falling off the couch from laughing so hard. That or an IQ hovering around 90 will work since both are about the same.
Bonus: the actors do their parts admirably. I doubt any other could work the script any better.
I had to stop halfway as I could not stand another minute of it. A little stupid can be funny; often is good comic relief. Too much stupidity is not funny. It's just stupidity.
Have never liked slapstick much. The required suspension of plausibility and the abject, no-purpose violence in performance of stunts rarely made me laugh.
This movie is the same. Wasted perfectly good free hours on Friday night.
Guadalupe: The Miracle and the Message (2015)
Knights of Columbus promotional video
I believe ...
However, to KOC and the Catholic Church I say, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath ...". ...yeah, the commandment you conveniently left out. You might want to look at the First Commandment again too.
This is Catholics' propaganda and does disservice to Virgin Mary, if she did appear under the title of Our Lady of Guadalupe. There are better films on the subject which fortunately I saw before this because after this I began to doubt that the Event ever occurred.
Gladiatrix (2001)
Waste your time
There are a lot of teenagers, really old men and/or Cecily Fay fans giving this high marks that are undeserved. So what you want to know first.
The monotoned narrator is Amanda Donohoe. (No, it is not Xena.)
The film quality is not good. It says released in 2001 but the film is 80's or, at best, 90's quality.
There are no naked or even mostly unclothed women, unless one considers a short skirt and tank top mostly unclothed.
Cecily Fay does not disrobe or fight. In truth Cecily Fay, sadly, has no chance to show what she can do in a fight. ...big mistake by filmmaker.
There are no gladiator or "gladiatrix" fight scenes. The few cuts of sparring are so badly done that the people are practically blotches.
The "gladiatrix" itself is a term that did not appear until at least the 4th century(AD) so was never used by Romans to refer to anyone fighting in an arena. Why should they have a word for something that occurred so rarely, unimportantly or as such a non-event that they did not even write about it?
While I certainly believe the bloodlust of Romans and even conquered people was such that women were in the arenas, this film makes a whole lot about nothing using if, and, maybe, possibly, supposition and misinterpretation at a whole new level.
I have the distinct feeling that this was somebody's dream so they got a bunch of people together who could give remarks that might possibly make the dream a reality.
I am not convinced.
I can't imagine how any thinking person could be.
If you do not believe me, go ahead waste you time.