Change Your Image
mtbgtown
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
The Ark and the Darkness (2024)
If there was no bible, science would teach a flood
Going in with an open mind you can't help thinking these scientists make a good case for catastrophic flood in our geological history. I've always thought that, having been to a prehistoric clam bed a few hundred feet above sea level and prying loose a clam that I kept on my shelf through grade school.
They poke so many mortal holes in evolution, you wonder why it even exists. Come up with something new, science! Every base was covered. How the dinosaurs are found, how they died, how they're piled up, how trees are found in multiple sediment layers. The only reason science doesn't embrace global catastrophic flood around 4500 years ago is because the bible already describes it.
So the only problem with a great flood is that it's a religious tradition. Not only in the bible but in most world cultures. Otherwise, it's a totally plausible event based on the evidence.
Selection Code (2022)
More evidence that will be ignored
Besides all the credentialed scientists giving data, proof, evidence, just the fact that for 20 years, progressives whined about machines being vulnerable should be enough to at least look at it.
The Loneliest Whale: The Search for 52 (2021)
It's about the film, not the whale.
Some amazing facts about whales I never knew. I wish the film spent more time on that and less on progressive activism.
Whaling is over. I believe Moby Dick catalyzed it in the 1850s, but the filmmaker credits a hippy era recording of whale song. Fine.
Shipping lanes exist because we have offshored our economy to Asia. Globalism did that. The progressives who made this film probably voted for Biden so they could get rid of the evil orange man, but Trump policy brought manufacturing home, resulting in fewer container ships plowing through whale herds. Domestic production goes up, jobs go up. This was before the Fauci-funded Virus.
The film seemed over-scripted. Few believe a week searching for a whale that has been a mystery for 60 years could accomplish anything (but pique grant interest). You get the impression the expedition was solely in service to the film, not mystery whales, as the cliché dialogue and staged drama suggests.
After the credits, a year later, a handheld shot of a school of whales, and the voiceover proclaiming: "there he is!"
Maid (2021)
Maid sacrifices two very important ideals, unfairly, to achieve its goal.
Namely AA and Christianity, colossal giants in American culture and in helping the weak and distraught. Additionally, Maid falsely portrays the court system as pro-male, when there has been strong judicial bias toward women for decades in custody hearings.
Two main characters, alcoholic males, one Christian, are both portrayed as evil, ignorant, mass shooter-type, women abusers. I realize new writers must kiss the Hollywood ring to be allowed in the Hollywood Ring, but such an important topic as abuse should be treated without attacking two of the biggest groups in the real trenches of recovery. What does Hollywood do for recovery? Nothing. And a popular series that attacks two giants in the recovery space to gain power, fame, and money, deserves a 1/10 rating.
Pig (2021)
Not for the simple, or brand-obedient.
Cage is an actor. Hire him to do a job and he'll do it. The story lacks nothing. I counted one slow moment, but the rest kept me engaged and thinking, and the lead character was full of surprises. If a scene is supposed to shift from one emotion or tension to another, the writers did their job. A few scenes were worth the whole movie, in fact. And one forgotten 80s actor shows up and destroys it. He will get calls. Cage cracks it open, as he should, and Arkin is scarily good.
It's not about a truffle pig, avenger fans. Shoo!
Aerials (2016)
A dare to MST3K!
How did they manage such a miracle of filmmaking failure? No plot, terrible dialogue, script seems made up as they went, and the worst acting I've seen in ages. Oddly, the lighting, and some of the music, was actually pretty good, and the protagonist's artist motif was endearing. I only watched because it popped up with a 1.5 on IMDb, which is rare. Being an Eegah! fan, I to investigate.
You (2018)
Same formula/characters, new angle.
At least try to hide the formula. Guy stalks girl on internet, Avast! Quickly, scoop all the requisite ingredients into the trough. Young, jaded youth, who are too young to afford anything they have; 100% voice over, which they taught us not to use in writing class. Imagine this show without Joe's constant talking in your ear, interpreting constantly. You see, you don't have to! It's all been imagined for you, every last nuance. Hollywood does not trust you.
YOU is the shallow, promiscuous poet/yoga teacher who never poets or does yoga, smiles seductively at literally everyone, main character, teachers, friends, a bed at Ikea; can only "pillow" talk, and, though the poor (white) one in her clutch of racially correct friends, has at least a $10K/mo brownstone in NYC. She's every girl you hate, which makes you kinda okay with her being cyberstalked. See how it works?
Now enter an obvious trans actor, who is perfect. Perfect poet, perfect person, speaks cool languages, perfect life story. "Her crow poem is perfect, see?" (we don't see it.) Because don't dare write a trans person as equally flawed as the rest of us, they should be perfect! I get it. No, I get it. Joe, in fact, says I get it about 10 times per episode.
Maybe times have changed (not a boomer, btw) but I feel like theme is now formula, challenging ideas propaganda, and imagination voice over. And socially required minorities must be flawless and boring, or you're whatever-phobic. Writing is dead. (Until the last 5 minutes when they shock you with a shocking plot twist! Stay tuned!)
Long Shot (2019)
Boring turd that people who blaze all day will laugh at.
What has hollywood come to? This. How many unmotivated f-bombs can the ear take? About 10% of the ones dropped by Rogan. It's possible that Seth has become so insular and detached in his smoke filled grimy office that he no longer has a connection with the people. I laughed twice, even though I was meant to laugh a lot more. I wasn't smoking weed while watching it, you see. The plot was so completely impossible that, again, you need to blaze up some stiny dank before watching it. Unfortunately, not everyone smokes weed, Seth. Few do, compared to your tiny microcosm in Hollywood.
Once Upon a Time in... Hollywood (2019)
Sony gave Quentin too much leash
Harvey's version would have pared down an hour. Instead, we get Q indulging every boyhood memory, forgetting that we've seen a lot of it already in the last 8 films. Feet, feet, and more feet; 20 year-old Hollywood icons played by uber famous, 50 year-old Q buddies. I felt like it was one long Revenge of the Nerds Jock Talent Show scene. "We're awesome! Submit!" This movie forgets the golden rule of film: entertain the audience. Instead, Q entertains himself, thinking his audience will obey. Not me. The storyline was boring, slow, wanting plot, and missing opportunities.
Homecoming: A Film by Beyoncé (2019)
Vain, childish lyrics, expensive production, incredible voice (when used), and something...sinister?
Since most of the reviews praising Homecoming are directed at Beyonce as a person, her race, or things unrelated to the film itself, I feel free to include the same peripheral things in my review.
Beyonce claims her college was Destiny's Child, her degree was earned on the road. If you hit subtitles and read the lyrics of her songs, you will agree. F-bombs, sex, fighting, b-words, ball-licking, & "Bugaboo's," are tumbled into a vat of dissonant sludge. Her mis-allocated anger and bitterness directed at someone--men? whites? America? I'm not sure--is so cringy to watch I had to shut it off. Angry faces, snarled lips, sexual contortions, and cutaways to the same 3 small groups of obedient fans who happened to know the words (not plants at all), are normative for the 50 minutes I could tolerate. Deeper than this was a strange, weird feeling I was watching something occultic. I doubt the motifs appear intentionally, given Beyonce's admitted education, but are either the byproduct of decades of self-worship, fan-adoration, and deification by the music industry, or the influence of her husband.
It's easy to find occult symbolism and quotes from Jay-z, even the satanist quote: "do what thou wilt" on his clothing brand. Jay doesn't hide his extensive use of symbolism and has been linked to celeb cult founded by a satanist. Seeing these motifs on a poster in a store at the mall may not bother you. They mean nothing to me. But there was something felt in "Bey's" performance that went beyond F-bomb filled lyrics about boys and girls in the hallways at high school. The words seemed incidental to the delivery system, which I can only describe as "spiritual."
Back to the production: intercutting between Bey talking about Bey and Bey performing seemed a little controlled. You will appreciate Nina Simone soundbytes. The concert employed bleachers shaped like a pyramid (or all seeing eye of Horus, your choice) throughout, as in, they never left. Besides lights and lots of pyro, I'm not sure what the big deal was. We've all seen dancing from Madonna to Britney. Contorting male dancers were kinda new (to me) but again, artistically devolved and seeming like something burning on a hot pan, fwiw.
Insatiable (2018)
About 90% non-offensive
Firstly, this is a funny show, and progressive virtue-signalers who have never struggled with eating disorders should wire their mouths shut. I am not offended by the fat/thin humor, and a lot of it hits home, being a struggler with weight myself.
At the end of episode 2, however, Patty revels in the power she had over a homeless man she "killed" - or argued with until he had a heart attack and died. I found this scene to be sick and vile, and a bad message to children who probably followed Debby Ryan from Disney. Not a big leap for Dexter creator, Lauren Gussis, but still creepy and offensive.
I don't know the background of the Lauren, and probably won't dig into that, but this seems like someone's personal life story, or something she relates to.
Only on episode 4 so far so things may change.
Captain Fantastic (2016)
Progressive Leftwing Hollywood Utopia Story
Should we dispense with analyzing performances? I was impressed, as you were, by all the child-actors, including Viggo, who is always good with whatever script he's handed. It's not that hard, is it? You stand there and recite lines painstakingly written over 10-year period, in some cases, and play them off like they were your character's immediate reactions.
Maybe that's what I should focus on, the writing. What is the story? It is a Progressive's wet dream. A masturbatory turn at experimental utopia in the beautiful American wilderness, where all the best of America is at once enjoyed and cursed. Noam Chomsky is "god" and his "bible" quoted frequently by a man who has created an enmeshed existence in a lush PNW forest. But if they need it, a giant coach-like bus named Steve is always dieseled up and ready to drive the family around so they can criticize free market capitalism. In this Progressive Utopia, all Progressive theories about child rearing, religion, government and life, are auto-proved true through the magic of film making. Profanity, discussion of sex, the painful truth about everything, and nudity, are general among the children of varying ages. Never mind that the same Left crucified The Duggars when their son molested his sisters in a similar enmeshed situation. Progressive Utopian siblings coexist nudely without issue, because humans are animals, and all the rote. Conveniently, Man's desire for spiritual connection outside of himself is tossed aside. Everything works perfectly in Progressive Utopia. That is, until outsiders introduce Christianity.
Where other films show the truth of such experiments, that Man's efforts to create a world unto his own ego will implode; that his offspring will depart from his ways which he never successfully passes on; that it "takes a village" to socialize children; this film disagrees. Yes, the man's world did collapse, but only with the help of Christians who blindly follow superstition and send children to mind-dulling public school, the two magically combined, though traditionally Christian families prefer home or private school.
Progressive Utopia doesn't work anymore than Christian Utopia, which I gladly concede, and neither one needs help failing as long as they have human ego, pride, and a measure of dysfunction.
The Revenant (2015)
Oscar to DiCaprio hurts acting
Let's face it: everything Leo did in this movie I could have done. Eat raw meat, raw fish? No prob. Crawl inside a (fake) dead horse? Brave bad weather? What did he do that the average actor couldn't do? I literally laughed out loud when he swung his wobbly arm trying to chop a branch with a tomahawk. You see the muscles confused when called upon to do this manual labor. Toss him upon a pile of supermodels and he's a natural, but grab a shovel? Which end? Compare Leo with Spencer Tracy or Steve McQueen, two actors from real life. They worked, served in the military, etc. When they do things, I believe they are doing things. Leo's Oscar lowers the standard of acting excellence to whoever can bear extreme conditions when they're otherwise used to yachts, caviar, and Wolf of Wall St. living. Inarritu worked around this for the sake of the DiCaprio brand, but imagine Keaton spitting and screeching his way through Birdman. Are you saying he would have won? Let me put it to you this way, and then I'll thank you for your time: Leo Dicaprio cannot act.
Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)
Cutesy, banal, script lifted from Wrath of Kahn, rescued by Benedict.
The movie began stumbling early, with a whiny Prime Directive catfight between Spockum (Quinto is miscast, see his adolescent "Kahn" yell) and TeenKirk, on the pretty red alien planet. Starting a Star Trek movie off with an absurd scenario full of unmotivated plot-necessary drama, instead of the traditional bad guys doing evil while Earth sleeps, is a risky diversion. Bombarding the audience with so much dialogue and over-explaining every thought is simply torture. The script, with absurdities like Dr. Marcus stripping down to undies to get that PG-13, or McCoy randomly, out of the blue, for no reason at all, while the ship is crashing, magically finding a "tribble" to inject Kahn's blood into, otherwise lifts its plot from an old classic on a dusty shelf. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn is arguably the best Star Trek, so why not raid the coffers? Need a theme? No problem, we own all of Star Trek! "Needs of the Many..." Done. Need a redemptive self-sacrifice scene? "Kirk kicks the warp core (downward, and somehow that moves it forward) back online and saves the ship, but kills him. Boo! Oh well. Kaaahhhhnnn!!!!" Done and done! Need some subplots/drama? Backstories? Hand me that script up there, the dusty one.
Good thing Benedict Cumberbatch can act better than a Melrose Place walk-on. He interprets at least Kahn's worldview so we have something to cling on to (see what I did there?). Maybe they brought in a special writer to doctor his role so he doesn't seem lost on the screen. Robocop also held his own as the Strike First Ask Questions Later General (read: conservative foreign policy are bad!) though his delivery was a little overwrought. Which brings us to Zachary-God-please-help-me-keep-this-role-Quinto. This guy is nothing like the real Spock. He seems like a scorned little nerd, not a logicalsuperbeing. Original Spock owned the universe and illogical beings were infesting it. (Next episode they should find a guy who can at least raise one eyebrow.) Pairing him with Ohura provides TONS of love fodder for the teenies, I get it, but dayum! Tone it down. It hogs TeenKirk away from his true personal conflicts, taken from the last movie.
What is TeenKirk's problem? Why is he here? He's a rogue, renegade, loner, dangerous, can't follow orders, cliché, cliché, cliché. And as such, he must be lavished with "You are Too Awesome" criticisms from superadmiralfatherfigure, as if the audience doesn't know about TeenKirk. "You're a good cop, Foley..." and they take his ship away. Oh no!!! Will he ever get it back??? (I believe Adam Sandler wrote the script, though he's not credited.)
In the end, Kahn is defeated, somehow, after a teeth-grinding tete-a-tete with Spockum that could have been so much more. Two worldviews, pure logic verses purely feral; Prime Directive verses a character that represents the worst of men. The two come together at the climax but their conversation is an opportunity lost. How about some cynicism from Kahn, a 300 year old warrior who has seen it all, and a rapier wit from Spock, who knows the dark corners of the mind and the simple, root causes of every evil, to form a word-battle of powerful brevity, each dressing down the other? It could have been Ripley in the robot loader vs the Alien. But instead, *poof* - "I'm better than you!" "No you're not, cuz I am!" 6 out of 10 for Benedict Cumberbatch and the writer who came in to doctor his role so he didn't seem like a Melrose Place walk-on.
Caveat: I am a big fan of Star Trek (2009) and wrote a stellar review of it somewhere.
Bully (2011)
A select few examples of bullying that fit progressive viewpoints
This movie hints at the obvious problem: The state promised to take our children and educate them in "public" schools paid for by tax revenue. So we entrust our kids to strangers who will do anything to protect their dole, including looking the other way. Each of these kids would be much happier in a private school or homeschooled. Instead, all are subject to a few bullies who never get punished. One kid was even told he was like the bully for not shaking the bully's hand. People complain yet they keep voting for politicians who will secure this kind of policy for decades to come. Wait till our health care is run by idiots like these school administrators. Even law enforcement dropped the ball. No one on the dole does the job we think they're doing. All they're doing is protecting their dole.
Life of Pi (2012)
Long, sentimental, and laundered for the western palate.
We'll start with the good: Ang's underwater scene of the boy watching the ship sink is better than the whole movie Titanic. I always thought that for all the money spent, James Cameron could have shown the massive ship below the waterline, with lights still on, just to give the sense of the horrible silent peacefulness of the underwater world. But that question answers itself.
It's best to read the book first, because you will get a lot of information that Ang omits. There are things the book omits, too, but Ang even more so. It is a western-told version of India without the ickiness of poverty caused by the Hindu caste system. It also steps around the atrocities of Islam, but (surprise!) portrays Christianity fairly close to the way the Modern West sees it, as a confusing, zealous faith not offering anything nearly as "beautiful" as Islam and anything else in the "beautiful" world.
In addition, early in the book zookeeping is parsed from a non-Western point of view, and it makes sense. Much evidence is given that zoo animals are quite happy, especially at Pi's zoo, and it sets the stage for him spending months at sea stuck with a tiger. Too bad groups who make no sense and offer only anecdotal evidence keep this point of view from Ang's film.
Some of what was kept puzzles me. An island, covered in meerkats, that bleeds acid and eats humans, saving only their teeth? I only partly blame Ang for this indulgence of thirty minutes of film. Was it a dream the author entertained? I can't find any example of this online.
Some scenes were overly sentimental, overwrought, and the big surprise at the end didn't require the ridiculous "writer" character bawling his liberal face off over the beauty of the Big Truth he had the privilege to see. I know audiences need all the help they can get, and many even walked out not getting it still. It reminds me of these high definition youtube videos where hipsters are interviewed about whittling or kale growing, as if they were the first to discover it.
The swimming Uncle Mamaji was the most interesting, authentic character. He was hilarious and so proud in his Speedo. Frankly, I wished the whole movie was about him and his adventures hitting all the famous pools in Paris. They need to make that movie.
Silver Linings Playbook (2012)
Nobody puts Baby in the corner!
First impressions: J-Law getting the only Oscar was exactly right. (Best Picture, not so much.) As far as my biggest criteria for an actor being "great" - that when s/he's on screen, they're all you can look at; they're interesting; they hog your attention. That's J-Law. She's vulnerable, raw, weak and wounded; then she lures you in for the kill. She completely out-acted GQ model, B-Coop, who can smile and that's about it. I don't see anything boiling behind Cooper's eyes. He's had a nice childhood and plays golf with his dad. That's what comes out in his acting. DeNiro was awesome, although his one crying scene seemed excessive. He knows how not to hog the screen, how to fill the air with chatter, keeping the story and attention on Bradley. But I don't see B-Coop going further than TV in his skills. That's not to say he won't get 8 Oscars in his lifetime, the way the bar is being reset. Julia Stiles was awesome - such a power house. John Ortiz read his lines.
The story was original and sometimes fun. It could have been 10x better if they borrowed from some of the dramatic mental illness/family dysfunction movies of yore (Great Santini, Ordinary People) but they had to keep it peppy with dancing and love letters. The explosive anger scenes were about 70% motivated, but I never really felt what Pat was feeling. Why was he so angry? Except for TONS of exposition in the first 20 minutes we had no way of feeling what he was feeling. (Better writing would show it instead of tell it in a shrink's office.) It seemed like a Woody Allen movie without the humor. When both characters dump their pathologies on the street, instead of laugh, you pity them. Then you question the world we live in. How did people get this messed up? What made Pat this way? I still don't know.
Chris Tucker did his best with the writing. I see him doing more dramatic stuff in the future, but his role seemed to be "funny black guy does black stuff blackly."
There were grueling scenes. The big dance bet came late in act II, just when you thought things should start resolving. Yes, the writing course says "have your character want something, then make sure he gets something else." Fine. The ending was canned girl food. Russell was right to have J-Law instigate the Final Kiss. It was her movie.
Argo (2012)
This movie is big and dumb. Like Ben.
I can't believe people have lowered the bar so low saying Bennifer is such a great actor and this is such a great film. It was the most contrived, off the shelf, big and dumb movie of the year. Ben's acting looks like someone acting. It's high school level at best. The story was 100% predictable. I almost shouted out each event as it was about to happen. The song placement and period set pieces were the worst part of this film. "Make sure you pan over to the Star Wars figures, and dwell on them for a long time, a little longer, and CUT!" We get it. He paid big bucks for Van Halen and a Led Zeppelin songs and they were totally wrongly placed and ran too long. (Cuz they paid big bucks for them, see?) Dance the Night Away comes on and I'm like "What? Here?" then it runs for like 10 minutes. The only good thing about the Led Zep song placement is that he put the needle on the right position of the record, though that was by the band's insistence. Ben can't act. Ben can't direct. The reason Argo won was because it glorifies the Hollywood elite and the Great Jimmy Carter.
Hungry for Change (2012)
Repackaged and re-branded from 10 other documentaries
This is an attempt at branding several health gurus together, ala "The Secret," into one central DVD and book sales pipeline. There is nothing new in this video, only rebranded and repackaged info from the last 10 you've seen. It starts by indicting government and big business for sinister food refining ("they're bad!"), then the usual anecdotal description of how cavemen ate and stored up food during famine, none of which has ever been proved ("we know the secrets of human behavior, follow us"), and then give the answer: go to our website and buy stuff (ask for the sale). I am surprised, though, at the dated info on juicing. One of the "experts" gave an impassioned plea for home juicing, ignoring modern opinion that it extracts sugar and water and leaves the best part in the bin. Foodmatters have latched on to a good brand and will latch on to lots of money, too, but don't mistake them for health concerned philanthropists. Go to the library, all of last years books will be there for free!
Tiny Furniture (2010)
Lena Dunham is a female Woody Allen.
Okay, it's really charming that this girl and her sister and mom look so natural on the screen, blah blah blah, that's out of the way.
Entitled privileged brat? So what? If you watch any old Woody Allen movie you see exactly the same thing: people in their early twenties falling into high brow writing careers and legal partnerships and bitching all the way, that's the genre. Lena manages to duplicate, or emulate, a Woody Allen movie complete with all the vulnerability, self-reflection and humor. She even drops one-liners, highly quotable ones: "I'm really tired. I took three klonopin and woke up next to a spoon full of peanut butter." And like a Woody Allen movie, there is no plot and the hero doesn't change or learn. But you'll stay interested. I would have given it an "8" but her Obama commercial was heinous. As a netflix movie, it's a strong 7.
Rid of Me (2011)
A heart wrenching journey through a schoolyard of cruel grownups.
The opening scene, as is mentioned in many reviews, is not the "hook" they intended, and you might click your Roku back to Menu, but give it a chance and this film will break your heart. It's so real and true, I've met all these people, I've even been some of them. The directing is subtle and jumps around like a mosaic, but I got it. And the awkwardness is well done. This is a terrible comparison, but think of the silent, awkward moments in The Office. Instead of being funny, these situations are so cruel but so real and familiar that you believe them. We've all encountered these things at some point, but here, no one steps in for the downtrodden protagonist. She's left out in the cold over and over again. It's one of those films you stay with until the end of the credits.
The Man from Earth (2007)
Boring diatribe of preachy, lazily researched, selective anthropology.
Professors gather in a cabin where one confesses he is a 14,000 year old caveman. He goes on for hours dispelling several myths of history with his own personal testimony. When they're convinced he's telling the truth, he, predictably, confesses he was Jesus, and that the whole Bible is a crock. When I was awake, I heard lots of pop concepts and country club "smartest guy in the room" theories, none of which reflect any serious scholarship.
Eventually, the humanist, non-religious progressives are proved right by the caveman's recollections, while the narrow Christians go away whimpering, but not before demanding he retract his entire story! (closing their eyes to the truth, you see). If there was ever a more clichéd portrayal of Christianity or religion in general, I haven't seen it. Moreover, I'm astonished at how many rate this movie so high when I wouldn't even call it a movie. It's more like a Saturday afternoon PBS special. And that they're so satisfied by lazy science baffles me.
As a movie, there is no action, no climax, no palpable conflict that you can sink your teeth into, and no character development. It's a seminar on how liberal science and humanities department faculty see the world, and it's zenith, make no mistake, is that they were right all along, and religion is a phony invention of the weak. Enjoy!
The Bourne Legacy (2012)
Acting as good as can be with stillbourne script (see what I did there?)
Did anyone notice they played it out with the same ending theme song as Ultimatum? Is this arrogance, or are they right in assuming no one will care? Jeremy tried his best to save the script with good acting (Rachel not so much) to no avail. The story had steep hills to climb in act I, which they solved lazily with POOP-TONS of dialogue. Now granted, I bitch when I see a redundant graphics like "ALASKA SECRET TRAINING FIELD SITE!" Don't get me started on dumbed-down writing. But I found myself dozing off to clichéd scenes, like "How do you sleep at night knowing you're creating super soldiers? I just want to be an average sensitive guy!" or, "I don't know what the secret drugs are for, I'm just the scared, hot scientist who makes them! But secretly I do know, I just need to cry for five minutes, then you can threaten to leave me behind!"
Why certain reviewers see this as an attempt by Gilroy at being a great screenwriter, I don't get. It's straight off the shelf overwriting with signposted dialogue. Maybe this is DVD foresight -- who will buy it if all they remember is the complicated story? Actually, that's exactly why I buy a DVD. The story engrossed me. I need to see it again and again. That's why I don't own Avatar and never will, because "what story?" It's why I do own "Michael Clayton" which I can't believe he wrote, and not Bait, which I can.
At first I thought he had a different ending planned if Matt Damon said "yes," but since he didn't, the ending just tapers off with James Cameron-like rote lines, ala, the powerful "I changed my mind." Overall it's a sophomoric, minimally funded effort on a now waning franchise.
Prometheus (2012)
A Phantom Menace scale let down with an easily digested script for the masses.
Awesome special effects, bad acting, shallow script. If the movie ended after the first 5 minutes, I would be happy. Up until then we had only a sample of Noomi and Logan's high school level acting, and several minutes of Fassbender's android impersonation. Come to think of it, he didn't have much dialogue by then, so it seemed like a good movie. But then you get 2 hours of unmotivated action, overwrought speech and terrible acting by last years TV costars. It was a lesson in script short cuts and no-no's. Maybe the studio bots lightened the mental load for today's 3rd grade comprehension audience. I'd like to hope this isn't Ridley's fault. Face the truth, folks. Alien and Blade Runner, with their spare dialogue and superb acting, with their mystery and suspense, would not earn a cent today. You have to sell, deliver, then explain every scene. If the character picks up a hammer, they have to say: "Why is this hammer here? Why am I picking it up like this? What am I going to do with it? I'm going to kill someone with it, that's what!" or it's too complicated and the Simple won't part with their coveted $12. From now on, if you see big budget special effects, know that in order to pay for it, producers have to draw in the cattle.
Water for Elephants (2011)
Bad acting tossed together with good music and photography.
From the best I can tell, no one, director included, wanted to be in this picture. Not even the elephant.
Robert Pattinson is, I would say, not wooden enough. He needs to go to Clint Eastwood's school of "don't just do something, stand there." Instead we get lame close-up reaction after lame close-up reaction after lame close-up reaction. The camera person must have been a Twilight fan, because every time something happens, we get a reaction from Pattinson, who cannot act his way out of a paper bag. Or, the director was so proud to have Pattinson attached that he spent the whole film on him - give the girls what they came for, right? Either way, I'm still sponging that sheepish, smirky twink-like face from my mind, and am open to suggestions. (I already tried the image of Ken Jeong's pi-pi in The Hangover.)
Anyway, back to Edward Cullen, talk about quintessential pretty boy, told to "stand in front of the camera." He's like Elvis without the singing. Who is coaching this boy! There is LESS THAN ZERO chemistry between him and Reese, he can't use his hands, can't reach out and pet an animal or grab a tool - and he's playing a circus veterinarian for crying out loud! He doesn't seem to be of this world, maybe he is a vampire. There are actors who can take a situation and act it out for a half hour without a script, and it's all interesting and usable. Not Pattinson. I'm afraid he's too pretty and too hot a property right now to turn down, so he moves up, ahead of so many more capable actors.
Now, I got the feeling the director drew the short straw and got stuck with the next "book to movie, ugh!" then eeked it out quickly so he could get back to the vampires and mutants. Having helmed two yawner sci-fi's and a bunch of Britney Spears vids, he brings a lot to the table. I'd say give him Snakes on Titanic, or Apocalypse Re-imagined Movie #664.
Hal Holbrook, trying for that Oscar, cues tears whenever he's on screen. How about something deep for a change ol' boy. Show an emotion with those eyes, what's the second or third thing you felt after the tears? You've seen that picture a thousand times, that woman, that man. What are you thinking this time? Oh. Tears again. Okay, that works. Everything is surface level nowadays. Tears get the Oscar, and going full retard. For fear, make pee come down the leg. Everyone gets it. Tears. Pee. Retard. Oscar.
The ending had me a little miffed. I thought in the book the circus manager asks "Old Jacob" to join, but the movie has "Old Jacob" begging for a job. Wouldn't it be better to follow the book and show a 'converted' youngin' respecting the potential value of gramps? Maybe a deeper storyline? No? Okay.
Another missed opportunity is with August. Christoph Waltz is obviously a bad choice because he's a new star and desperately does not want to be typecast as a bad guy, which may be all he does well. So he plays a bad guy who arbitrarily morphs into sensitive guy once in a while to look more like a good guy with problems. Not the character I read in Sara Gruen's incredible novel. But, again, hot property attachments get butts in the seats!
Reese is too old and not sexy. I like her other movies (of yore) but she should stick to rom-coms. No idea why she's playing this role, except she won a lottery to star opposite Pattinson and kiss his flat, pallid mouth.
The cinematography and music were beautiful. I wanted the movie to keep going in sound and pictures, but talking faces kept thrusting into view, forcing dialogue and overacting scenes to, maybe, help this poor, slow novel along...
Screen writing brings up a whole other question: How can you always tell a movie is based on a bestselling novel? Narration! Will screenwriters ever go deep enough into an adaptation to let go of narration, i.e., reading the book to the audience? Many good adaptations have it, but it ends up being what people make fun of most (Shawshank). Movies have too much dialogue already. Sure, the book is about a guy telling another guy a story, but is THAT the story? Why not tell the story, about circuses and elephants and love, with action? I digress.
Depth! Depth! Please, Hollywood, give us depth!!!