Change Your Image
ricky-1750
Reviews
The Lone Ranger (2013)
I Loved this Movie!
I was not expecting much since the critics were so hard on this film, but I loved it. Granted, it was a bit long, but worth it for the last 30 minutes when the action hearkens back to the days of silent film, or at least as far back as the TV show that was one of my favorites as a kid.
I can't say that there was a spot where it dragged, but it could have been cut down a bit and not lost any of the plot line. That's the only reason I rated it a 9 instead of a 10.
All the acting was top notch, great bad guys, wonderful hero, but I especially loved the character of Tonto as portrayed by Johnny Depp. Mystical, intelligent, a little crazy, and altogether wonderful. I'll watch this one again, or maybe ten more times. Hi yo, Silver!!
The Voices (2014)
Wow, and that's a good thing
I loved this and I will watch it again (and probably several times after that). It's hard to describe, but I will try.
This is essentially a study of a very disturbed individual, but from his perspective. You see (more or less first hand) why he doesn't want to be on the medications that make him live in the real world, because the real world sucks.
His insane delusions are rather beautiful. Everyone is happy, and everyone likes him (well, maybe Mr. Whiskers isn't happy, but then Mr. Whiskers is evil). At his core, he is a good person, as personified by his dog, Bosco. However, Bosco can't stop the awful things that happen to Jerry, and Jerry sinks further and further into his illness.
This may be the most brilliant performance I've seen Ryan Reynolds give. This kid can act, and since he is also Mr. Whiskers and Bosco, it is one hell of an act. The CG is great in that these are the best talking animals ever.
It's more dark than funny, but the funny is hysterical. If you are looking for just funny, this movie is probably not for you. If you can stand the darkest of the dark and still see the humanity in there, you will probably love this movie.
This Is the End (2013)
I enjoyed this a lot
Based on all the one star reviews, perhaps this makes me a bad person, but I really enjoyed this movie. I'm not particularly a fan of James Franco or Seth Rogan, or anyone else in this movie (with the exception of Emma Watson), but the idea of a bunch of stereotypical Hollywood types going through the Apocalypse was so perfect.
I will watch this again. For me this was not time wasted. My demographic in case anyone cares: female, in my 60s, normally watch a lot of Disney (or slasher films around Christmas). So, I guess that makes me complex. This movie isn't complex, it's just a send-up of everything these actors are imagined to be (and probably aren't).
Popcorn required.
The Pact (2012)
I liked this film a lot!
And, yes I've read many of the other reviews, and I can understand why there is some confusion, but I tend to watch films (and read books) with the thought that there is nothing the director (or author) shows or tells the audience that is without purpose.
First point: the film opens with a close up shot of Annie's eye. Nice, green eye. One of her eyes is up close again later in the film ... again, green. There are two other spots where eyes are shown to the audience ... one when the man in the cellar is shot (nice green eyes), and again at the close of the film, when another man's eye is seen through a peep hole. Decidedly not green.
So, it could be that Annie got her eye color from her mother, and the man in the cellar was her uncle (mom's crazy serial killer brother ... maybe), or it could be that the man in the cellar was actually her father, or possibly both.
As to the name "Judas" ... there were some who were confused by that. As our heroine is doing internet research, she finds that the "Judas Killer" was called that because he called himself that. He signed his notes "Judas."
We also know that the mother, her friend, and her mother's brother, were all involved in their church. Now, why might a very religious serial killer refer to himself as "Judas"? Maybe because, in the Christian religion, Judas is the betrayer of all that is held sacred.
The original Judas Killer (from the research done by Annie) had only 7 known victims ... all killed between 1968 and 1969. Jennifer Glick was born about that time. She isn't murdered until 1989. She is said to be 20 years old at the time of her death.
Second Judas Killer appears to be operating around 1989, right around the time that Annie is born and Jennifer is killed. If you look closely at the photo of the decapitated Jennifer, there is no blood pool except around her neck ... so if she was pregnant, the baby probably died with her.
Suppose for a moment that the original Judas Killer was Annie's grandfather, the father of her mother and of Charles Barlow. He is a serial killer and raises his children to be very sick puppies. He prefers to kill couples (according to the internet account), while the second Judas Killer (probably Charles Barlow) likes to kill young women, including his seventh (and possibly last) victim, Jennifer Glick.
Note that the map of Judas's known victims shows seven skulls, but skulls that do not correspond to the list and locations of the original Judas Killer's victims. These are seven rather widely spaced killings of individuals rather than couples.
So, we have two serial killers, about 20 years apart. Charles Barlow is, I think, the son of the original Judas Killer. I think the pact was a family pact, kept by the original Judas and his children, and that the children helped dad with later killings (including Jennifer), or carried them out for their father.
I also think that Charles Barlow went to ground at the time of Jennifer's killing because he (or dad) had hit a little too close to home by killing a woman who was known to the Barlows. Someone might have put things together ... so Annie and Nichole's "dad" just disappeared (under the floorboards). Mom closed the room up and put in the peep holes so that he could see his little family. She probably stuck them in the closet so she could spend time with her brother (and perhaps her father ... who I think was still alive and down in the basement with his son).
Which leaves us with the last set of eyes. A blue/gray eye of a man of an age that is difficult to determine. It is entirely possible that this is the eye of the original Judas, still down there somewhere.
Plot holes? Yes ... absolutely. I can't imagine that any portion of that house would be left standing after having a murdered cop in the basement. It would have been torn up basement and all, not just had the furniture moved out. But, it is the same house, same wallpaper, same everything.
However, I like that a lot is left to the imagination, even for someone like me who tends to go back through portions of a movie frame by frame (to read the material that only flashes on the screen for a second, including Annie's journal which adds another layer to the concoction.
In any event, I did enjoy it, and will probably watch it again to see if my opinion changes regarding the plot. Holes and all.
Pardon any typos.
Perfume: The Story of a Murderer (2006)
Amazing, horrible, wonderful, brilliant, beautiful and hideous (may contain a tiny spoiler)
I knew nothing of this film before I saw it. I had no idea who was in it, who directed it, and I hadn't read the book.
I was so incredibly blown away, it's three hours since I turned off the DVD player and I can't get it out of my mind.
I don't even know where to start. The visuals in the film are so stunning, the acting is magnificent, and the characters are so beautifully written. I wanted to hate the character of Jean Baptiste for what he was and what he became, but found I simply could not. In the end I had nothing but sympathy for him.
At the same time, while I felt sorry for his victims and the families of his victims, I've never (well, until now) seen a film in which the alienation and longing for connection in the amoral central character is so completely understandable.
This film was as close to flawless as anything I have ever seen. I'm really going to have to pay more attention to the movies that Netflix suggests, because this was one of those, I doubt I ever would have seen it except for a random "oh, what the hell" thought.
The critics really didn't love this film?? Good grief ... did they watch the same movie I saw?? Even the music was beyond belief. I finished the movie, took it out of the DVD player and ran to my closest neighbor so that she could watch it. Tomorrow, when I get it back and before I return it to Netflix, I'm going to watch it again. Then, I'm going to find a copy of the book and read it, and the soundtrack album so I can keep listening to that music.
Right, I know, I'm babbling ... but there are times that something just runs over your soul like a cosmic steamroller, and this is what that was for me.
James Ellroy's Feast of Death (2001)
Excellent Film
First, for all the times other reviewers may have seen the film, they have a few errors in their comments. The Black Dahlia victim was Elizabeth Short - not Mary - and as to the scenes in which Mr. Elroy is discussing his work before an audience, I saw no discomfort from the audience as he made his "welcome pedophiles ... " intro. In fact, it is clear from the beginning of the film that Mr. Elroy is a realist, and the reality of life and death, can be a very vulgar sort of thing.
I found this film to be an amazing look at the author and at two murders which affected him profoundly (1) the murder of his mother with whom he had a difficult relationship as a child, and (2) the murder of Elizabeth Short.
For Ellroy, Elizabeth Short becomes something of a stand in for his mother. Growing up, Ellroy comes to think of both women as being "whores" who probably got what they deserved by saying "no" to the wrong john. However, over time, he has come to see that both cases were and are more complex than that, and that neither woman could be tagged with a label like that and left otherwise undiscovered.
Mr. Ellroy's language is admittedly crude, and I would not recommend this film for children. The graphic photographs of Elizabeth Short's badly mutilated body are enough for me to say this film is best left for those with a fair amount of emotional maturity.
In the end, it is a film about a man determined to understand who and what his mother really was, and the mother/son bond that existed so many years ago.
This film has levels in its levels. You could watch it 100 times and get something new out of it each time. I note that some other reviewers made much of Mr. Ellroy's dislike of Kennedy and Clinton, but the important part of that is the why ... because Mr. Ellroy sees both as misogynistic users of women. This is a man who really believes in having a deep lasting commitment to one woman, his wife who he clearly adores. She refers to him as a "feminist" because his female characters are not caricatures, they are full-blown and complex individuals.
That's what I got from this film ... it takes Elizabeth Short and the author's mother from caricatures and makes you want to explore until you find the real person underneath.
I've only read one of Mr. Ellroy's books ("The Black Dahlia"), but I will be buying and reading the rest of them now based on the power of this documentary.
The Invisible (2007)
Not what I expected, but then I never saw the trailers
I found this film extremely interesting. For one thing, I did not see it as a love story, not at all. In fact, I was mildly surprised to see that so many viewers commenting on this film did think the characters of Nick and Annie fell in love. I suppose that younger viewers might get that idea if their experience about relationships was limited, but for me this movie was about redemption.
Definite spoilers follow ......
Nick is a well to do young man who has lost his father and whose relationship with his mother is strained to the breaking point. He's tremendously gifted, but dealing with a load of emotional pain.
Annie is a poor "out of control" girl, also dealing with the loss of a parent who she dearly loved (her mother). She tries to provide some semblance of a mother for her little brother, but at the same time acts out violently and commits crimes really more to feel alive than for the money.
Nick's redemption comes as the result of his near death experience at the hands of Annie. Not unlike Scrooge from the Christmas Carol, he is able to see what people around him really thought of him (and his writing). He finds out that his mother - who is a very controlled and controlling woman - is capable of intense grief, and in fact, although she does not express it well, loves him very much. He also sees in Annie a kindred spirit, and what damage can be done to a person by events over which they have no control.
Annie's redemption is more explicit in that she is the more obviously lost soul of the piece, and what she wants, other than a stable roll model for her little brother, is to do "one good thing" before she dies. She gets her chance when bit by bit she begins to believe that the boy she thought she killed is not dead and is communicating that to her. Her "one good thing" will be to save his life, even at the cost of her own.
In a sense, Nick begins to act as Annie's conscience, and as she begins to understand that he was not the cause of any of her problems, the more intent she becomes on undoing what she has done to him. Her final sacrifice may be a bit clichéd, however, her future (grand theft, attempted murder) would not have been bright in any event.
In the end, Annie gets both of the things she wanted most, since it is clear that Nick will form a friendship with her little brother, allowing Nick to become what he lost (a father figure), and give to Annie what she wanted (someone stable in her little brother's life who could keep him from turning out as she did).
I wasn't particularly troubled by the lack of backstory with regard to Annie's father, or the lack of closure with regard to the character of Pete. Whether Pete lived or died was not key to the story, and the fact that Annie's father had been a policeman was only important in that it hinted at a much more stable home life before the death of his wife.
And, as noted above, I never considered Nick and Annie as "in love" or even "falling in love." What struck me as Nick began to follow Annie was Nick's recognition of how much they had in common and how much further he could potentially fall.
On the whole, I thought the acting was good, the plot line held together, the characters were interesting, and it ended well.
Ratatouille (2007)
I loved this movie!!
Some of the best animation I have ever seen, and the characterizations, the voice talent, the story .... all first rate. I don't know when I've enjoyed myself so much.
At first, I'll admit, I was so focused on the detail of the animation (the water on Remy's fur, actually, the animation of the water period), but I soon got so sucked into the story that I stopped being distracted.
I especially liked that the character of Remy (although he could read) did not have the ability to speak to the humans. That one fact added so much to the humor, but also to the pathos and the misunderstandings between the two.
I'm glad I took a little something from the budget to buy this on DVD. I didn't go see it in the theater (and now I regret that decision), but I know I'll watch it a few times a year from now until I breathe my last.
I'm 55 and don't have any children, so I have nothing to go by, but I didn't see anything in the film that would upset a child. Remy ends up in some peril, but it never lasts for long, and at the very least this isn't one of those films where we have young Remy blamed for and dealing with the death of a parent. That's a plus in my book.
I just plain loved this movie. I can't think of a bad thing to say about it.
28 Days Later... (2002)
Generally a good film
First, I found it completely plausible that a virus might spread in this manner. Pneumonic plague kills in about 3 days and is symptomatic within hours of infection. So, in this film we are faced with a virus that is symptomatic within seconds and spreads by causing the infected to become so enraged that they will fight with and/or bite another individual. The virus is spread by blood to blood or saliva to blood contact.
This particular virus does not cause the infected to become the "undead" ... so it's not really a zombie movie ... although they are so driven to infect those who are unaffected, that one character is likely correct when he opines that the infected will starve to death after a time. (So will a victim of any plague if they are to sick to care for themselves and their disease doesn't kill them first.)
What we (and the main characters) don't know is how long the infected will survive and how much of the world (other than the British Isles) is dealing with the infection.
I found it interesting that the director shows us, on the one hand, the mindless infected causing pain and suffering without intending to do so, and, on the other hand, members of the military who justify the pain and suffering they are willing to inflict by telling themselves it's the only way for mankind to "survive." Procreation as a justification for rape. To me that is a profound idea that goes beyond the typical sci-fi film.
I also found it interesting that the viewer keeps seeing a sculputure of Lacoon and his sons being strangled by the serpent. It seems to be to be a classical reference to the beginning of the film when a lab worker tries to warn the people hoping to set the apes free from their misery that they will die and cause a disaster. Lacoon tried to do the same for the Trojans and the gods killed him for doing so ... it was part of the vengance of the gods that Troy was destroyed. Here you see the vengeance of the "gods" potentially destroying mankind, and a glimpse that the world might be better off for our absence.
As an aside, there is a scene in which a charater enters a church filled with corpses. I agree with earlier posters that most of the dead were probably suicides. Others may have died from starvation or the exhaustion caused by constant rage. In my opinion, the few infected that are there are likely asleep until the hero calls out. After all, they are merely infected... not dead. There's nothing to indicate that they don't sleep from time to time (even if it's just dropping from the exhaustion the rage virus must cause).
In any event, I found the film fascinating and will certainly watch it again.