rhardy-390-701341 Reviews

Mortal Kombat (2021)

Nothing long winded, just the blunt truth

[4/10 · 23 April 2021]

The movie was well worth an HBOMax watch. It would not have been, to me, worth a ticket price for each of the family.

The action was rigid on all but scenes involving Subzero (oddly) as well as the acting B movie level. I think Kano stole the show, per unique, fullness, and captivating in the performance. Seriously were it not for Kano this would be a 3 as far as I can see it.

Vivarium (2019)

It was mediocre

[3/10 · 15 May 2020]

The "try too hard to be different" approach. It was drawn out to the point of nasuem. THIS LITERALLY could have been a "short" by editing out the run on portion. Halfway through the movie it feels like it should be near the end, sadly it is not.

This falls into that category of "High rating because different" as far as I can tell. The level of interest falls along the lines of Franco's :The Disaster artist". Now, if you liked that dumpster fire, then sure, you MAY very well like this. But as far as plot, it's figured out about 2 minutes after box 2 and you're left thinking "Did Philip K Dick wright these on an Acid Trip while having his worst psychosis episode, then bury it in a garage, only to be discovered by Garret Shanley, and transferred to screen" I mean, it tries SO HARD to be cutting edge sciFi, as to be a B movie with A cinematography and actors.

No spoilers as what is considered the "plot" is a spoiler. What is portrayed as the synopsis...is the 90% of the movie.

So, up to you. If it's on a service you own, no skin off your back, but do not be expecting award quality anything,....regardless of the inflated 5.8 review for a solid 3.2 movie.

True History of the Kelly Gang (2019)

I think it is more misunderstood, than bad

[3/10 · 27 January 2020]

The movie is visceral. It's is convoluted, confusing, and often visual effects are used to represent emotion, which can lead to confusion and dislike.

I think a strobing effect WAS a poor option based on what emotion it does convey. Annoyance, not confusion or outrage. I seriously think had there not been the strobe light scenes, the rating would be a full star higher, as odd as that sounds.

The movie is put forth in a manner that hides the time period more often than not. Eliminate horses and, until the end, you could be watching a movie about a poverty stricken family today. I think, while that was an attempt to be more avant guarde, it managed to detract from the spirit of the story, hurting it overall.

The movie portrays ned as a nut. I assume that was the writers direction based on the contents of the Jerilderie letter. However, there exists actual samples of Ned's handwriting, and it is thought that he did not actually write it.

I feel "meat" to make for a better meal was left out. I feel that a "future scene" showing that The Kelly gang was the words 1st full feature film in 1906. That it inspired people to rise up in some areas. I find this would be a more fitting legacy to portray than a crazy man hanging, with remarks stemming from poetry...which seem all too contrived.

I would not recommend the movie simply because it is visceral and visually caustic. I think the story is one of the world's most amazing outlaw stories, far surpassing many of our outlaw stories here in the US in scope and accomplishment, but I feel this movie is simply a shallow adaptation of a single letter, folk stories, with a LOT of creative manipulation

The "truth" was far too distilled in this movie in an attempt to make it "more" artistic. I think the historical FACTS give more flavor and those being altered or removed is simply not a meal worth eating.

The fact he was the 3rd of 12 is relevant to the story. His last words were unknown, albeit a reporter THERE thought he said "it comes to this at last" which I would have given more weight to than popular historical myth...and the court room curse....why leave that out? It embodies defiance and circumstance, rolled up into a FACT that reads more like legend. TO ME it is the SECOND most critical part of the after effects of his choices, just slightly behind the iron suit.

Spider-Man: Far from Home (2019)

Not a bad movie, but not a great movie

[5/10 · 3 July 2019]

1st, the acting was terrific. 2nd, the cgi was amazing

Beyond that, the rest was average. The plot was cobbled from "ideas" meant to diverge from comic cannon, which is fine, but the method was flimsy. How many times will a marvel movie be based on insecurities?

I do not wish to offer up spoilers since the movie released today, but the movie is worth seeing and apart from references to Endgame, per content, it was pretty much it's own movie.

Now here is hoping Sony doesn't force another 1,2,3 Spiderman situation with Osbourn #1, Osbourn #2 and then Venom....So many directions the next 2 can take

Home coming was an OK movie, this was far superior to it.

5th Passenger (2017)

Im not sure what made the movie worse

[4/10 · 10 July 2018]

The fanboi/shill reviews, or the poor acting.

I am unsure who figured these people, who acted in the past together, could still act ...together and succeed. The show is a modern B. Not that a B movie is bad.

The acting was rigid, forced and, at times, off key. The CGI was bad when ever the color red or orange was needed it seems ;)

If you are a Star Trek cast fan, there will be no deterring you from seeing this. If you are a sucker for IMDB ratings, do not be fooled, this rating is falsly inflated. The movie rating will balance out in the 4.2-5.0 range

Expedition Unknown (2015– )

I get it, I do

[3/10 · 7 July 2018]

The show is dull without the structured camera shots, cliff hanger antics prior to a commercial break or the OMG! GASP! WHAAAA reactions to finding a piece of stick, still, the show is running in circles

Unless it is an already discovered site, you get over dramatized, scripted actions, antics and drama *SNAKE!*

I enjoy hearing Josh's narration, he has a terrific voice and presence, but come on...how many times, how many YEARS must we endure cold sites with nothing, cold myths, NEEDING existing hunters supplying their honey holes and the such, before the show is booted or a larger investment committed to ?

I just feel like the show is more reminding of a band that was famous in the 80's, who's only real "Hits" were Live Fast Die Young and Back Against the wall.

Oh well.

Extinct or Alive (2018– )

Great scenery...

[3/10 · 7 July 2018]

Traveling to exotic, distance, areas of our globe, in search of animals, supposedly extinct, based on tales and claims of locals and regional hunters!

Great catch lines and..not much else. The areas they visit are aesthetically pleasing, do not get me wrong, but the shows content smacks more of a UFO hunt. I had to listen to a friend who had became addicted to some show about a north eastern island, called Oak Island, that supposedly claimed to be the resting place of some fantastic treasure. Each time he would speak of it he would be less and less enthusiastic...and that is what the show has become for me.

It implies AMAZING DISCOVERIES and is simply a minor zoological lesson, with travail footage and images of other local animals...yet no elusive *insert random extinct animal*.

I find the show a big effort at running in circles. I would think that Discovery, moving away from the mental fluff shows it has been endorsing for the last 5 years, for concern of being the next channel with a slapstick nick name, much like The History Channels "The Hitler channel" tag that it distanced itself from through programming changes.

I would rather watch a show about a region, that mentions a "sighted" extinct species as a byline, than an entire show focused on ...air

If you like "WHAT IF??" shows, sure, this would work for you. If you expect the previously determined extinct *Again insert random extinct animal name here* to be AMAZINGLY discovered in the content of this show, you will sorely disappointing

Stargate Origins (2018)

I'm not sure why this was made TBH

[6/10 · 18 February 2018]

Unless it is a property with an expiring option?

I know the movie rights are owned, solidly, for another 24 years. I also know there is a trilogy of movies in the works.

It was "ok". The acting was a bit south of interesting and "Michael" playing the father smacked more of desperation than revising a love :)

Well, at least it's 100 minutes of something to see.

Viking Siege (2017)

A bowel movement has better drama

[1/10 · 4 January 2018]

The acting is what you would expect from an 8th grade Christmas play.

The cinematography reminds me of a video off of a iPhone....4s

Poor script, bad writing overall, and an acting class that would do better bagging groceries, makes for a really bad viewing. I find UK TV shows to be superior to US TV shows in nearly every aspect. The same cannot be said for nearly all of the UKs theatrical releases. For every hit you have 20 duds like this one. Now, the US is jut as bad except they produce worldwide blockbusters to offset the poor films.

Want your date to breakup with you and contemplate ritual suicide? Well grab a bucket of popcorn, gallon of coke, 6lbs of candy and how you die from a diabetic coma before she finishes watching this with you, so you do not have to watch her glare of pure hatred, as she starts sepeku in front of you

And yes, I have indeed used the facilities with more drama and better CGI than this horrid film

Alien: Covenant (2017)

Betrayal seems to be the bitter reason behind bad reviews

[7/10 · 3 July 2017]

I had heard all of the harsh remarks, poor reviews and comments meant to convey a level of ineptness and poor screen writing, and thus expected a debacle of a film.

Yet that is not what I saw.

I know what happened to cause people to be bitter towards the film as unlike them, I expected a bad film, based on their views and went in with, as they did, a preconceived notion of how bad things would be.

The 1st betrayal to people's preconceived notions were the movie was NOT a continuation of Prometheus, but rather a 2nd movie that skipped what most expected as the second content. People expected there to be a traveling to the creator's world, conflict, etc, all around the race of giant humanoids. Instead the were sold the aftermath.

The second betrayal was David. David had been on a nefarious path and, towards the end, saw the folly of that path and it was implied, he understood the error of his ways. Yet here we are and he is an insane robot, with plans of Godhood and a desire to wipe out the human race with his genetic manipulation of the creator's "weapon".

If you can get past the fact you BOUGHT a bill of goods, based on your OWN notion of what the next movie was to be about, you will find the movie is well done. Terrific scenery, a great TWIST on the entire Alien franchise and a bit of bitterness at accepting his direction with the 1st movie, while crying about his following it with the second.

I enjoy the movie as I expected a bad film. I also expected our heroine to be raining hell on top of the giant creators and had I gone in on release day, with that in mind, i also would have been displeased...But that displeasure would be MINE and not that of a bad film. We "expect" X and get Z, and cry about it?

Yes, there could have been a movie between 1 and 2, but money may not have allowed for the 3rd. So, instead, we get the summary of what happened, quite a few holes and a whole NEW path for the Alien franchise to continue on

Life (I) (2017)

I loved it !

[9/10 · 31 May 2017]

The acting was superb.

The script was...OK. Not bad, but not amazing. BUT...this NEEDS a sequel and one with bunches of cash involved :) This could be the prequel for a new "blob" movie :)

I have to say that the English Biologist was a bit poorly written. Seriously, I understand chasing your whale, but this was a bit too far down the "Dumb" path. Actually, 2 were guilty of being poorly written. But again, over all, I enjoyed it and would love another

The Expanse (2015–2022)

Fingers crossed !

[9/10 · 5 April 2017]

I know this show pretty much wrote itself. The books give compelling, living, emotion driven characters.I mean, any Space Opera that lasts more than 3 books is a hit. I am HONESTLY surprised at how few are adapted. Then again, the options for such are limited.

Syfy has disappointed me a LOT in the last 5 years. From the horrid tangent to episode close of Eureka, the poor writing for Alphas, Poor writing for Helix, lazy writing in Being Human..a LITERAL word for word..., poor marketing of Caprica and dominion...I seriously could go on and on. Bad decisions at the executive levels have had me just bored to death of the idea of watching ANY SyFy show

However, having read the current series of Expanse I figured I would give it a try while waiting for the next book. Suffice to say.. i was surprised. Sure some characters did not jive with the "mental" image but the screenplays have been pretty close to spot on. Not perfect, mind you, but following a book series is dubious at best.

I feel Thomas Jane has owned his role BEYOND book expectations. I have found the crew of the Rasa, except Wes Chatham, to be a bit below par, still, not done badly I suppose. I have thoroughly enjoyed the show as I expect a shadow of what I had read and was pleased to find a fully formed TV show.

My hopes are that the Executives do not put their noses in, trying to make the #1 SciFi show on air, a bit better, because nothing could make Expanse the next continuum or Sanctuary, faster than their involvement.

I wish the show well and I hope they stay true to the spirit of the book and how the writers were bringing the characters to life.

Split (IX) (2016)

NICE Tie-in

[8/10 · 5 April 2017]

The movie was not done badly. I think the story idea was a bit /meh until the final 5 seconds of the movie. Then the world becomes clear. Yes, what I am saying is that the last 5 seconds of the movie will change the ENTIRE context

Some have posted that it caused them to not be able to view the movie, as it was put forth, when the ending comes. I, however, found it delightful

The acting was nice on mostly all parts. I understand the movie's tone kind of conflicts with the implied physical characteristics of the DiD character as it implies control over the physical. Trying not to get to into it in order to avoid spoilers.

He did well with his choice of cast, nearly. The psychiatrist's acting was a bit lacking and flaccid for a person who championed the view that they did. Still, I think James McAvoy NAILED a DiD persona and made it "real" for the viewer. That is what matters in a movie. Are the characters "real" or are they simply actors.

Anya Taylor's character....well, I have to assume some areas were removed from the movie. You will see what I mean if you are a person who really get's into each character's role when trying to "Experience" the movie.

Late Night Double Feature (2016)

Millennials films....

[2/10 · 17 March 2017]

Welcome to the new era of bad movies with high ratings !

Now, this is not the same as it used to be, where people who were fans of B flicks. Oh no, this is on a MUCH GREATER level of WTF!?!?!

The new phase of millennial movie pleasure stems from the worst equate to the better. Bad acting IS a plus. WTF?!?!?! CGI, gore,blood or any prosthetic that looks like an arm from a department store equates to sheer pleasure for this audience of viewers.

The movie, for those of you born prior to 1982, is horrid. Bad acting, worst effects and a plot that...well, simply does not exist :) Imagine HOSTEL level gore with cigarette money investment.

I understand these appeal to a newer group of viewers that even B fans shake their heads at, but how to rectify this ? IMDb needs another CHECK BOX group beside reviews :)

A simple click your star does not suffice. There needs to be ANOTHER bar that indicates age. So when you see 900 people give it a 8 star and are 17-24 and then see that 500 people give it a 3 or lower are 30-50, you then have a VIABLE option when considering the "Am I wasting money or am I paying for what I MAY view as entertainment"

If you like basement level movies, this is for you ! If you like horror along the lines of "The Strangers" or "Wolf Creek" (We already know it's no Hostel) then this is NOT for you.

This is one of those movies that is SO BAD it will not be considered "Worst" of a period because of the minimal funds invested to make it. Yes, this is more like a class project that someone suckered an investor for and the bulk of the funds were spent on beer bongs and prostitutes.

BUT ! If you ARE a "Silly/bad" millennial horror fan, this one should tickle you pink!

Stevie D (2016)

Odd Generational comparison

[4/10 · 14 December 2016]

I find that we all grow up hearing our parents tell us that this or that is not acting, that in their day sew-n-sew was X and he did Z

This movie...seems to be an actual representation of that view. Sure when you see a movie that is a lower budget you will find that 1 lone guy usually is the movies only draw, that he/she carries it. It reminds me of how many BAD MOVIES were bearable, to me at least, if Luke Goss played the main roll.

This is NOT one of those films.

In the movie, hand to heart, everyone UNDER 40 sucked per acting and delivery and everyone OVER 50 owned each specific role. I have to ponder a reality where geriatric actors are able to "own" a role, even if it is a bit part with 30 seconds of screen time, yet the lead actor and the co-lead struggle to deliver ANYTHING that can be compared to genuine.

I assume it is simple experience....except I can hardly, for the life of me, think of an actor that was BAD in his late 20's and early 30's, that morphed into a PARAGON OF ACTING SKILL !

So, either you have it or you don't. Bad writing can only cover so many of the excuses before it falls onto the actors.

There ARE some WELL acted scenes in this movie....but NONE of them relate to anyone who is not of Social Security.

The rating, at the time of this writing, is a LOADED and FIXED 8.5. I assume a "family and friends" rating :) The movie is to comedy fans what a low budget zombie flick is to zombie fans. Bearable but leaving them trying to explain to other's why they should have enjoyed it......

Solid acting and delivery from Hal Linden,Al Sapienza, John Aprea...sadly they were NOT the focus of the movie and only allowed this to move from a potential 2 to a 4.

Good acting can only fix so much as well :)

Morgan (2016)

Could have been better..spoilers

[4/10 · 3 December 2016]

I found the movie not terribly difficult to watch. I did find the sub-plot pretty obvious during the confrontation scene where Lee was trapped and Morgan was speaking to her. Her remarks clearly sang out "We are the same"

The worst part was I found myself humming Skrillex's Red Lips every few minutes................Great video, but Anya's make-up bore too close a resemblance to the videos make-up. If you are watching a movie, and keep reflecting on another performance, then the movie you are watching is not written well enough to distract you

I would recommend this to the normal movie watcher. I would also warn that the cerebral viewer is going to find it too predictable by mid point.

The upside is there was no Jason Vorhees ending. The thought of many more of these would have been depressing. One and done works well. It allows for multiple types of viewers to enjoy or bear the movie, without adding on the potential continuity and assumption issues

Unlike another poster, I did not generalize my viewing to compare this to Ex Machina, but I would agree with a view, per the nature of the beast, more in line with Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep...which predates Ex machina or the 1st fleshed robot from The Electric Grandmother. They all come from this. A robot bot/droid/gynoid built to appear, human, complete with fluids and emotions

I suppose you decide if it reminds you of anything.

Outlaws and Angels (2016)

Poorly acted "Dirty" western wanna-be

[2/10 · 15 July 2016]

The acting was bad The storyline was bad The subplots were bad The setting was the only thing even close to being western-esque

Has to be the last time I let the name Eastwood, not relating to Clint, influence me to see a movie. Scott Eastwood seems to have SOME skill, albeit mediocre initially, but you can see the spark.

HOWEVER after seeing Francesca Eastwood's acting in Heroes reborn, I blamed it on the script and directing....until I saw this horrid tripe. No, she is not in even her brother's range of skill. The only thing she has down is that "Deer in the headlights" look...and nothing else. I foresee a LOT of bad horror/Sci-fi in her future.

The BIGGEST disappointment in this flick was Ben Browder. I mean he is one of those guys that has that specific way of talking, looking and reacting that can carry a bad scene up a level or 3...not this time. I am unsure if he is just tired of acting, disliked the director or was drunk the entire time, but he actually drug the movie down

Wilson!!!!!!!!! Yah, his bit parts were done as badly as can be. The catchy phrases they had him toss out MAY have resembled period specific jargon, but they were idiotic in delivery. I mean, Wilson makes me laugh. That snort snicker of his, sideways smile with the curled lip, THAT is his segue into a scene. In this flick he was just a monotoned, quip quoting character who's skill, it appears, was to carry every scene with no emotion of feeling

if I have not made it clear enough, I EXPECTED A LOT better from this movie and barring some bad writing, expected at least 1 or 2 actors to carry a bad script into the realm of bearable

I was sorely mistaken.