Change Your Image
j-a-lind
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
TMZ Presents: UFO Revolution (2024)
BLAH - BLAH - BLAH - All Hot Air Talk with No Substance
This series is nothing but a bunch of already public video clips and Congressional testimony knitted together by two principals, Jeremy Corbell and George Knapp, with Corbell narrating, and making lengthy statements in an empty room to a producer. Boring would be an understatement. There is nothing of substance. Where are the sharp high resolution photos of alien spacecraft in flight and their wreckage? Where are the sharp high resolution photos of alien bodies? They don't exist. One of the individuals frequently referenced is David Grusch, a former USAF 1st Lieutenant, with clips of his public Congressional testimony. Grusch is a worthless big nothing burger. Whenever he's been pressed for people, places and dates (not in this series, but elsewhere), he mysteriously cannot remember them, or he invokes the Secrecy Card. Everything he talks about is second and third hand hearsay. The entire series is much like this. One giant claim the Federal Government won't admit aliens are real, and that they have them, their bodies and their spacecraft -- and that they'll do anything and everything, including killing people to keep it a secret. Panders to Conspiracy Theorists. Don't waste your time. I wasted three hours hoping for something, anything, of substance. Other than Corbell's droning dialog along with some remarks by his cronies, there's nothing here that isn't already public, and in the Public Domain. It's all 100% schlocky rubbish.
A Tear in the Sky (2022)
Major Holes -- Literally -- in Alleged Facts and Assertions
Early on in the movie, on "Day One" while only a portion of their equipment is set up, there's an alleged UAP sighting and on a large HDTV watching it in 4k I could clearly tell it's an aircraft with blinking navigation lights. Then their cell phone system fails preventing one monitoring location from notifying the other two, the consequence is inability to triangulate anything. Other sensors fail at critical times. Naturally occurring large ice crystals falling from the sky as they become too heavy in cloud cover, are touted as "UAPs/UFOs". Ultimately, on the fifth day, a cloud of questionable pixels within a naturally occurring atmospheric cloud is suddenly touted as being a wormhole and proof of alien life. What? There was no "smoking gun" of a clearly identifiable alien craft. There was no "smoking gun" of a clearly identifiable alien creature. Proof of alien life . . . And said life visiting Earth? I'm calling BS. It's all hogwash, created by a group absolutely desperate to justify movies like this, and willing to spout falsehoods doing so.
The Transfiguration (2016)
Very Low Budget Mumblegore: Heavy on Mumble with Near Zero Gore
It's obvious from the outset this movie was made on near zero budget. OK for an indie but there have been much better low budget fare. I wasn't expecting a non-stop slasher and I'm not a big fan of graphic slasher movies gratuitously celebrating blood and gore splattering everywhere. The pacing of this drags and nearly all of the dialogue is the Meandering Mumble small-talk that doesn't add much of anything to the characters or the plot. There is a decent vampire type story underneath it all involving the protagonist's missing father, dead mother, older brother, and a girl that moves in to the same building, and how he's coping with abject poverty combined with being bullied some. Tragically all that potential is smothered to death by the aimlessly wandering Mumblecore dialogue and the snail pacing it creates. The acting performances are OK given the budget, the Mumble format and what little there seems to be of a scripted dialog. Cinematography and lighting is decent if one ignores some of the "shaky" scenes with the camera frame wobbling as an actor is followed. The screenwriting and its Mumble format is the singularly glaring deficiency that results in this movie earning a failing grade from me.
The Lost Symbol (2021)
Lackluster Acting and Mediocre Script Destroyed by Woke Garbage
Original written four episodes in to the series, now edited after seven episodes and downgraded from 4 to 3 stars:
Additional remarks after 7 episodes:
This mini-series doesn't adapt the novel, which could have been easily done. It diverges so significantly in plot that it destroys the novel's thriller aspect with major reveals that continue being made much too early. At this point it's a plodding crime procedural that requires an enormously incredulous suspension of disbelief regarding the CIA and its domestic powers (explaining more about this here would be a spoiler).
----------------------------------------------------------
I wasn't expecting A-list actors. Most of the principals have delivered workmanlike performances. The atrocious performance by Ashley Zukerman in the critical Robert Langdon role drags down the rest, creating a character with zero credibility. Miscast or misdirected, or both, his bumbling, stumbling, utterly inept, wishy-washy "Langdon" geek is carried to excess. Leaves one wondering if his "Langdon" can tie his own shoes or find his way out of a phone booth, made worse with a rubbish delivery. Regarding the rest of the cast, it's hard to soar with eagles when shackled to the leading protagonist Zukerman turkey. A strong lead would create the required synergy, but it's just the opposite. The director and screenwriter(s) also bear some responsibility.
Dan Brown's "Langdon" novels in sequence are
(1) Angels & Demons
(2) The Da Vinci Code
(3) The Lost Symbol
(4) Inferno
(5) Origin
The last one hasn't been adapted for cinema or TV. The cinema films reversed the first two, and then skipped over this one to produce Inferno. Those three handled the sequence change in the first two well as they reference each other's events. Inferno easily stood on its own following them. In the novels, Lost Symbol is set after events in the first two and precedes Inferno. Inexplicably, the screenplay resets Lost Symbol as a prequel to all the movies, apparently to generate romantic tension spawned by a former love affair between Langdon and Katherine Solomon (Peter Solomon's daughter). It's an unnecessary distraction that doesn't enhance or advance the plot, nor does it add any character depth. Instead, it falls completely flat.
Pacing is abysmal, especially considering this should be a taut thriller. Instead, when combined with significant plot divergence from the novel, it's a plodding crime procedural. Without revealing spoilers . . . There are plot elements in the novel that create part of the thriller aspect as they're withheld until the third act that have been inexplicably dumped out already.
If all of the above weren't bad enough, it's riddled with retch-worthy woke garbage, obvious virtue signaling to ward off the Hollywood social outrage cancel culture vampires that delight in blood sucking career destruction.
The Day of the Triffids (1981)
Finally slogged my way through to the end - which didn't come soon enough.
I'm baffled why this has so many positive reviews. Even by TV mini-series standards this was appallingly abysmal. Acting is wooden using 3rd rate stock BBC actors. Near zero cast. The near zero budget for it is blatantly obvious with cheesy production design throughout. The first episode (of six) is nearly completely consumed by the protagonist talking into a tape recorder delivering nothing but vapid exposition dialogue that was an order of magnitude beyond boring. The pacing of the story crawls more slowly than the triffids do. The entire story could have been easily done in three half-hour time slot episodes (26 minutes each) instead of grossly bloating it to fill six. I kept hoping for successive episodes to improve, but they didn't. They got insipidly worse. By the time I reached the end, I was wishing a triffid would appear and put me out of my misery. Unfortunately, I cannot get 2 hours and 40 minutes of my life back, but perhaps I can prevent others from wasting 2 hours and 40 minutes of their time.
Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019)
Jar Jar Binks Dialog Returns - Chaotic, Incomprehensible Action - Save Your Money
The movie is cinematic garbage. I predict it will be used in film schools as a prime example of how not to make a movie. The "human" dialog is reminiscent of Jar Jar Binks in Star Wars Episode I, The Phantom Menace. It's not that there should be humans with a dialog. It's that it shouldn't insult the intelligence of the audience. As with other recent movies in the super-hero realm, the use of CGI is completely over the top. Scene framing is abysmal. Film editing is atrocious in the action scenes, particularly with repeated quick cuts, producing a chaotic, incomprehensible frenzy. Instead of rubber suit monsters beating each other up, it's CGI monsters bashing each other. Welcome to the monster version of the WWE with orchestrated, choreographed fights, in which none of them will ever die, so they can go on to fight again in the next movie, and the next, and the next, and the next one after that. It's an attempt to create a Godzilla Monster Universe patterned after the Marvel Cinematic and DC Extended Universes, the goals of which are mostly CGI characters thrashing each other for two hours, to wash, rinse, and repeat ever year, more often if possible. With the monsters, forget about humans in fancy super-hero suits, just use CGI. Check your brain at the door. It's better if you're brain-dead when watching this human waste landfill fire excuse of a movie. Last, but not least, wear hearing protection if you value your long-term hearing. The damage is a cumulative effect emerging later in life. I'm going to start taking a sound meter to record the sound levels. I'm tired of leaving theaters deafened for several days afterward.
The Man in the Shadows (2017)
A Movie So Bad One Should NOT Waste Their Time or Money Watching It!
I ordered Shadow Man, a 2006 Steven Segal film and was sent this one by the seller who had confused its title with the Segal film's title (without checking and verifying the UPC). Was refunded by seller and they didn't want it back (so I didn't send it). Since then I got what I wanted, the Segal film. That ended OK.
The Movie:
Since it wasn't being returned I looked up the film, which doesn't have much about it on the Internet. Found out it's a Canadian production with little-known actors and an even lesser known director. Decided to plop the DVD into the disc player as it's an alleged horror film about the "shadow man", aka "hat man", which is sometimes portrayed in tales as the "slender man". They're all variations on the same theme of a silhouette spirit that induces stark terror in those that see its apparition. Sometimes they must "obey" it and at other times it merely needs to appear. There are BAD movies that are bad in such an amusing way they're classed as "campy" and gather a cult following, such as "Plan 9 From Outer Space", or one of the Larry Blamire films that deliberately to parodies 1950's sci-fi horror (e.g. Lost Skeleton of Cadavra). A number of Japanese 1960's films such as "The X From Outer Space", and "Goke, Body Snatcher from Hell" also fall into that characterization.
Then there are revoltingly BAD movies like this one that evoke visceral revulsion while watching it. Where do I begin? There's nothing praiseworthy about this film beyond the leading actress eking out a workman like performance in spite of the script, director, and leading actor, a tribute to her ability. The leading actor is wooden with the inflections and emotions in his performance out of sync and inappropriate for their point in the plot and movie. This is not an action horror movie. It's a psychological one Portrayed emotions with line delivery, facial expressions and body language, and their timing, are crucial to building the tension and terror.
The cinematography is passable as is the lighting in most scenes. It's the director's primary filmmaking background. The post-production cutting room editing ruins it. Timing is clearly off with the cuts in the leading actors' 2-shot dialogs (where the camera switches between the two people having the conversation). It exacerbates the principal actor's inappropriate dialog delivery inflections, facial expressions and emotions. That's as much the director's fault as it is the actor's for failing to direct the actor properly and retake the scene's shots. It's as if the leading actor showed up, punched in on the clock, recited his lines with no investment in the plot, punched out, went home and collected the paycheck in the mail. Scenes with 2-shot dialogs are not done all at the same time. With two actors it's done with two camera setups, the first for one actor and the second for the other actor, usually with the actor not on camera doing their lines to aid timing and response for the one on camera. Then it's flipped around and done again to film the other actor on-camera. Looping to put in the dialog better can be done afterward if needed. The film is cut and edited together to create the 2-shot conversation scene flipping between them. The failing in directing, emotional responses between the actors and film editing completely destroy the flow of the story.
If that weren't bad enough, portions of the script with its dialog are irrelevant to the basic plot. They do nothing to build mood, tension and ultimately terror and horror. Instead these distractions deflate it with unnecessary diversions. The movie is 88 minutes run length. It's about the minimum for a current full length feature film, albeit within the industry, the technical definition is a minimum of 60 minutes (a vestigial definition from a century ago). The plot and script should have been completely reworked to excise these diversionary distractions and replace them with meaningful elements that create character and story depth related to the plot.
The result of all these failings is an utterly failed film. The audience has no vested interest in the principal characters, the story, or the conflict imposing the challenges they must overcome in its traditional three-act narrative structure (i.e. the "hat man" apparition terrorizing the principal actress). It has no ability to engage the emotions of the viewers. We don't care about the principals or their plight. I predict it's destined for eventual use as 3 A.M. filler on the Lifetime Cable Channel. Maybe their royalties will eventually pay off its production cost within this century. Don't waste your money or 88 minutes of your time on this movie.
Ben Hur (2010)
Why?
Was this yet another ratings sweep remake of a highly acclaimed film to con TV viewers into watching it at least once? Suffers from all the movie killer flaws that very nearly all "Made for TV" movies have, including cheap production values, mediocre acting, poor audio and visual special effects, mediocre script and dialog, bloat to fill alloted time slot(s), and erratic pacing for commercial break and episode split timing. Save your money, do NOT buy this! Save your time, don't watch it if they rerun it on TV. Wishing I hadn't wasted my time watching the first part. See the 1959 spectacular instead. It's INFINITELY better.
Second Opinion: Laetrile at Sloan-Kettering (2014)
Another Attempt to Resurrect the Laetrile "Snake Oil"
Contains potential spoiler . . . or what someone might claim is a spoiler.
This film is the third documentary of Eric Merola, whose first two were "Burzynski" in 2010, followed by "Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business, Part II" in 2013. Both of those are about Stanislaw Burzynski and the Burzynski Clinic in Huston, TX, which as been conducting "antineoplaston" clinical trials for cancer treatment for decades (approx 60 trials) for which the results have never been fully published or peer reviewed. Nor can anyone else replicate Burzynski's alleged results. Burzynski uses the Phase I and II trials to get around FDA regulations and use the drugs on patients.
I mention Merola's first two films as this film, his third one, is cut from the same cloth as his first two. It touts garbage pseudo- science and time-worn conspiracy theory claims of FDA protecting Big Pharma and medical oncology industry profits. In reality they're after lining their own pockets with millions selling laetrile and amygdalin and false hope to cancer patients, some of whom are terminal and grasping at straws no matter what the cost. Laetrile and its related amygdalin were debunked nearly 40 years ago as having ZERO effect in preventing, curing or stopping cancer. Yet we now have Ralph W. Moss, the science writer who first claimed laetrile could cure cancer in the mid- 1970's based on only partially completed research in progress at Sloan-Kettering. He's trying to resurrect laetrile and amygdalin again, after Sloan-Kettering concluded its study as being indistinguishable from a placebo in treating cancer. Countless other studies since then have confirmed this.
The movie's preview video contains an outright lie claiming laetrile (and amygdalin) are harmless. They're toxic, very toxic, and potentially lethal. Both release hydrogen cyanide in the small intestine as enzymes naturally found there chemically break down both of these drugs. This is not opinion or supposition, it's indisputably proved scientific cause and effect fact, and the exact chemical mechanism that does this has been well understood for many years now. In high enough doses, or in the presence of the wrong foods, or in combination with the wrong drugs which enhance the cyanide production, it's lethal, and there have been numerous deaths from it. If laetrile or amygdalin had any measurable efficacy, the Big Pharma they would have you believe is trying prevent its use would be doing everything they could to manufacture and sell it, along with all the other chemotherapy drugs they currently make and sell. There is NO conspiracy.
It's sad . . . extremely sad . . . that movies like this are made under the guise of being documentaries giving false hope to people facing a lethal disease. In reality they're infomercials touting cancer treatments that have not been shown to have any efficacy in treating cancer, and are potentially very, very harmful. It's laden with misinformation and disinformation.
In Cold Blood (1996)
Yet Another TV Movie Remake That Should NEVER have been Made!
I had "In Cold Blood" set up to auto-record on my TiVo so I wouldn't have to keep searching for it. Lo and behold, it showed up as having been recorded. To my dismay I found this 1996 Hallmark TV movie remake instead of the 1967 theatrical film. The original movie was an Oscar magnet, earning four nominations, and rightfully so as it's a taught, compelling adaptation of Capote's novel in three acts. This one is mired in the same mediocrity that besets nearly all made for TV movies. It's all the film that's print to fit . . . the alloted TV time slot . . . with uneven, mired down pacing that geared for commercial breaks and splitting it into two parts. Add to that the mediocre small budget production values and compromises made to conserve budget, using 2nd and 3rd string actors, with a Roger Corman School "make 'em dirt cheap" director, and the result is a dull plodding movie that can serve as a perfect substitute for sleeping pills. This is a movie remake that should NEVER have been made! CBS should have gotten the rights to the original 1967 film and broadcast it instead, and saved us from this worthless drivel being rebroadcast on the Hallmark Channel.
Yoko (2012)
Nearly a direct lift of another very famous film's plot
Potential Plot Spoiler: Yoko is nearly a direct lift of Steven Spielberg's E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial plot line with a cute yeti from the Himalayas instead of a cute alien from another planet. The yeti, who ends up accidentally transported from its igloo home in the Himalayas to a temperate climate populated by humans, is seeking to get home, and is discovered by a preadolescent child. In the meantime, all the adults are either evil, trying to capture it, or they just don't understand and don't "get it" leaving the kids to their own devices. OK for a very young children's film, and by young I mean very young in the 5-7 or 8 range. It's quite sappy and highly predictable. Only 2 stars for incredible lack of originality with just enough difference to evade a Spielberg E.T. plagiarism lawsuit. If you've seen E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, you've seen Yoko. If you haven't, see E.T. instead as it's a better executed timeless classic.
The Sound of Music Live! (2013)
The Sound of Music DEAD (ON ARRIVAL)!
This should NEVER have been done! It's nowhere near the original stage musical and same applies to the original film either. Some of the acting/singing is overdone and with others it's stiff and wooden. Doing it live was admirable, but it introduced issues with having lines rushed to get to commercial breaks which are notoriously ruthless in their timing, the result being pacing disruption and less than desirable acting performances adjusting timing. Just as bad is the casting which was UN-BE-LIEVABLE. You want me to swallow that in mid-1930's Austria, in midst of it being taken over by Nazis from Germany via an assassination of their Prime Minister, an influx of German SA Brownshirt thugs (SA = Sturmabteilung), plus a society with a significant number of anti-semitic and racially bigoted people, that there would be a black mother superior in a convent there? And you would want me to believe the captain would have an Hispanic child, in what was very much then and is still pretty much an ethnically and culturally monolithic country? GET REAL! Worst yet, it downplays what the Nazis actually did to Austria, from within and without, in the Anschluss. In the effort to make beautiful music, which it does not do very well, it loses the entire underlying theme that was captured by the stage and film musicals . . . one courageous man's . . . an Austrian Navy Captain of wealth, and his family's stand against the Anschluss, and their willingness to give up everything rather than be a part of it.
This abysmal TV "remake" wasn't Live! it was DEAD! ON ARRIVAL! When will the cable and broadcast TV networks ever learn NOT to attempt remakes of audience revered and critically acclaimed films? Inevitably they're an Epic FAIL and this one was no different. Why must they plagiarize something already done, and worse yet, something that was done exceptionally well? Can they NOT come up with something creatively original? Is their IQ that low? Do they have that much arrogance, disdain and disrespect for TV viewing audiences to think our IQ that low -- that we're brain dead and will accept drivel?
Hocus Pocus (1993)
Tweeny Halloween Film Too Lame for Tweenies
At just two minutes or so into this film I realized it was a Kiddie Movie with a distinct problem: some subject material made it unsuitable for kids under about 8 years old, but the storyline and script were incredibly lame for kids older than about 10. It's a Tweeny Flick but only for the first couple years of the demographic. The storyline is too hokey for older Tweenies with all too predictable and sappy plot elements.
Unlike some other films that have subtle elements to entertain at an adult level such as Beetlejuice, Corpse Bride, Frankenweenie, or Tim Burton's Chocolate Factory or his Alice in Wonderland (the remakes), it has near nothing to maintain the interest of anyone 11 or older. That is not just a problem, it's the films failure. We're fortunate there's never been the thought of inflicting a sequel on mankind.
I'm not opposed to films targeting the young, but to create one that's only suitable for children spanning just a few years in age is a travesty. They should work for a wider age range than the incredibly narrow one this film serves.
Tideland (2005)
Must Be Viewed Through The Eyes Of A Child
This is a film about a prepubescent child and her imagination that must be viewed through the eyes of a prepubescent child. Furthermore, one must have appreciation for and the understanding of the capacity young children have for creative imagination if it's not stifled and crippled by adult imposed structure 24/7 about what to do, how to do it and when to do it while they're growing up. Thus we have an opportunity to experience, albeit in an abysmally poor and at times gruesome environment, the self-organizing imagination of a young girl as she copes with a world around her she cannot control much. The story is told from that perspective, even if it's not all in first person. Gilliam says as much in the short video Foreword on the DVD and Blu-ray distributions of the film. I do not know if this was in the theatrical release. Failure to do this -- viewing it as an adult -- greatly risks seeing it superficially with gross misinterpretations and missing the complete depth it contains.
There is plenty of fact and fiction, with reality and fantasy. However, there are also plenty of clues, some subtle, that the young girl, Jeliza-Rose, retains full capability to distinguish between all of them, even though she consciously chooses to ignore some facts and realities because it's convenient. That she grossly misinterprets what she observes in a couple of scenes is the result of *not* being an adult and therefore does not have the knowledge and experiences required to fully understand what is occurring. Thus, she develops her own based on what she does know and has previously experienced. What would be repulsive to an adult, isn't necessarily so to a child of 9 or 10 that doesn't have the depth of understanding that would make it repulsive. This is often called "innocence" and it can sometimes spare children from trauma as their lack of comprehension about what they've observed allows it to blow by.
View the film with the eyes and mind of a 10-year old child, leaving behind the worldly knowledge and experiences of an adult, and appreciate the resilient imagination and innocence of childhood as it copes with a world containing poverty, abysmal parenting, tragedy and some gruesome events, without losing basic sanity. Gets an 8/10 from me for its effectiveness in delivering that through Gilliam's direction, the cinematography and excellent portrayal of Jeliza-Rose by Jodelle Ferland, a difficult role for a child her age.
Vigilante Force (1976)
Razzie Fodder, or: Better Than Myra Breckenridge but Not By Much
Easily characterized as one of the films I would have gone to see on a Friday night date at the drive-in theater as I (and my date) had no intention of watching the film. Where can I start? Every aspect of this film fails. The screenplay and underlying plot is weak, the script is terrible (loaded with badly worn clichés), the acting is horrid with the direction (or lack thereof) as much to blame as the mediocre performances from actors that should have done better. The fight scenes do not appear to have been choreographed. The cinematography is, at best, pedestrian. Didn't check the credits, but for the sake of the production designer's career, I hope he demanded it go uncredited.
Not much about this film is remotely credible. It's purely a vehicle for barroom brawling fistfights, gunfights, car chases and explosions . . . and not much of one at that.
Bottom Line: Vigilante Force is Razzie fodder. Too bad this film was released in 1976, four years before the Golden Raspberry Award was created (1980). Could have swept the awards.