Change Your Image
zen-hood
Reviews
Hold the Dark (2018)
Wolves
Had watched this film probably when it was released (on Netflix) but only remembered the first scenes. It's hard getting through the beginning. This film is dark (literally and figuratively) from beginning to end. And it's an intense experience.
How different are wolves from humans? And how different are humans from wolves? Humans consider themselves superior to wolves because humans are not wild and can reason, right? But do wolves instinctively kill for the sake of killing? Or is there a moral code embedded in their nature, unlike ours, but misunderstood, because, after all, they're "wild"? Or is there some aberration, something in-between, part human, part wolf, something mystical, understood only by the indigenous people of Alaska?
This time, I was completely captivated by this film. Mesmerized. Couldn't stop watching it. Didn't hit pause, so I could fetch a snack from the kitchen.
The cinematography is breathtaking. And so is the acting. Love Skarsgard. When he cries, you cry with him. You feel what he's feeling.
But it's up to you to decide who is morally superior. Wolves or humans?
What I don't get are the low ratings. But I guess this film is not for everyone. I suppose it's a matter of taste. And that's fine. If not, be prepared for an incredible experience. And haunting impression.
The Serpent (2021)
Sometimes it's hard to understand what the actors are saying...
I started watching last night and finished series today and basically agree with those who think this a compelling and chilling piece in greater detail. Didn't take me long to feel the creeps about the Serpent. But the last lines of the last 2 scenes totally confused me. Not sure who they were talking about. It was like something, "We did it. They're going to raid.... Let's call her and get her out." And then, the scene cuts to a familiar apartment with a phone on a coffee table ringing. This must be artistic liberty, solely for dramatic purposes, if it's who I'm thinking about, but I'm not really sure. It clearly suggests, based on an earlier scenes, there's good reason why whoever they're calling isn't answering the phono. That's straightforward. But I'm not sure the story there parallels reality. So if you don't want to get confused, don't read anything before watching this fantastic series.
Better Call Saul (2015)
You don't need to laugh to laugh
However serious - and it is, because it addresses multiple social injustices - humor and irony is the underlying thread. Some scenes are hilarious and you actually can't help but laugh. But the more exquisite expression of humor is the most subtle - when your eyes do the smiling.
Satire slices human absurdity into the thinnest slices, like prosciutto, and shreds reality. It's not quite Swift, but still a masterpiece of character and plot development and how those converge into the larger story.
But that doesn't mean tragedy is absent. It's bittersweet. Consider it a morality tale of good and bad and everything else in between. And evocative of the most critical characteristic that distinguishes humans from lesser animals: Empathy.
The basic plot of those who serve as interpreters of justice, attorneys, is probably the greatest irony of this series.. It's perfectly balanced. Even Justice would smile.
The Sinner (2017)
Precipitous Drop of Season 3
First 2 seasons were great. It would've better if they stopped there instead of dragging viewers into a web of counterintuitive, illogical, bizarre character development, which does not meet the standards of an interesting exercise in absurdity, but rather the illustration of total absence of credibility. It became unbearable to watch. Tedious. A disaster. A train wreck.
So when killer admits he needs help, detective takes him to hospital to be evaluated. He tells check-in that they need security because patient is dangerous. Security enters scene. Nothing subtle. Alarm bell. Nonetheless killer goes into room for psychiatric evaluation, says some really disturbing things that would warrant immediate 48 hour hold and hospitalization. But when killer realizes they want to commit him, he leaves, security guards have vanished, and unorthodox detective follows him to NYC where he commits another heinous crime.
And if you buy that, well, then, I guess this is for you.
Knock Knock (2015)
Definition of a Flop
You're patient. You wanna give it a chance, cause you know Keanu Reeves is a good actor, but how long can you wait until you finally accept after 45 minutes this film is going nowhere? So you pull the emergency brake and get outta there ASAP.
A good film is riveting from the get-go, within the first minute. And it never serves spaghetti stereotypes.
Evil (2019)
You know how some people hate being around kids?
I'm not one of those persons, but I think I may understand why some people feel that way... Sort of.. I'm watching Episode 4, and every scene with the kid characters is intolerable. I'm really close to Mute.
What I don't understand is how a director can effectively apply directorial skills with adult actors (based on the script) but completely collapse when directing child characters. (Just one note here: Even the best actors are powerless to show the degree of their talent when subjected to a horrible screenplay. There's no getting around bad writing.)
The child characters have zero credibility. They do not behave as real children do. And, the acting is even worse than possibly imagined. You might as well play with cutouts
Unconvincing characters are either related to the script or director, or both. But what this feels like is there parallel scripts, which, of course, never intersect. And it's nerve wracking.
Then the child actors look like they're acting. And it's really bad acting. You wonder how they ever made it to the auditions, because they don't know how to act. You watch them mouthing words they don't understand. And the words are not complicated, but they cannot project a meaningful experience or evoke a sense of empathy.
The feature that leads to these conclusions is a full frontal attack. Four screaming kids (smirking) talking and yelling all at once. Unless you belong to highly dysfunctional family, this is not natural, it's biblical-It's the Tower of Babel.
I've never seen anything like it before. It's like they enrolled in acting classes taught by a wannabe director who delivers pizzas to survive and devote his weekends to his lifelong passion of becoming a Hollywood Director, which, in reality, is nothing more than a fantasy. And these are his prodigies. It's one of the worst experiences of cacophony.
And it's really too bad because there is one brilliant actor who played the feature role in Persons of Interest with Janes Cavaziel. And that's Michael Emerson. In this film, you love to hate him. That's acting. The rest of the soundtrack is bad static and high pitch noise.
Hannibal (2013)
Seriously?
Hannibal
Exceptional actors. Sad to watch actors play characters based on deeply flawed scripts, where actors are forced to play characters that defy common sense and behave counterintuitively. It's impossible to ignore in this series because it happens continuously, and find yourself saying: "Please. Seriously?" That eventually leads to fatigue.
There are 2 characters, for example, psychiatrists, one walking behind the other, and the one behind the other one knocks her unconscious, but, presumably, all she can recall is nothing. Really? It's not a stretch to stitch simple facts together. No one else is in the scene. Thus...
Overall, the behavior between action and reaction is absurd and endemic in every episode watched.
There are 2 characters who manage to circumvent the absurdity and whose behavior is consistently sound, except for one critical gaff. The main character is so empathetic and therefore valuable as an agent, because he has a unique skill: He can adopt the mindset and emotional behavior of serial killers. It's intense and emotionally exhausting.
However, if you've ever known someone on the autistic spectrum, that's exactly what they cannot do. That trait distinguishes them from others, i,e., " normal" people. Doesn't mean, they're not gifted in other areas, but emotionally they're disconnected. They can mimic ideas, like a son from the mother, but this is mostly a repetitive task, rote learning, like teaching a parrot to talk. Doesn't mean they lack awareness of who they are, and know they're different, and how.
So that is the gaffe that completely contradicts level of social engagement of main character.
It's a psychiatrist's nightmare.
And wasted talent.
American Anarchist (2016)
The interviewer is...?
This is one of the best and most revealing interview I have ever followed and merits praise, not condemnation. Those reviewers who claim the interviewer is somehow manipulating the subject is a line straight from this documentary. They are directly quoting Powell.
The interviewer maintains a calm demeanor throughout and this is obvious by the tone of his voice. When Powell becomes aggressive, it's because he's defensive. A good interviewer let's the subject do the talking, does not interrupt, or does not react defensively, but respectfully.
It is Powell who struggles with the simple questions he cannot answer, will not answer, resists, and deflects the role his book has played in acts of horrendous violence.
Instead, he attempts to distance himself, invoking ignorance of these acts, and thus attempts to minimize the relevance of the question. He cannot accept the consequences of what he authored and what it provoked.
The hesitation, the silence before his responses, speaks a thousand words. One who genuinely does not feel guilt will not pause and hesitate before the answer to the question. That is an instinctive response.
The hesitation stems from his struggle to respond without first crafting a "genuine" and credible response before a mirror. It's a rehearsal. When he finally does respond, the response is immediately followed by a "But... I didn't do it. They did."
These are attempts to distance and absolve himself from the massive influence and violence by the book he wrote. The "I didn't do it." response doesn't cut it. It's a cop out.
Clearly this a man is struggling with his inner demons. And I feel nothing but pity for him.
Apollo 18 (2011)
Just about 30 minutes into film...
You can't be in 2 places at the same time, right?
I had to pause and wonder when the astronauts were inside talking about feeling like there was someone outside watching them. There was! There had to be someone behind a camera outside panning 90 degrees of terrain around the capsule.
Anyway, going to continue watching.
(This IMBD Writing app sucks, BTW. You have to guess whether you're in the right place, space, or not, to edit. No cursors. No cues-Blindly butchering words along the way... Had to go to Pages eventually for basic structure. Pathetic.)
Between (2015)
Yet another series that drops a bomb at the end
There's so much more to the story, and like many Netflix productions, they end abruptly. The experience is not one of satisfaction, the way all good stories end, but the feeling of having been emotionally manipulated, hanging, which is not a healthy experience. Don't know if the writers got lazy and that's why Netflix axed the series, or, more likely, bad corporate decisions. Either way, it's a lousy Netflix pattern. And it sucks.
Just a footnote about the horror of such experiences. Dracula was another Netflix "production," and it had a unique perspective of a classic piece of Literature, but there were a total of 3 episodes. Imagine Bram Stoker dropping the narrative after the 3rd chapter. Exactly. It never would've been published. But who other than Netflix would do that? No one.
Nightflyers (2018)
That's it?
In the first couple of episodes, I began thinking this is one of those series where characters were skipping into the realm of incredulity. Like, "Why don't I believe what you're saying?" It was touch & go. But I decided to keep watching and that's when I realized... "Okay. I get it. It fits the plot." Good piece of science fiction. Yay. Unfortunately, it's one of those series that end without ending. It reaches a semi-climax, then drops into a black hole. And there's nothing more frustrating than justifiably anticipating more when there is no more.
Carriers (2009)
Could be too dumb to watch
I have to be upfront about this review. But it also explains the title. So 30 minutes into an apocalypse film when a virus similar to Ebola, transmitted through air borne particles from infected to non-infected, an overall somber tone would make sense. But that is not the case. You would have no inkling of that. Instead you think you're watching a film about a bunch of adolescents taking a cross-country drive because that's a cool thing to do, right? Nothing more could possibly explain the superficial and reckless behavior at a time when the world is ending.
The Dinner (2017)
Obviously, there is a difference of opinion here.
Are the ratings ever accurate? Probably not.
Richard Gere is one of the most underrated actors, and I keep asking myself why. What is it with the Academy? What's wrong with them? Until I realized he doesn't belong there, never did, but somewhere else, beyond and above them.
This film has no happy ending. Instead, it's ending is abrupt and gut-wrenching and tragedy lingers, as though the story hasn't ended. Who knows? Maybe it has? Or, maybe it's part of something larger? Maybe the Second part of the Trilogy is just around the corner?
This is best manifestation of someone who has a psychiatric diagnoses. Why? Because it doesn't tell you. It shows you how deeply conflicted someone is when they know they have been compromised.
Their brains seldom refrain from producing a host of distortions, and though we know we're still somewhere in there, the intellect and emotions have been sabotaged, and our defenses weakened.
We are powerless before such a formidable opponent who lives inside of us, and whose resources are vast and unparalleled. The odds aren't looking good. And those persons know it.
But while this one character clearly cannot escape his demons, however brilliant he may be, the other characters are, as all humans, flawed and conflicted. And the moral compass keeps shifting.
Their motives are elusive and mysterious and cannot be easily determined. So the question you keep asking yourself while watching: What is going on? And the tension is almost unbearable.
It's about a family. Brothers, wives, and children. Is he actually trying to hurt the brother? It's possible. Besides, after all, he's a powerful politician who has an unstable brother and the Governor's race is tomorrow. Or is he trying to help and protect his brother? And what about the wives? Are they who they appear to be? If not, then who are they?
A crime has been committed by 2 boys. But are you sure it's only 2 boys, or is there a 3rd boy, as well? The scene is replayed over and over, but the versions keep shifting. So which version is real?
And what have the parents done? Are their motives altruistic, sinister, or simply misunderstood? We can't be sure because we are forced to consider the possibilities. And our instincts. It's up to us to determine which context is real, and which one isn't? And that's what makes it so exciting.
Person of Interest (2011)
Warning: You Have Been Hacked
For those of you who are intrigued by AI (you don't have to be a geek) no doubt, you have explored both its strength and danger, and the risks it poses. There are advocates who are opposed to AI, like the late Stephen Hawking. And if you haven't heard of him, well, let's just say, you might want to Google him.
He was a fierce opponent of Artificial Intelligence, knowing the degree of its power is unlimited and its evolution, unpredictable. The more it evolves, so does its threat to our species. It's not like it's not here. It is here. Search engines use it, scientists use it, and so does the government. It's a handy tool that has unlimited access to personal information, and is a great tracking device. Just look at how Google collects information about a person's habit, like what they buy and what they think. This information is sold to third parties, which helps target information about a person's habit, which simplifies and enhances the speed of advertising and markets. Just look at those ads on your social media, especially Facebook. They have a reason for being there. Why? They are highly lucrative, beyond what an old school agency could ever have predicted.
Person of Interest is a riveting series, plots that never cease to bore you, and what happens when AI is fully operational, its consequences. There are those who use it whose specific purpose is to create a new world order, which they control. These are not the kind of characters who would welcome outsiders, share their secrets, mission, and presence. Instead, they eradicate you. Why? Well, they are psychopaths. And probably sociopaths, too.
They eradicate anyone who unwittingly threatens to expose them because of the information they have, even if it's a question, a single doubt that something is not right with the picture. That is the moment they become a target.
But often the targets may not even know they possess the information that threatens the integrity of the mission. So they too must go. Then it's time for a cup of tea.
This is, of course, the dark side of AI. Contrasts. The battle between darkness and light. And that's where it gets interesting. Because there are those who precede the rise of power of the unscrupulous. The man who created the system. The man who believes every life has value. The man who knows what war he is fighting, as does his spartan team. They are united and dedicated and stealth.
It's worth watching.
Mojave (2015)
Intense and Focused and Dark
I don't even know why I gave it a 9 instead of a 10. It's probably greater than a 10. This a tight production, focused and intense, and it never drifts away from that.
Personally, I don't like watching films in theaters. But this is perfect for the big screen. Imagine watching a live performance of Shakespeare. It's a theater-sized experience. It belongs on the big screen. Tight shots. Long distance shots. Extremes. Contrasts. I would definitely go and watch it there.
The flow is beautiful and the rhythm is constant. The subject matter is dark and terrifying; When we leave the safety of society and enter into inhospitable territory, like the desert, things are radically different.
And for those who willingly go into the desert, simply to experience it, they never hope to be stranded there. Survival, life and death - it's all there, it's real. It's not a fantasy. Even driving through the desert, you can feel it's ominous presence, its inherent risk, danger. You just want to make it to the other side.
So imagine intersecting the path a drifter in the desert. The probability of survival isn't looking too good. It's hard to remain an optimist. The most primitive skills rise to the surface. Survival is the battle.
But what happens when something starts in the desert but doesn't end in the desert? What if the drifter is a sociopath, a serial killer?
Now whether a sociopath lives in the city, or not, he will always pose a danger, a threat to society. And sociopaths could have a brilliant intellect, or think they're brilliant, but the only thing that is certain is that they will kill again and again.
Part of their MO is psychological terror. Some sociopaths may be able to satisfy their cravings through psychological terror, alone. But it's highly likely that they, too, will eventually end up murdering someone. They are sinister to the core, filled with rage, social deviants, through and through.
So when this drifter stumbles upon personal information, an address, an exact location, then you know - or you will know - you're in danger. He'll make sure you know you are. It's part of the thrill of being a sociopath. He will stalk you and threaten you with death. Unless, of course, he makes the error of thinking that you cannot escape him, that he's smarter than you, that you're doomed to die. That's how powerful he is.
It's dark.
It's intense.
It's captivating.
Great performances by all, especially, the central characters, a depiction of inherent evil and good. It's not a question of varying degrees or moral uncertainty. And this film leaves no doubt about that.
Transcendence (2014)
Mind Boggling
Mind boggling, limited comprehension, tunnel vision, brazen ignorance? I'll go with that one.
The brazen ignorance displayed here, and other reviews, is nowhere as close to the thoughtful ignorance of the radical group, which has good reason to doubt the threat AI poses to the evolution of our species. Will humans survive, or is AI the road to extinction of our species?
At least, they are thoughtful, intelligent, and ignorant. But intelligence is hard to gauge, relative, and full of surprises. But there are no surprises here. And the argument for extinction is eloquently expressed by those other reviews.
In the meantime, relish the complexity of the human mind, how far it can travel, and the stops along the way to greater understanding.
That's enough for now.
Brain on Fire (2016)
The Credibility Factor
Whenever I watch a movie, I instinctively use a certain standard that is based on what I call the credibility factor. And this is related to endurance.
In some movies, it shows up early, like within the first 5 or 10 minutes. Some take 15 minutes. And typically, that's when I stop watching it. In other movies it takes longer to build, even though there are early indications of its presence. And, if you reach the 30 minute mark, you just might keep watching the movie just to see how bad that gets.
This movie is about a serious subject, a disease no one would wish upon anyone. And yet, the abnormal behavior here is so obvious that it's difficult to shrug off. But that's exactly what those who interact with the main character do. They witness the behavior. And ignore it.
Now that's not even what constitutes denial, which is a conscious and deliberate choice to avoid painful thoughts or experiences and emotions.
These characters do not suffer from denial. Even the psychiatrist can't do the arithmetic. Thus the behavior of the other characters is unnatural, a figment of a conflicted imagination.
It's hard to endure 40 minutes of that. It's just not natural.
Acts of Vengeance (2017)
Impressive
I'm mystified by the low ratings by viewers of this film. Ordinarily, I don't go for action movies, but this one, while not as intense and complex and thrilling as Survivor, which definitely had a larger Budget, because much of the film was shot on locations, has merits that make it more than worthwhile to watch.
Only one other reviewer mentioned the philosophical framework of this movie. Brief quotes precede each "chapter," as the scenes evolve, and provide a framework for the plot, and reinforce the behavior of the protagonist, Antonio Banderas, of course. The character is credible, which, of course, is vital.
That philosopher was actually Marcus Aurelius who was the last Roman Emperor during a period of stability and peace during the Roman Empire. He was a Stoic philosopher who produced an influential philosophical work, titled "Meditations". He was influenced by the giants of Western philosophy (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, as well as Seneca, Apollonius, and others). The quotes extracted from his "Meditations" are, not surprisingly, brief, but full of meaning, useful knowledge, simply phrased and understood by all.
The other thing not mentioned, but equally important about this film, is although you hear the protagonist's thoughts, he never speaks to any other character in the film, following the murder of his wife and daughter. He has taken the vow of silence, and sustains it throughout the film, which simply reinforces Banderas' strength as an actor and his excellent performance.
But apparently much of this was lost by those reviewers who had other standards and preferences.
It's definitely worth watching, for reasons already stated, and the "shaky" portions of the plot are, in the end, minor. Yes, this part of the plot could have more flesh, etc., but, hey, in the end, it didn't really matter.
It's a good film.
And that pretty much sums it up.
Z Nation (2014)
SyFy hits the jackpot
It just keeps getting better and better. What? My review is too short? Plato had a lot to say in single sentence. Shall we begin with Plato? Or simply accept a simple response?
Let's see.
Much better than most zombie apocalypse movies. I just began watching Season 2, Episode 5. The plot evolves and is unpredictable, but credible. It's a good journey through the apocalypse.
"Only the dead have seen the end of war" (Plato)
Is that enough?
Sure hope so.
Alien Warfare (2019)
What's on the Menu?
If I were a Navy Seal, I would be insulted by this movie's depiction of this military branch of soldiers. But most likely, an actual navy seal would treat these characters as nothing more than ticks, a minor nuisance on a mission in the tropics.
The characters have issues. They believe, for example, that their fancy military grade guns can penetrate the impenetrable shield of the aliens.
They can see it. And yet, they still keep shooting.
Then there's the personal drama, the sibling rivalry between the 2 brothers, who cannot put aside their issues - like which one will be the Alpha male?
Part of this elite team of 4, also includes a dude who's into smoothies. He wants his smoothie. It's time for his smoothie. But the mission has no smoothies scheduled. They're suppose to stop an alien invasion.
So if these dudes are supposed to save the human
species, well, then you can be assured that our species would be snuffed out like a candle.
The script writer, director and producer, et, al., need a shot of reality - What will people accept as credible, and what is beyond that, a major breach, a speck on the spectrum of absurdity?
But what's really scary? Who would invest in this type of trash? Is this what we've come to?
Calibre (2018)
Incentive
I actually did something I've avoided doing for years - logging into my account. But this film was the incentive I needed. I'm not going to write a lengthy review - that's my intention, at least - because I think a few words will suffice. But I've been wrong before.
After I searched the film here, I caught a glimpse of 2 reviews. It was the first that captured my attention. It was something like 6.7.
"Are you serious," I thought.
"A 6.7?
What's wrong with you?"
Let's see...
Aside from being a stellar production in every sense (cinematography, production, writing, direction, editing, a haunting sound track) the acting was so subdued and so powerful that you felt what the characters were feeling. They all knew who the guilty one was, but they never uttered his name, just as they all knew who the innocent one was, who had made a tragic error. And so they tested him.
The "friend," unconvincingly attempted to justify his actions by repeating a worn-out phrase, a phrase in shreds:
"I'm doing this to protect you."
But nothing he did justified his actions. And the character whose moral foundation, distinction between right and wrong, was so solid that nothing his "friend" said could ultimately dislodge that foundation.
He had what you would call a conscience and he was deeply remorseful, but as often happens, those are the ones who are the targets of far more sinister persons, and who often have difficulty challenging those who are aggressive.
That was the test.
That was the challenge.
Those type of experiences change you forever. Those trigger the loss of innocence but concurrently help you evolve into the person you can be under any given circumstance, however terrifying.
But once that's gone - once that innocence is gone, and under such grave moral conditions, you face a new challenge, in some ways just as daunting: living and coping with your decision.
And that's definitely not a 6.7.