Change Your Image
d_vsbrgh
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
I See You (2019)
A decent thriller with some surprises
Things are not going well for psychologist Dr. Jackie Harper ( Helen Hunt) and her police detective husband Gary( Jon Tenney) due to the former's marital indiscretion. Jackie is attempting to make amends but is getting nowhere, especially with her angst riddled teenage son Conner(Judah Lewis) who blames her for the current family dynamic.
When a local boy goes missing, Detective Harper is assigned lead on the case, adding to his already stressful domestic situation. He and his partner, Detective Spitzky( Gregory Alan Williams) soon realize that this case resembles a child abduction case from fifteen years ago. A case where Spitzky was the arresting officer and is positive they got the right guy.
Simultaneously, strange things begin occurring at the Harper residence. Items go missing, televisions and record players turn on by themselves, and other seemingly unexplainable things happen. Each member of the household is aware of the strange goings on but since no one is speaking to the other, the mystery remains unsolved.
Are the unusual occurrences at home somehow connected to the missing child case? That is the question, and one I cannot answer without spoiling the movie.
The tension is ratcheted up by director Adam Randall by using a creepy minimalist score as well as overhead and point-of-view shots giving the viewer the feeling that the characters are being watched by someone or something. As with any good thriller there are some plot twists and turns along the way. Unfortunately, when the twists are revealed, they raise as many new questions as they answer.
The performances by the leads are, at best, fair. Hunt spends most of the movie walking around with her mouth agape in a constant stunned/surprised/horrified expression. Tenney's performance is restrained and may have been better handled by someone with better chops( for some reason Mark Ruffalo comes to mind). The supporting cast, however, is actually quite good and their performances carry the second half of the movie.
Overall, it is a solid effort despite several plot holes but would likely be enjoyed by anyone who is a fan of the genre and probably a few who are not.
Extinction (2018)
A lot to like but not without its flaws
Extinction is a Sci-Fi action drama set, as so many are, sometime in the future. Michael Pena stars as Peter, a mild-mannered technician who has been bothered with nightmares centered around a feeling of impending doom he can't quite figure out. His wife Alice, played by Lizzy Caplan, is worried about him and his two daughters feel neglected as he is distracted by these visions.
At a house party celebrating Alice's recent promotion at work, Peter's worries are realized when strange lights appear in the sky and what appear to be alien ships descend on the earth and commence an attack. Peter tries to use what he remembers from his dreams to help his family escape the attack and find a safe haven.
What follows is a mostly entertaining mix of action and drama that focuses more on a man trying to keep his family together and alive during impossible circumstances rather than trying to simply blow up as many things as possible ala "Independence Day" and the like.
There are many things to like about this movie. The story is an original take on the standard alien invasion genre. Unfortunately, what makes it original cannot be divulged without major spoiler alerts. The invasion sequence is done very well and creates genuine tension as Peter tries to get his family out of their apartment building as it is overrun with aliens. It reminded me of Brad Pitt trying to get his family to safety in the early minutes of "World War Z". It starts slow but builds to a good pace and keeps it throughout the rest of the film, clocking in at a tidy one hour and thirty-five minutes.
The acting is acceptable but not great. I have enjoyed Michael Pena before in his many supporting roles but see why this is his first attempt at a leading role. The special effects are fair but one must keep in mind this is Netflix and not Warner Brothers or Paramount. The budgets are smaller. I would have liked a little more backstory on certain aspects of the film and think this movie may have been better served at maybe an hour and forty-five minutes.
The "twist" that many reviewers have alluded to is not easy to figure out but those who are paying close attention in the first half an hour might be able to predict it. Speaking of other reviewers. It's not my habit of mentioning other reviews since this is simply my opinion and everyone is entitled to theirs but anyone who rates this a 1 or for that matter even a 10, should not be allowed to put their reviews on this site. This movie is by far not one of the worst ever made and neither is it one of the best. These unrealistic reviews skew the overall ratings and render the ratings useless.
This movie is a solid sci-fi effort and anyone who enjoys the genre should, in my opinion, give it a try.
True Story (2015)
True Story comes up short
True Story is based on the novel by Mike Finkel recounting his relationship with Christian Longo(James Franco), a man accused of murdering his wife and three children. Finkel(Jonah Hill)is a young up and coming journalist writing for the New York Times when his career is derailed after he plays a little fast and loose with some facts of a recently published article. While trying to plan the next chapter in his professional life he receives a call from a reporter looking to get an angle on the story about Longo. It seems that he was using Finkel's identity when he was captured in Mexico. Finkel is naturally curious but also smells a story that could put his career back on track.
Finkel and Longo arrange to meet and what follows are a series of meetings where both men engage in a dialogue meant to extract as much information as possible from the other. But how much of what Longo shares is the truth? How does Finkel use the information he gets?
The main problem with this movie is the pay-off, or the lack thereof. The story is simply not as interesting as it sounds. Honestly, it's no ones fault. The direction by first timer Rupert Goold is solid, well paced, and true to the story. The acting is good even if it is a little weird to see Hill and Franco together in serious roles. The best way to describe it might be we all know someone(friend or family member) who is excited to tell a story of something that happened to them or something they witnessed and when they are done, looking to you for a reaction, all you can say is "Is that it?"
The most compelling aspect of the film is Finkel coming to grips with the fact that he has to determining what is the truth and what is a lie. Not unlike his readers had to do after reading his last story for the Times. One liar interrogating another.
In the end, the build up leads to very little. The ride was interesting but the destination was a big disappointment.
American Sniper (2014)
Cooper shines in Eastwood's imperfect war drama
American Sniper tells the story of Chris Kyle, an Iraqi war veteran and Navy SEAL who during four tours of duty became known as America's most deadly sniper. A good 'ol boy from Texas who spent much of his early adulthood without purpose, attempting to be a cowboy and getting into fights. This all changes when our embassy's are bombed in Africa and the American public first hears of Al-Qaeda. Kyle finds his purpose and enlists in the Navy.
Bradley Cooper is excellent as Kyle and deserving of his third consecutive Oscar nod. The rest of the cast of primarily unknowns performs well under the steady direction of Clint Eastwood. Make no mistake that, although this is a tale of duty and sacrifice, Eastwood's conservative leanings are more than readily apparent. Also, the fact that it is based on Kyle's own book leaves us with a feeling we aren't being told the whole story, or at least not objectively.
Unfortunately, many people have a difficult time separating the soldier who is doing his job and following orders from the politics that sent him or her there. This clouds their view of what for the most part is an entertaining and well crafted film.
We feel for his family as they miss him each time he gets deployed and how they cope when Kyle comes home, struggling to find normalcy. Kyle is besieged with the sounds and visions of the battlefield when home and consistently dwells on his unfinished business overseas.
The combat scenes are well done and impactful. However, the constant reminder that he is "a legend" in the military community, from people he meets at home and abroad, gets to be a little tiresome after a while. I also thought his personal battle against a skilled Iraqi sharpshooter named "Mustafa" was a little ham-handed.
In the end Eastwood crafts a film that effectively shows the horrors of combat and how those horrors deeply affect the soldier's home life. I leave the decision of whether Kyle is an all-American Hero or perhaps something else, up to you.
Get on Up (2014)
Solid effort from all involved
Chronicling the life of a musical icon so diverse and controversial is a daunting task to say the least. Director Tate Taylor takes on the responsibility of bringing this larger than life entertainer to the big screen and for the most part, succeeds.
Chadwick Boseman, fresh off his performance of another 20th century legend, Jackie Robinson, handles the role with precision. He has his moves, his mannerisms, and his drive to succeed down. He is joined by Tate's fellow "The Help" actors Nelsan Ellis(as Bobby Byrd) and Octavia Spencer(as Aunt Honey)as well as Dan Ackroyd(as Ben Bart)and Viola Davis as his mother, Susie Brown.
Brown's rise from poverty, his brushes with the law, and his relationship with friend and collaborator Bobby Byrd are expertly brought to life. The musical numbers are well done, if sometimes a little too long. All the performances are solid.
The decision to tell the story in constant flashbacks and flash forwards does become a little irritating. It causes the film to lose its way a few times and there were instances where I lost track of who some of the minor players were in Brown's story. Brown's relationship with his wife and son are glossed over as is his life and career from the mid 70's to the mid 80's. But, with a career spanning nearly five decades, not everything can be treated equally.
Not as good as recent musical biopics "Ray" and "Walk the Line", "Get on Up" still delivers an entertaining and music filled story.
Lucy (2014)
Girl with a gun ... and brains
"Lucy" marks Luc Besson's return as writer and director of a big budget action flick,the first since "The Fifth Element" seventeen years ago. Along for the ride is Scarlett Johansson, who has spent the last few years honing her action chops at Marvel Studios and the prolific Morgan Freeman.
The story revolves around Lucy(Johansson), no last name given, who is duped by a shady boyfriend to deliver a briefcase to a Taiwanese gangster named Mr. Jang(Min-Sik Choi). The contents of said case holds a new designer drug that Mr. Jang wishes to distribute throughout Europe using "volunteers", Lucy being one of them, as mules by surgically implanting bags of the stuff in their intestines. Lucy's bag ruptures inside her and the drug circulates through her body with unexpected results; she has the ability to access more of her brain than any human has ever before.
What follows is a high octane pursuit of the remaining bags of drugs. Lucy wants them for herself, Mr. Jang would, of course, like his merchandise back. As her brain power increases, we are updated periodically with screen shots informing us of the current percentage of her brain being used. Unfortunately this is where the movie loses it's focus. It becomes a mix of questionable science and gunfights with an ending that is "The Lawnmower Man" meets "Transcendence".
You may have noticed that I haven't mentioned Mr. Freeman yet. His talents, I'm afraid, are wasted here. As Professor Norman, he serves only to inform the audience of the "science" involved.
In the end, I feel this would have been a better movie if they stuck to Lucy simply enacting some revenge on the drug lord who enslaved her. Using, of course, her ever increasing intelligence and a Glock 42. Johansson proves she can handle the action scenes and carry a big budget film. I am already looking forward to her own Black Widow movie.
Under the Skin (2013)
Style over substance
I, like many of you, enjoy a movie that makes me think or allows me to draw my own conclusions as to what the writer or director intended regarding certain themes or plot points. I, however, do not enjoy a movie that makes me think, "What the heck is going on here?" I don't need everything spelled out for me but a nudge in the right direction certainly would have helped.
The story, if you could call it that, follows a mysterious woman(Scarlett Johansson) trolling the streets of Glasgow, Scotland looking for lonely, unattached men, seducing them with the promise of a sexual encounter. She brings them back to her lair where they disappear in a pool of black liquid. She is assisted by a man on a motorcycle whose job it is, apparently, to make sure she stays focused on her task and clean up any messes. He manages to do this without saying a word. She eventually has second thoughts about her "mission" and goes out on a journey of self discovery.
I did not read the source material, a novel by Michael Faber, nor had I seen any of the director's previous efforts. I have heard, however, that the movie is a significant departure from the book. I had also heard Jonathan Glazer mentioned alongside Nicholas Roeg, David Lynch, and even Stanley Kubrick. The thing he has in common with these accomplished directors is their desire to take risks and disregard convention. I'm afraid that's where the comparison ends.
As for the good, the cinematography is beautiful and Johansson does what she can with a part that requires her to speak very little and show even less emotion.
The bad unfortunately far exceeds the good. The pace of the movie is mind numbingly slow and not helped by Glazer's desire to hold shots for far too long. There is very little dialog and what dialog there is lends very little to the story and is difficult to understand. We get no indication as to what is truly going on and why. Way too much is left for us to figure out. When some things are revealed at the end we either already had it figured out or stopped caring.
In the end, the movie is style over substance. An art house film that doesn't really entertain, but merely confuses.