Change Your Image
TheTrthHrts
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Spectre (2015)
In short: excellent. Superior to "Skyfall" in literally every way...
Firstly, "Skyfall" is, without question, the most obscenely overrated "Bond" film in all of Bond history. At best, it was a mediocre Dark Knight ripoff with a laughably silly villain and a climax that has to be seen to know just how ridiculous it (and the entire film) is.
If Skyfall was a 6 out of 10, then Spectre, *vastly* superior in every way a film could be superior, and arguably Craig's *best* film as Bond (thankfully, his last), is at least an 8 out of ten. Better action, better villain, better plot, better Bond girls, better Q (not quite so annoying this time around), better...everything! Forget the critical hive0mind, forget Skyfall, and watch this film with an open mind. If you're a longtime Bond fan (and I don't mean "Bond"), you will enjoy this one!
The Visit (2015)
Folks, this wasn't meant to be comedy...
...and no matter what some would like to call it, it was absolutely brilliant. Know that you must watch the film twice to fully appreciate it; I'll assume that approximately zero percent of film "critics" took this action, which is reflected in many of their reviews (which frequently mention "comedy" elements). There's nothing funny about the grandparents here, which can only be understood upon revelation of the "twist," and the second viewing, as mentioned, when everything is clear. Forget what you've heard, and prepare to be terrified, should you understand what it is that you're watching! Give this movie a chance, and then watch it again!
Southpaw (2015)
Gyllenhaal is so much better than this tripe...
5.5/10
In the interest of brevity, if you've seen any other "defeated boxer makes a comeback" film, there's absolutely no reason to see this film; Gyllenhaal's physique is the only impressive element of it (performance: "play the dumbest guy possible" (more or less true of any boxing film, of course)). As cliché as possible, I frankly should have known better (given the history of the director, the inclusion of 50 "B-Movie" Cent, and Forrest "once near A-list, but washed up long ago" Whittaker. Alas, hope overtook common sense, and I suffered, totally needlessly, through two hours of this idiotic, redundant mess.
(In other words, don't bother.) (Even more disappointingly, the Blu-Ray features include nothing, specifically, of Gyllenhaal's training regiment or body composition (weight/body fat percentage, etc.)...only that he was "dedicated." Ya think?)
Interstellar (2014)
Finally, Nolan's full potential as a "filmmaker" has been realized...
Contrary to what some other reviewers have stated, I believe that this film has *finally* fully realized *every bit* of Nolan's potential as a filmmaker: it's the ultimate pseudointellectual-targeted hack job (created by he who will be remembered as a "hack," in time--perhaps the most overrated director in all of film's history). Despite Nolan's prior efforts to make the most visually numbing, emotionally devoid, utterly mindless "spectacles" as possible (in the name of box office returns, and in turn, stuffed pockets), there was always something missing: "science." Oh, yes; nothing draws the pseudointellectual like discussion of "science," "physics," and "astronomy." It matters not that the "science," as demonstrated by so many other reviewers here, is totally bogus, in this case; what matters is that the Nolan cultist believes that he finally has a valid defense: the movie is so "scientific" and "intellectual" that the "average person" "couldn't possibly understand the movie." If there's nothing of intellectual value to "understand," in fact, then this is the issue--not an inability to comprehend what simply isn't present. "...but he had Kip Winger (whoever) help write the script--and he's a genius!" That may be true, but the target audience here isn't scientists--it's you. Joe Average. Mr. 100 IQ. Mr. "I think I'm smarter than I am, and must try to convince others of this by stating that Nolan's films are the work of a genius." The film was written, quite simply, to confuse you and your mainstream film-going friends into submission.
Let's talk about casting. Matthew Mc-Con-ah-hey (I don't care how his name is spelled)--as an engineer. An engineer--formerly employed by NASA, of all agencies that employ engineers! Throughout the entire duration of the film (not unlike his have-to-be-intentionally-pretentious Lincoln commercials), he plays Matthew Mc-Con-a-hey. To clarify, at no point in this film does he not appear to be under the influence of a certain substance that precludes truly intellectual thought, much less "engineering." No. Caine: his presence, while not unexpected within a Nolan film, wasn't unexpected within a Nolan film. Catwoman: same story (to a lesser, newer, more unwelcome extent). Next, we have has-beens and never-weres like Bentley, Grace, Affleck, in obvious "help me--I'll work for free" supporting roles that do nothing but provide another source of ridicule (and let's not even talk about Damon--"Matt Damon...," who was out of place and nearly ridiculous, here). Kudos for including Oyelowo, though he should have been the star of the film; thus, the engineer (as opposed to a hillbilly well known for gaining fame via rom-coms)--perhaps you could make this happen with your next failed effort to replicate much better films. Tarantino (a true genius, with an Einstonian IQ of ~160--so likely fifty points higher than Nolan's) has the power to turn around dying careers by including them within "worthwhile" films that gain attention and respect because they're "worthwhile" (as opposed to cattle feed designed to rake in dollars using "intellectual" and "class" appeal as just-thick-enough veils to herd in the narcissistic masses). Anyway, it may well be the case that, Mr. Lucidity excluded, these are the only actors whose status has fallen so low that only they are willing to play along with the charade that Nolan's dialogue has become since "Dark Batman, the First (unbelievably, not the worst)?" (Liked Memento and Insomia.)
Moderately visually impressive (though a far cry from "2001," the truly spectacular film that this sorry effort tries so desperately, yet clearly fails, to aspire to match on some level), Interstellar is just another vapid "spectacle" that will bore anyone of true intelligence to tears within its first overlong half. There's simply nothing else to say about this failed (or highly successful) effort, most unfortunately, except that it should be avoided at nearly all costs if something truly intellectually stimulating (see: won't put you to sleep) is what you're after.
Oh, and please provide Zimmer with a double-dose of Valium during the writing process, going forward.
Nightcrawler (2014)
Good, but lessened by far too obvious product placement...
"Bed Bath and Beyond...that's a great store." This was perhaps the best example--we're meant to think that the individual making the statement is simply a brainless bag of flesh , but no--we're meant to think about Bed Bath and Beyond being "great" the next time we pass the sign on the highway.
The watch--oh dear, the watch. A Breitling Chronomat Evolution. Beautiful. Anyway, the camera never actually gets quite close enough to show us exactly what we're looking at (rumor has it that that is because the watch was a replica...), but "hey--that is a beautiful watch...I want to know what it is!" (Google follows.) (Incidentally, you won't find many rent-a-cops wearing them--the retail value is nearly $7,000.)
The car. Oh, dear lord, the car. Not since The Last Stand (dreadful "film," incidentally) has a car been such an obvious advertisement. He's finally paid well enough to splurge on a new vehicle (with cash, apparently, assuming his credit is horrible given his previous financial situation...but this is beside the point), and what does he get? A revisionist muscle car, in red, that couldn't attract more attention if it had lights and a siren. Probably not the best choice for someone operating inconspicuously until the moment of contact.
Now, I'm certain that I missed at least a few other examples that were less obvious, but the point here is that the above mentioned items significantly reduced the quality of the film, given how distracting they were. It isn't coincidence, folks. It's obvious, it's blatant, and it's sad to see such obvious assaults on folks' intelligence within what is otherwise an intelligent, excellent portrayal of just how sick modern media is (or was that the viewers...).
Whiplash (2014)
Rather silly, and ultimately borderline ridiculous...
6.5/10
So basically, this is "R. Lee Ermey does conductor," and it's therefore as comical as you might imagine that it would be. Initially, the story shows signs of finesse, but it quickly descends into a juvenile, unrealistic, completely-over-the-top portrayal of a purely psychotic individual who'd never have been tolerated by anyone for any length of time.
Oh--so he's suspected of causing a suicide. Just one, and seemingly moments before the new guy took the seat. How long has The Terminator been conducting (he looks rather old)? He only recently became completely psychotic? I suppose that it isn't impossible--but it isn't great writing, either.
Oh--people just get nailed by big trucks at 40 mph, then, not walk, but *run* away (forgetting that leaving the scene of an accident is a crime that he apparently wasn't held accountable for). Got it.
Further, I'm not sure that the awards were warranted, as this is essentially J.K. Rowling (whatever his name is) taking *himself* (based on his prior films) to the extreme. Is this acting, or is this simply his personality?
Understand that this is nowhere near as sophisticated a piece of film as it tries to be, but try to enjoy it merely as a piece of snuff--that's essentially all it is.
Lucy (2014)
An insult to legitimately intelligent people...
Well, I'm not a genius, but on a great day, I can hit the "borderline" range (IQ 135, give or take).
This is one of the "dumbest" darn films I have ever had the displeasure of experiencing, and, of course, the irony is that it purports to demonstrate what would happen if individuals became more intelligent by using more of their brains. (Incidentally, we already use 100%, so the entire premise of this film is absurd.)
It's quite clear that whoever wrote this film has no understanding of intelligence or the human brain. We aren't superheroes waiting to happen. An IQ of 200 doesn't give us the ability to (literally) telepathically control other people (figuratively, perhaps, but many folks with IQs near 200 tend bar for a living) *or electrons*. An IQ of 400 won't make us telekinetic. An IQ of 1000 wouldn't suddenly permit us to dissolve into a sludge of matter that can somehow mesh with computing hardware (or time travel, incidentally--time travel isn't a real concept, nor is time, despite this film's simplistic notion that it's everything). (Forgive me if I have my "percentage brain used" vs. abilities mixed up--I simply couldn't care less, and it matters not.)
In sum, there is only this: what in the world were they "thinking?" The next time you write a script, *have an intelligent person read it before you market it to studios who only want to exploit people of average capability and below*. Please and thanks.
Smart people: avoid this film like the plague--if you must see a film regarding an ordinary man who uses a drug to become much smarter, see "Limitless." (That's right--"Lucy" isn't remotely original, either.)
Gone Girl (2014)
Completely and utterly absurd; Fincher's most disappointing film...
As always, please pardon the incorrect use of parentheses below--IMDb doesn't allow brackets for some highly bizarre and illogical reason:
6 of 10 (for respectable acting, a solid score, great direction, and moderate entertainment value (zero of ten for the "story"))
This film (and likely the book it was based upon) was clearly "designed" for people of average intellect and appreciation of true storytelling skill--it's just that "simple." To be sure, the first hour is somewhat promising, but the film quickly goes off the rails the moment it begins, in explicit detail (leaving *nothing* of the story to the imagination), describing just how this apparent psychopath (hmmm...incredibly silly character arc) went about pulling off her perfect crime.
The entire time I viewed these sequences, I believed that they were purely Affleck's character's fantasies, or perhaps visions of a future retelling of what had happened that he'd imagined as he goes. Alas, the story, as it is told, leaves absolutely *nothing* to mystery, clearly indicating that the target audience of this *patently absurd, unintelligent, unimaginative, and tired* "story" was the lowest common denominator (no surprise, then, that it's currently in the top 250 (see Marvel and Nolan films for reference: the average person has no appreciation of storytelling prowess)).
If you're expecting something of intelligence, look elsewhere--you will be disappointed. We've seen this film, in superior form, many, many times, and Fincher's typically high-quality direction alone isn't enough to propel the lack of intellectual content on display here above "below average." (It's also at least thirty minutes too long--you'll regret having spent 2.5 hours of your life on this humdrum "caper.")
Edge of Tomorrow (2014)
Nope...not worthy of its praise and hype...
6.5/10
*please pardon the forced incorrect use of nested parentheses; apparently, IMDb believes anything in a bracket is "markup" ...
So, essentially all I've heard and read of this movie is that it's an under-appreciated work of genius that should serve as inspiration for all future sci-fi movies. Unfortunately, the reality is that this movie offers precisely zero original concepts, nothing remotely close to anything requiring intelligence to decipher (it's literally Pacific Rim (horrid), Independence Day (horrid), Source Code (decent, but overrated), and Aliens (yep: excellent) tossed into a blender, the mix being even bitterer than the majority of the individual ingredients), and is simply unworthy of the baseless critical acclaim it appears to have received since failing spectacularly at the American box office. When not even the excellent Tom Cruise, Emily Blunt, and Doug Liman can save a totally unworthy script that offers literally nothing that hasn't been done before (and done better, numerous times), you know you have a "problem film" that shouldn't have been green-lit.
To be sure, I went into this movie expecting it to be the under-appreciated work it's been touted as; I personally enjoyed Oblivion (surprisingly superior to this film in literally every way) quite a bit, thanks in no small part to Tom Cruise's ineffable charisma that's made him the greatest movie star of all time (in my opinion). Obviously, despite the fact that his image has essentially been destroyed through a fabricated scenario involving couch-jumping (from what I've read, it was manufactured and coerced), he remains one of the most appealing actors working today. (Granted, there were the Scientology issues--that was entirely Cruise's doing...) I expected to be bored by the necessary repetition that the script requires (Groundhog Day), but impressed by everything else; that was simply not the case. The script is unintelligent and clearly aimed not at the "superior" filmgoers of the day, but the average box office-goer/gamer (see below) who will appreciate (publicly or privately) what he's seen before (a hundred times, at this point) with the added elements of supposed "class" and "intelligence," neither of which are anywhere to be found within this film (most disappointingly).
Of course, a major marketing point of this film is that it "replicates the respawning frequently seen within modern video games." The film borrows very heavily from the Crysis series (if you've played the games, I'm sure you'll agree), as well as numerous other "run and gun" game series (aren't they all, nowadays). That's great and all, but this unfortunately doesn't translate into an exciting concept for a film; it's about as entertaining as watching someone play a mediocre modern throwaway video game. In other words, it's generally exceptionally boring. By the last half hour of this film, I was astounded by how boring and humdrum it had become, with an ending that defies all logic and invalidates any "character development" that's come before it. Worse, said character development is nearly non-existent, Cruise's protagonist is an obvious coward unworthy of subsequent praise (the actions of his character are highly unlikely, given the way the film initially portrays him), and the pseudo-relationship that almost kinda-sorta develops between Cruise and Blunt is entirely dull, misdirected, and insipid.
In short, if you were disappointed by Oblivion and were counting on this film to represent the "true potential" of a modern Tom Cruise sci-fi spectacle, think again. Re-rent Oblivion, disregard the critical indifference it received, and recognize it as being far superior to this failed effort to capitalize on recent sci-fi trash. After that, re-rent Minority Report. Forget this film.
p.s. as they essentially retitled this movie, I had to do a double-take when renting it from Vudu; I wasn't sure if it was a lengthy set of bonus features of "Edge of Tomorrow," the film that I intended to rent. Don't retitle films simply because they failed at the box office, guys. Please and thanks.