Posted in: No Huddle Reviews by Brent Lorentson on December 10th, 2019
When it comes to movies that come from the The Asylum film company, you need to go into the film with the bar set pretty low. When I say low, a Troma film is nearly high art by comparison. By some miracle their film Sharknado has found an audience, but for all the wrong reasons. I can appreciate a cheesy B monster film; even a no-budget horror or action film can hold my interest. All I ask for is a decent story and I can forgive a film’s low budget or amateurish quality. But sometimes a movie comes along that is so bad it’s hard to find its redeeming qualities. D-Day: Battle of Omaha Beach is that film, and I can say with certainty that this is the worst film that I’ve seen this year. It’s one thing to be a bad film, but what bothered me most about this film is how shameless it is about simply making a buck off of the lives of soldiers who actually fought in WWII. You don’t need the budget of Saving Private Ryan to tell a good story about the war; all you need is a good story, a decent script, and some creativity, and you can make a good film.
The film is based on a true story about a group of soldiers who are sent behind enemy lines to take out some heavy-duty machine gun nests. The appeal of a “guys on a war mission” film is something I’m always willing to give a shot. The Dirty Dozen and Inglorious Bastards are two of the best films in the sub-genre, but there have been numerous films that take place in a variety of different wars. Really, it’s hard to not make a fun film in this sub-genre. The problem is that nothing about this film is believable. The film opens as the soldiers are prepping for the Normandy invasion; this was a huge battle that resulted in 1,000 deaths. As for this film’s attempt to bring this battle to life, well, it looks as though it were nothing more than a minor brawl that got out of control. Then there are the CGI ships. Really, it appears as though no attempt was made to make this look believable, but then again, while watching the invasion you’ll see numerous palm trees…I’m pretty sure there are no palm trees in France. The costumes are a mess. I’m pretty sure I saw patches that were not properly sewn on, and then there is my favorite bit: to mark the obvious Nazi foxholes, there are big Nazi flags draped around the opening. There is so much more to groan over, but this is only thirty minutes in.
Posted in: Disc Reviews by Gino Sassani on December 6th, 2019
"This is a story about control. My control. Control over what I say. Control about what I do."
Hustlers tells the "true" story of a team of strippers who found a way to turn the tables on their Wall Street clients and is based on a New York Magazine article by Jessica Pressler. It promises a pretty good time. I mean, think about it. Wall Street is the stuff of mustache-twirling villains these days. Brokers might have dropped beneath ambulance-chasing lawyers and used car salesmen as the people we love to hate. Throw in some strippers and a clever con that happens to target these modern bad guys, and it sounds like the kind of romp that has something in it for everybody. Well ... maybe not the Wall Street guys who go to the movies, you might say. Did I mention it's got strippers? At first blush the film reminds me a little too much of Paul Verhoeven's infamous Showgirls. The problem is that the schlock value of that film has allowed it to find its place in film history, and so it has survived in all its badness. Will the same be true of Hustlers? Or will it quickly vanish into a sea of obscurity before another couple of years are over? I have to say that I suspect it's the latter. By this time next year, you'll be asking a friend what the name of that stripper film with Jennifer Lopez was last year. Let me know if anyone remembers, won't you?
Posted in: Disc Reviews by Brent Lorentson on December 4th, 2019
When a film comes along directed by Richard Linklater, I’m always going to have a little interest in what he’s up to. He’s one of those directors I’ve followed from the 90’s that every few years he cranks out a film that I can’t help but enjoy. Dazed and Confused, his Before Sunrise series, Boyhood, Everybody Wants Some!!, School of Rock, and several other of his films are proof enough that he has a solid filmography, but he’s never quite been the guy to make a splash at the box office. Because of his track record, I’m a bit surprised to see his new film Where’d You Go, Bernadette managed to squeeze into the tail end of the summer when the trailers would have me thinking this could be an awards-caliber film. Well, as it turns out, the film is a swing and a miss. While I still enjoyed the film, it’s a bit frustrating, because this film seems like it’s so close to being something great, but it just manages to disappoint throughout.
Bernadette Fox (Cate Blanchett) is a bit of a mess, to put it lightly. She’s more than a little difficult to get along with, she heavily self-medicates, drinks, and seems to hate most people with the exception of her family. From the start it’s a bit difficult to decide if Bernadette is simply a quirky individual or if she is genuinely just an unlikeable person. The problem is the film doesn’t seem to know either, so with each awkward situation we see Bernadette get into, she just becomes a frustrating and tiresome character. We see she doesn’t get along with her neighbors, and her relationship with her husband, brilliant computer animator Elgie Branch, played by Billy Crudup, is odd in its own way as well. It’s hard to understand why they’d be on board for a last minute trip to Antarctica.
Posted in: Disc Reviews by Brent Lorentson on December 1st, 2019
For some the ‘haunted house’ sub-genre is a bit stale. Sure, there have been some great films and TV shows that have tackled the sub-genre, but many of the films tend to be recycled trash. Personally I’m a fan of haunted house flicks, even the bad ones I tend to find at least somewhat enjoyable. Mary may not fall into the classic definition of the haunted house film, mostly because it takes place on a yacht and in the Atlantic Ocean, but really it plays by the same rules. Seeing a familiar story unfold in a different location, where the characters have no place to run to, is enough to inject new life into a stale story, but is it enough to keep viewers engaged to the very end? Mary is a ship that that David (Gary Oldman) finds at a boat auction and ends up purchasing with hopes of turning it into a vacation sailboat his family can use to run a business with. To say Mary is a “fixer-upper” would be the understatement of the decade, as it seems to be falling apart from the inside out. We’ve seen it before, where the protagonist finds some busted-up car, bike, boat, etc., and what follows is the required montage of the protagonist fixing up the boat. Well, the film of course delivers the montage, but as montages go this one is lame … It’s as though the filmmakers never saw a film in the 80’s ( a time when every film seemed to have a montage cued by some 80’s pop or rock song). It doesn’t take long before his family suspects that there could be something wrong with the boat. Now here’s the fun little tidbit: David is struggling to patch things up with his wife Sarah (Emily Mortimer) after discovering she had cheated on him. So yes, David’s need to repair the ship is indeed a metaphor for his need to repair his marriage. Honestly, having Sarah’s affair brought into the story is simply a distraction from the plot. When you consider the film is only 84 minutes, it becomes too much drama to attempt to flesh out in such a short amount of time, and because of this wasted time, it does take away from us getting attached to these characters.
Another issue I have with the film is that it is told in flashbacks; basically Sarah is in police custody and is telling her story to Detective Clarkson (Jennifer Esposito). Here is a huge problem: if you’ve seen The Usual Suspects, you will see through this movie. Had this film kept it simple and just told a linear story it would have been fine, but in its attempt to be clever this film falls apart so quickly. Everything surrounding the story on the boat works fine, but these scenes between Sarah and the detective ruin all the tension that the film has been building for itself. Most damning is that it reveals the demise of characters and the survival of others. Even when the film delivers a fun back-story to the ship, this fun twist has already been ruined, because we know from the start Sarah is telling the story about what happened on the ship.
Posted in: Disc Reviews by Archive Authors on November 27th, 2019
The most amazing thing about The Handmaid’s Tale — other than a powerhouse lead performance from the best actress working in television right now — is that this harrowing, suddenly timely cautionary tale about what happens when society falls asleep at the wheel is based on a story that was published more than 30 years ago. Of course, the show has a lot more going for it than impeccable timing. The Handmaid’s Tale is based on Canadian writer Margaret Atwood’s 1985 novel of the same name. Sometime in the not-so-distant future, the world is in chaos after environmental pollution and sexually transmitted diseases result in a catastrophic decline in human fertility rates. In the U.S., the result was Second Civil War, which led to the establishment of a totalitarian, Christian fundamentalist government known as Gilead. And while life isn’t exactly a picnic for anyone outside of Gilead’s elite ruling class, life is especially dire for women: they are not allowed to own property, work, handle money, or read. Much of this information is revealed in dribs and drabs over what is now three seasons.
The Handmaid’s Tale is created by Bruce Miller, a writer producer who worked on SyFy’s Eureka and The CW’s The 100. The former series offered a cracked-mirror, off-center version of reality, while the latter is a post-apocalyptic drama: both sensibilities proved extremely beneficial for Handmaid’s. A large share of the credit also goes to Reed Morano, who won a directing Emmy for her work on the pilot and established the show’s spellbinding visual tone by helming the first three episodes.
Posted in: No Huddle Reviews by Gino Sassani on November 27th, 2019
"There is a doorway in the universe. Beyond it is the promise of truth. It demands we question everything we have ever been taught. The evidence is all around us. We are not alone. We have never been alone."
Ever since Eric von Daniken released his speculative book and its subsequent 1970 film Chariots of the Gods, there has been an entire field of study created around something commonly called Ancient Astronaut Theory, the idea is that extraterrestrials have visited many of our ancient civilizations. The theory continues that these visitors had a hand in shaping our development, whether it be through technology or even manipulation of our very DNA. These believers point to a world of evidence to support their claims. There are tons of images from earlier civilizations that could certainly be interpreted as depicting modern devices, concepts, or even spacemen. There is plenty of speculation that some of the knowledge and accomplishments of these peoples could not have been possible without some outside interference. There are even those who believe that aliens best explain our religious beliefs and that God himself was/is an extraterrestrial being. Whatever your own beliefs on the subject, there are certainly some fascinating points to be made. There is no question that the speculations and observations bring up some interesting queries that deserve our attention. This series attempts to document much of this evidence and the beliefs these findings have inspired.
Posted in: Disc Reviews by Gino Sassani on November 22nd, 2019
"He picked me out of a pile of pups, a tangled mass of paws and tails. He'd stopped at the farm on his way home from the speedway at Yakima. Even back then, I knew I was different than other dogs. My soul just felt more human."
There was a time when this kind of film would have been reviewed by Baby, the German Shepherd/Chow who used to run security here at Upcomingdiscs as well as fill in for the occasional dog film review. Baby's gone, and we haven't yet trained Aurora the Siberian Husky who resides at Upcomingdiscs to pitch in on reviews. The problem is getting her to put her ball down long enough to pay enough attention, let alone write a review. But we're working on it. Until then these duties have fallen back to me, the occasional dog lover, which usually depends on what Aurora is up to at any particular moment. As Baby would have said: "Let's not talk about that right now." The task at hand is another talking dog film which followed quickly on the heels of A Dog's Purpose and its sequel A Dog's Journey along with the most recent A Dog's Way Home. It's a trend that has produced some emotional moments at the cinema for those of us who have spent a large part of their lives with our canine companions. This time out we have The Art Of Racing In The Rain, which is based on the novel by Garth Stein. If you're hoping to have that same kind of emotional ride that these other films brought, I think you'll be in for a little disappointment.
Posted in: No Huddle Reviews by Jeremy Butler on November 22nd, 2019
Whistleblowing is a difficult decision. You are part of an organization, and you believe in that organization. Speaking out against that organization (yes, I know I’m overusing the word) at times can seem like ratting out family. Not to mention the downside. We all say that there will not be reprisal for whistleblowing, but more often than not, there is. However, that doesn’t mean that if you see wrongdoing that you should sit idly by and do nothing. Most believe that inaction is as bad as committing the act yourself. But when the organization you are speaking out against is the United States government, that is another animal entirely. Official Secrets portrays the real-life actions of Katherine Gun, a translator who back in 2003 leaked classified information exposing a conspiracy to facilitate the war against Iraq. Keira Knightly portrays our whistleblower with an all-star cast that includes Matthew Smith, Matthew Goode, Rhys Ifans, and Ralph Fiennes.
A key factor with this biographical adaptation is historical accuracy. There are always some aspect that are sensationalized to make the story more interesting and engaging. I did some research, and as near as I can tell this portrayal is pretty accurate of the events that transpired; even the names are accurate. Katherine Gun worked worked for the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), a British intelligence agency. During her employment, she received an email from a high-ranking U.S. intelligence official requesting aid in a secret and illegal operation to bug the United Nations offices of six nations: Angola, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, and Pakistan. The purpose of the clandestine operation was to gain leverage over these countries to force their support to prompt the United Nations Security Council to approve the invasion of Iraq.
Posted in: Disc Reviews by Brent Lorentson on November 22nd, 2019
I have to be honest; when I got this title and saw that Jim Gaffigan was starring, I didn’t know what to expect, but I went into this film with some low expectations. I’m a fan of Gaffigan, and I own a few of his stand-up albums, but seeing him headlining a thriller, well, it was a tough leap for me. Now that I’ve seen the film, I got to say I’m impressed by what he pulled off with this film. That being said, as I was watching this film, I couldn’t help but see a similarity between Gaffigan and the late Philip Seymour Hoffman. I doubt this was intentional, and perhaps it’s just my subconscious attempting to make these connections, but Gaffigan’s performance in this film is on par with many of the performances we saw from Hoffman in his later years. As for the film, American Dreamer follows Cam (Gaffigan), a down-on-his-luck schlub who at one point was living the American dream: a good job, a nice home, and a wife and child. Then he lost his job, and everything else seemed to disappear around him. Now he’s a driver for a ride share company, where he struggles with paying child support and has had a bit of a mental breakdown. Early in the film we get to see him in a parking lot near an airport, watching as planes are coming and going, and its obvious Cam is dreaming of an escape from his life. He ends up getting a fare that has him driving a small-time drug dealer, Mazz (Robbie Jones) around town. The setup here seems simple, as it establishes who both of these men are, but over the course of one night we’ll see these men make some difficult decisions, and by the time the film ends, you will definitely feel differently about these characters.
After reading the blurb on the back of the Blu-ray and starting this film, I was a little worried that this would be something akin to Collateral meets Falling Down. When we see Cam come to his breaking point and he decides to kidnap Mazz’s son, sure, it’s a drastic leap for someone to make, but the way the writers and director handle this situation, it still remains in the realm of possibility. That pretty much is how the rest of the film plays out; there are a lot of worst-case scenarios that happen to both Cam and Mazz, and it’s what keeps the viewer on the hook. What I was most impressed by is how co-writer and director Derrick Borte wasn’t afraid to go dark with this film, because there are a few decisions made in this film that are pretty risky, and most filmmakers would avoid entering this territory, but personally I think it’s the risk that makes this film work. (It would be a huge spoiler if I were to say what this risk was.) But by taking that risk, the viewer knows anything can happen in this film. and it’s what literally kept me guessing at how this would all end for Cam and Mazz.
Posted in: No Huddle Reviews by Gino Sassani on November 19th, 2019
"Make a little noise. Ruffle a few feathers."
I should confess from the beginning that I am a very dedicated Star Trek fan. I'm not a Trekkie or a Trekker, I'm a fan. I have often allowed my fan status to cause me to embrace the franchise even when it wasn't necessarily so good. As a young 15-year-old kid I attended the first 10:00 AM showing of Star Trek: The Motion Picture with a handful of friends on the opening day. We stayed through six showings and left sometime after midnight the following day, occupying the front row center and subsisting off the day's more limited concession offerings. Basically candy, popcorn and soda. Little has changed except for the lack of responsibilities that would allow me to spend 14 hours watching a single film over and over again. I'm still reluctant to dismiss anything Star Trek, but that's nearly what happened as I watched the first season of Star Trek: Discovery last year.
