rudy-maximilian-iii
Rudy Maximilian III's Reviews
Rudy Maximilian III reviews movies. Tagline: Ebert in blue. Location: Above you.
99 posts
Don't wanna be here? Send us removal request.
Last Seen Blogs
Text
Movie review: Hillbilly Elegy (2020)
I was kind of disappointed to see during the end credits that this was based on a true story, a memoir no less. That's why I'll put 4 stars instead of 4.5.
Watching all Golden Globes nominated movies, this one was one of the standouts with a well-written and paced story that, albeit somewhat predictable, managed to stay entertaining and believable at the same time.
This is the early life story of J.D. Vance, who gets pushed to try to escape the pitfalls of his environment by his grandmother ('mamaw'). Think parallels with Felix van Groeningen's 2009 film 'The Misfortunates', which is basically the same movie (also an autobiographical book adaptation, also with a caring grandma, also with the same past-present narrative), but set in Belgium in the 1980's.
The acting here is excellent. Glenn Close steals the show as mamaw with convincing (non-)verbal delivery of all her scenes. Amy Adams is excellent too, but snowed-under by Close. She manages to range from likeable to utterly despicable, something I see as a strong point, while others may dislike her work because of it.
On Rotten Tomatoes, the current scores are 15% on the 'tomatometer' and 85% for audience. When I started digging deeper into the 'professional' movie critics' 'reviews', I grew sad. Many of these 'reviews' that aggregated that 15% weren't about the film. They were about the source material: the memoir and its author.
They were disqualified not because of the content, but the political affiliation of its creator. Applauding someone who does not share the dogmatic view of the writer's bubble seems 'not done' in 2021. Should I dismiss (or "dissect, challenge or eviscerate", to speak in the words of The Atlantic's David Sims) this movie because I don't agree with the political views of the author? No, I should not (and neither should they, for that matter, if you ask me. It's tacky.)
Anyway, this is not a movie that will make you like or dislike Donald Trump, even though the author of the book it was based on supports him. And the movie is also is not a scientific research endeavor into the minds and culture of any group or social class in American society. This film doesn't generalize, it doesn't stigmatize. It's the adaptation of a memoir, and thus intrinsically subjective. Try to make it anything other than that by adding your own context, and you're responsible for the new narrative that's created --- it has nothing to do with this film.
1 note
·
View note
Text
Over The Moon (2020)
This was a sweet little animated feature that was more impressive with its visuals than the story. It soars especially at the start and end with the real-world environments, which are simply stunning, some of the best I've seen. While still decent, the middle part of the story is less impressive and the visuals go down to 'good' for a while -- it's a contrast with the really excellent work earlier on.
Nevertheless, overall this is a decent production that should entertain people of all ages.
2 notes
·
View notes
Text
Music (2021)
This movie, while not great, is not as bad as it's made out to be. While reading other reviews, I found that most seem to focus not on the story or content of the film, but on the fact that someone without autism performed the titular autistic character.
** Newsflash!** This is a movie.
In a movie actors get paid to act a role that is not themselves. I would be hard pressed to believe that this movie could have been made with a starring role of an actor who actually lives with the type of autism that is portrayed here. And no, that does not mean that a movie like this should not be made. If you don't want to watch it, don't .
If you're looking for a groundbreaking family drama, go watch something else. If you want to watch a somewhat entertaining creative audiovisual hodgepodge that's trying to tell an uplifting story, then you won't mind this one.
2 notes
·
View notes
Text
Fifty Shades Darker (2017)
This one is even worse than part 1. Read my review of that first one and imagine it being a) even more generic chick flick, b) even more predictable and c) even more lacking in narrative and actual content. It's like a teenager's boring love diary with a semi-kinky page or two sprinkled in plus a set-up with a vengeful villain for part 3. Can't wait for more corny lines, lip biting, super-kinky handcuffs and a story that goes nowhere. Five thumbs down. Avoid!
0 notes
Text
Fifty Shades of Grey (2015)
Wow, where should I start? This movie made my paws itch, and not in a good way, I must say. I haven't written any reviews in 22 months, but I just felt that I HAD to give my $.02 on this one. And just to be clear: I didn't choose to see this movie. It was picked for me by someone else (you know who you are).
Let me be real clear up front: this production, content-wise, is totally and utter crap. That's what you get when you take a cringeworthy, over-inflated abysmal story that somehow became a hype and try to make some more Hollywood money off of it.
The production is slick like you'd expect from a 201x movie. No money was saved anywhere. Problem is: the characters are so one-dimensional that even those who are supposed to be 'lead' characters are so limited that there's nothing to work with for the actors. There's all kinds of talk and hints of complicated pasts that never show in what these people actually do or in the 'why' behind it.
Okay. Maybe people didn't read the book or go see this film for the depth of characters or the interesting and attractive plot (ahem), but they wanted some real kinky bondage action played out in front of them. They will be sorely disappointed here (and even more so in the sequel). If you think you're going to get anything of value here, think again. Mr. Grey is a (spoiler alert!!!) self-proclaimed 'sadist' and admitted mysogynist instead of the 'dominant' he pretends to be. Anyone with a little knowledge or experience with bondage and/or bdsm will be appalled at what is shown here and how that lifestyle or preference is portrayed. Not only does the whole Christian Grey character give the impression that anyone with bdsm-related inclinations has those feelings because of childhood abuse, what is worse is that the activities he engages in that are labeled bdsm are as close to 'vanilla' as the bdsm-spectrum gets. Really, production team, is sexual intercourse where one of the two people involved is wearing handcuffs for the first minute of it, deemed typical of bdsm in 2017? Maybe I am jaded, but these supposedly 'racy' scenes seem more like a teenage girl's trepid kinky fantasy than anything remotely close to the reality of a 'dominant' man's mind.
Anyway, in between these scenes that never really deliver what anyone (read the other reviews on this site) wanted out of them, is a sappy chick flick that is even more generic, flat and predictable than pancakes for breakfast. It's cringeworthy at times and boring for the remainder of the time. No wonder it gets such a low audience score everywhere. Makes you wonder why some people actually give this a positive review.
Verdict: avoid like the plague and smallpox.
0 notes
Text
Review: Steve Jobs (2015)
This movie gives viewers a look behind the scenes of three major product launches in the life of the late Apple CEO Steve Jobs, played by Michael Fassbender. It focuses on a limited number of obsessive habits and shows him around his assistant (Kate Winslet) and his first daughter Lisa in three stages of her life.
What good are performances by actors if the story is so boring that most viewers quit? If I didn't have to review this thing I would have stopped watching long before this film hit the 60 minute marker. Seeing Fassbender pace around dressed as Jobs, talking to his assistant about the inadequacies of others gets old real quick.
Because of the focus on the work environment, there is no development of character to speak of (some would probably euphemistically call it 'subtle'). The result is a flat, uneventful and boring movie in which it costs real effort to care about anything that happens on the screen.
Poor Steve. I'm sure his life was more interesting than writer Aaron Sorkin made it look like.
Pros: none, really
Cons: boring, limited, lacking in the story department
Verdict: Avoid!
2 notes
·
View notes
Text
Review: Brooklyn (2015)
Saoirse Ronan plays Eilis Lacey, an Irish girl who becomes an American immigrant in 1950's Brooklyn. She grows up in a small town and has her immigration arranged for her by the church. Once in America, she finds her way, slowly, and eventually falls in love with a local Italian boy. When her sister suddenly dies, she goes back to Ireland to visit her mother, but not before she secretly weds her lover. Once back in Ireland, she adjusts easily to her old life, maybe even a little too much, until an unlikely outsider shakes the grounds of her Irish foundation.
This movie tells the tale of two worlds colliding, of haunting pasts and making your own future. It's based on a novel by Colm Tóibín and if reviews of his book are accurate, much of the world he created was translated beautifully to the big screen. Ronan's performance is the kind that makes or breaks a movie like this and in this case it makes it. She believably changes from a naive and homesick immigrant into a self-assured young woman. The rest of the cast is excellent as well, with some of the movie's best and genuinely funny scenes at the boarding house for Irish immigrant girls.
Brooklyn is simply a beautifully told and well-paced period piece that fits on every level. The world is believeable, all characters are fleshed out, even to the tiniest roles and best of all, it never gets boring.
Pros: beautifully told,
Cons: none, really
Verdict: go see!
0 notes
Text
Review: The Revenant (2015)
Leonardo DiCaprio plays explorer Hugh Glass, who is attacked by a bear and left for dead during an expedition of the uncharted American wilderness in the 1820s. The Revenant tells his story of loss and survival. Granted, taking over 150 minutes to tell a story that can be summarized in one paragraph, could be seen as one big piece of slow, boring overkill. But The Revenant never feels slow. It captures beauty in the most extreme of circumstances, hope in places where there is none and it shows strength in nature and humankind.
Cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki triumphs in this environment. The whole movie was shot using only natural light and it shows in the amazing atmosphere that is created here. Whether it's wide open snowy plains or close-quartered heavy action fighting scenes, the artistry shines through.
DiCaprio pulls off an incredible performance, even though he has only a handful of lines throughout the film. It's his acting skills, not the story, script or anything else that bring his character to life. It's hard to forget it's Leonardo, though, because of all the Oscar-buzz-attention this film is getting.
Pros: Visually stunning, atmospherical, raw
Cons: none, really.
Verdict: go see!
1 note
·
View note
Text
Review: Bridge of Spies (2015)
I like spies. I don't care too much about bridges. Now that title has only one bridge and a plural of spies. Should be good, right? Well, I'm sorry to say it was only partly satisfying.
Tom Hanks plays lawyer James Donovan who is asked to defend a Soviet spy (Mark Rylance) in court and later trade him for a captured American U2 spy plane pilot. This story plays out in 1957 at the height of the cold war. Enough ingredients for a tip-of-your-seat thriller drama, right?
Erm, no, not really. Even though the majority of movie reviews laud this film for its 'smart' and 'unpredictable' characters, what I saw was actually more than predictable. About a third through the movie, you know how it's going to end. Despite some veil thin attemts to pull the audience's legs, you know how it's going to end.
Hanks is Hanks. Good, not great. His story is lacking depth, especially where his wife and children are concerned. Whether or not that's a writing or an acting problem, I'll leave somewhere in the middle. Rylance is flat, but likeable. I'd say the movie even makes him look more likeable than the American they're trying to trade him for.
So is it all bad and flat? No. the production is of high quality and the sets are historically accurate. In that sense, the movie does take you back to the right age. But for me, it wasn't enough. It was easily the most boring 'Best Picture' Academy Award nomination this year.
Pros: Historically accurate sets, quality production
Cons: Did I already mention it was slow?
Verdict: Meh
0 notes
Text
Review: Mad Max - Fury Road
My anticipation was high. Academy Award nomination for best picture. Almost 100% critic score on Rotten Tomatoes. Over 80% on IMDB. Charlize Theron. Great reviews. But this is where the fun stops.
What a dud it was, despite all the action. Story? "A woman rebels against a tyrannical ruler in post apocalyptic Australia in search for her homeland with the help of a group of female prisoners, a psychotic worshiper(sic), and a drifter named Max."
I guess if you have great memories of the original movie or if you have a thing for George Miller, this was the greatest thing ever --especially in super duper 3d. To me, it was a never-ending car chase from point A to B and then back to A, filled with fighting scenes, flat characters, supermodels turned wannabe-actresses and an almost mute protagonist. What else did I expect from a schizophrenic writer/director who not only created the Mad Max franchise nearly forty years ago, but whose last three writing and directing credits are Babe: Pig In The City and Happy Feet 1 & 2?
I guess I expected too much. Even with so much garbage polluting the big screen these days, this one didn't rise above most of the big budget muck that we get to 'enjoy' as entertainment. I'm not even going to waste more words on this one. Sorry, I didn't get it. Shame it made almost half a billion dollars at the box office. There will surely be more of the same this year or the next.
Pros: lots of hype
Cons: everything else
Verdict: avoid
1 note
·
View note
Text
Review: Equilibrium (2002)
Yesterday I watched Equilibrium starring Christian Bale and Emma Watson. And Taye Diggs. Taye who? This guy is on the official movie poster next to Bale and I had never even heard of him. After looking up his acting resume he still doesn't ring a bell with me. I wonder what strings his agent pulled to get him on that poster.
But I digress. Back to the movie at hand. Christian Bale plays John Preston, a 'cleric' in a futuristic society where emotions have been banned. As cleric, he oversees the search for and destruction of art, beauty and all the people who have anything to do with it. The population is controlled by a dictatorship with a designer drug that keeps them from feeling any emotions. But then mr. Cleric kinda purposely forgets one dose of his medicine and all kinds of things start happening.
The world is consistent, dark and stylish. I hear it's been compared to the Matrix. I understand that comparison, but that's only on the surface. For what it's worth, the art direction, wardrobe and styling are exceptional and consistent.
But is it all style over substance? It depends on what you want to see. The story is predictable, yes, with a few unforeseen and unrealistic twists and turns. Then there's the ridiculous gunfight choreography. It's a clever idea in theory, but a bit laughable to watch. For me, it didn't fit in a movie that takes itself so seriously on every (other) level.
Bale portrays Preston and his emotional conflict very well. I could have done with some more back story on this guy, though. We get some facts in passing, but the movie would have benefited from a more thorough setup of his character. Through subtle cues his first job partner Partridge (Sean Bean) does a way better job at that. Why does Bean always die so early on in the story, though?
Equilibrium was written and directed by Kurt Wimmer, a writer-turned-director who has also given the world such movies as Ultraviolet, Law Abiding Citizen, Salt and the remake of Total Recall. If you've read any of my older reviews, you know how I feel about people who write and direct their own movies and whose last names aren't Nolan. Mr. Wimmer here one-ups most of them by not just sticking to the writing and directing roles. He even makes an appearance on camera as one of the 'rebel victims'. Tsk!
To say this was a box office dud, is an understatement. Equilibrium had a net gross return of $5,359,645 on a $20M budget. This is surprising, given the overwhelming amount of audience support it gets in reviews on sites such as IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes. The critics were more severe. Their summarized consensus on Rotten Tomatoes reads: "Equilibrium is a reheated mishmash of other sci-fi movies."
I don't totally agree with that. There is some originality and entertainment here. Is it great? No. But it's certainly not as bad as some people make it out to be.
0 notes
Text
Review: Bad Santa (2003)
I watched this movie for the first time when it was in theatres. In my memory, it was a pretty funny politically incorrect comedy. Now I've seen it again I think it's not that funny at all. I think I looked at it the wrong way.
The film tells the story of Willie (Billy Bob Thornton), a con man posing as Santa Claus for a few weeks a year with his 'helper' Marcus (Tony Cox). Their scam is to inject themselves into shopping mall Christmas decor by playing Santa and Elf and eventually robbing the mall of their Christmas Eve earnings.
But it isn't the Santa experience you'd expect. Willie is grouchy and foul-mouthed. He's an alcoholic who doesn't care for kids. His behavior puts his 'job' on the line more than once, much to the dismay of Marcus. Throughout the story, Willie changes somewhat, somehow, by the connections he makes on his latest job. There is a heart in there, somewhere.
All Willie's mean-spiritedness, foulness and inappropriateness is never really portrayed as 'funny'. He's a pretty tragic character, and Thornton does a great job of portraying his different sides and nuances. The supporting cast also does a fine job. They all manage to keep their performances in line with the tragic undertone of the whole thing.
Terry Zwigoff directed this one. He has not done a lot of movies. Glenn Ficarra and John Requa wrote it. They also have not done a lot of movies. They do not do special effects or 3d. They tell sad or special stories, often misinterpreted by those who just scratch the surface.
0 notes
Text
Review: Safe (2012)
Let's start off with the plot, taken from IMDB: "Mei, a young girl whose memory holds a priceless numerical code, finds herself pursued by the Triads, the Russian mob, and corrupt NYC cops. Coming to her aid is an ex-cage fighter whose life was destroyed by the gangsters on Mei's trail."
It's always the Chinese, Russians and/or Albanians. So much for originality here. But let's see what we got here. Jason Statham plays Luke Wright, the ex-cage fighter mentioned above. He is also an ex-cop and ex-special forces agent. In addition to Statham, we have the always excellent James Hong, the versatile Reggie Lee and the surprising Anson Mount to round out the top of the cast.
Did I expect Academy Award level performances in this action movie? No. Did it deliver the action? Sure. But it all started a little slow. Instead of putting his assailants in their place with some swift and violent justice, mr. Luke Wright seems to go the depressed and moody route. The action picks up some pace later on. In between, the characters never really develop. I'm sure it was the intention for Luke to develop some kind of protective feelings for Mei, but it never really fleshes out in the story. How could it, with witty one-liners and heavy action in the second part of the film.
So that's what we get here: a flashy action flick with marginal attention to characters and story. If you're into that kind of thing, then go see it. It's pretty entertaining.
0 notes
Text
Review: Taken 3 (Tak3n) (2014)
Another 'Taken'? Spelled like Tak3n? What nonsense is that? What could happen now? His daughter's been kidnapped before, his wife's been kidnapped before. Hell, even Liam Neeson was quoted saying "I don't think there'll be a Taken 3. She can't get taken again, that's just bad parenting." Rotten Tomatoes is clear: with a critic average score of 9%, Taken 3 gets this summary: "Hampered by toothless PG-13 action sequences, incoherent direction, and a hackneyed plot, Taken 3 serves as a clear signal that it's well past time to retire this franchise."
Is it really that bad? To tell you the truth: yes, it is, for the most part. I won't spoil the plot, but something happens again that puts his family in danger. His family consists of a daughter Kim (Maggie Grace) and ex-wife Lenore (Famke Janssen). If you've seen Taken or Taken 2, you know the drill: Bryan Mills (Liam Neeson) is a retired special ops agent who gets his family threatened and then showcases 'a certain set of skills' to deal with the bad guys. It is no different here. Mills is still punching a lot of guys in their throats, racing cars, hiding under bodies to shoot enemies, etc.
What is different here? No one actually gets taken until the very end of the movie. Which means that all of the action for the better part of the movie is kind of pointless: there's no one's life at stake. That's one. Second: Where are the Albanians? Third: This is the only installment of the series where Lenore and Kim don't share a scene. Oh, and Xander Berkeley no longer is Lenore's new husband, Dougray Scott is.
Forest Whitaker plays police detective Franck Dotzler (what kind of name is that anyway), who seems to enjoy giving briefings to his personnel and/or to play with a chess piece or elastic band around his wrist. He doesn't add much else. Are the bands there to keep him awake by snapping them?
So there's a lot going on. But most of it doesn't make any sense. The story is weak, cheap, predictable and lacking. After 55 minutes of watching we're still at line 3 of the script, with that line being 'let's have a shitload of car chases with unexpected and unrealistic twists and turns'. None of the characters progress or change during the course, except for some transitions to the afterlife. There's not even one actor here who looks like they're remotely trying to bring some heart and soul to this ordeal, it's all so flat and uninspiring.
Let's finish this review by pointing at the main culprit here. You can't blame everything on the actors. There's mr. Director Olivier Megaton of Taken 2, Transporter 3 and Columbiana fame. And of course mr. Luc Besson. I suggest you seek out my review of the original Taken movie for my take on him.
If you want to see some action scenes and don't really care about anything else, then I guess it's fine to go see this movie. But even then, I'm sure that after the credits roll, you'll be sorry for your time and money. I've seen some Tak3n movie posters with the tag line 'It ends here'. I hope it does.
#movie#review#liam#neeson#forest#whitaker#taken#taken 3#tak3n#avoid#besson#megaton#chess#piece#elastic#bands#crap
0 notes
Text
Review: The Lincoln Lawyer (2011)
A long time ago I saw this movie for the first time. Back then, I wrote: "This was enjoyable! Even though the movie doesn't offer anything really surprising, the great cast and good production value keep you entertained for almost two full hours. If you don't hate lawyers, you'll like it. If you hate lawyers, stick it out. You might be in for a good surprise."
Now I've seen this movie again, let's elaborate a little bit.
The Lincoln Lawyer is a movie based on a Michael Connelly novel. In short, the plot is this: Defense attorney Mick Haller (McConaughey) has a crisis of conscience when he represents a wealthy client who has a foolproof plan to beat the system. All the right ingredients for a legal thriller. Funny fact: in Connelly's 'The Fifth Witness', there's some banter about making a case into a movie. With McConaughey as Haller, no less!
At the director's helm is the relatively unknown Brad Furman, who hasn't really done much before or after this film. He does a great job, as does his cinematographer. Some folks have criticized this movie to be too 'slick' and too 'in your face', but I think it adds to the atmosphere. Add a great cast featuring Matthew McConaughey, Ryan Phillippe, Marisa Tomei, William Macy and Bob Gunton, just to name a few. They act well, deliver crisp dialogue and manage to make the intrigue look realistic with a fine balance between drama and humor.
$40M is a modest budget these days, especially by Lionsgate's standard. It shows that without any special effects, 3d nonsense and other crap, you can still make a great film. I'm sure Mr. McConaughey touched the better part of that budget, but it doesn't matter, because he makes this movie work. He is slowly but surely becoming one of the truly great actors of our times.
1 note
·
View note
Text
Review: I Am Legend (2007)
In this movie, Will Smith plays Robert Neville, the sole survivor in New York City after a plague kills most of humanity and transforms the rest into monsters. He's a virologist and wants to find a cure. Of course, things do not go exactly as planned.
Smith is great here as the melancholy but determined Neville. I don't know what happened to him lately, but 'After Earth' was plain terrible on every level and I'm not happy about all the sequels (Men in Black, Bad Boys 3 & 4) attached to his name. I had hoped he had more in him than The Fresh Prince, Agent J and Detective Mike.
Director Francis Lawrence ('Constantine', 'The Hunger Games' trilogy), does a great job here. But maybe this movie benefits most of Andrew Lesnie, the director of photography. His cinematography is great. Of course he'd shown that before with King Kong and the Lord of the Rings trilogy. The production all-round is great. I could have done with a little less Bob Marley (music and references), but I survived.
Twice. This was the second time I've seen 'I am Legend' and I can't shake the feeling of a little disappointment. I don't know what it was, but in my memory, this movie was far better than what I experienced now. It wasn't terrible. But not as great as I thought it was.
Further research by my movie assistant revealed that there's an alternate ending to the movie, which is more in line with the source material (book). I watched it in a crappy 140px web stream with annoying commercials mixed in, but I have to say it marginally beats the theatre release. It's slower in pace, possibly not edited with the same kind of scrutiny that the theatre release got. I understand why it was not chosen for release, since it totally flips the script, but for some reason it struck a chord with me.
All in all, this movie is more than decent entertainment. These days you could watch way worse stuff.
0 notes
Text
Review: Taken (2008)
I like Liam Neeson. He's a legend. In 'Taken' he plays a retired CIA agent who travels to Europe and relies on his old skills to save his estranged daughter, who has been kidnapped while on a trip to Paris. If you've read that plot, you know what happens. I don't have to spoil the ending. It's predictable stuff.
Is this movie bad, then? There's certainly some bad stuff here. Luc Besson, who rose to fame with La Femme Nikita, Taxi and The Fifth Element in the 90's, is responsible for the writing here. And I don't know if it's his script or the acting by Maggie Grace and Famke Janssen, but these female supporting characters annoyed the hell out of me. They were bland, predictable, unlikeable and badly acted. I like cookies, but cookie-cutter emotions do not go over well with me.
Neeson is better, but only marginally. He's my new favourite James Bond. If you've ever wanted too see Oskar Schindler or Qui-Gon Jinn punch the throats of countless Albanian criminals, then go see this movie. He performs his rampage well, but it's all --again-- too predictable and too convenient. You can see stuff coming from miles away.
Again: is this movie bad, then? No. For some reason it stays entertaining for most of the 93 minutes, even though you know how it's going to end and it looks more like a tv commercial than an action movie. With a return of $226M on a $25M budget, you could say that the movie did well. That's why there's a 'Taken 2' and a 'Taken 3'. The second one I've seen, it's more of the same. The third I have yet to see.
0 notes