Dub’s Take: Subservience (2024)

A spoiler-free mini movie review.


4 out of 5

My 2007 grip & gaffing instructor Dave Gordon used the term “Golden Topping Land” (after the artificial popcorn butter) to denote a cinema audience’s suspension of disbelief, so long as nothing dumb happens in the story, or a microphone dips into the shot. It’s to “Subservience’s” credit that it had me in Golden Topping Land its whole duration, save two key points: trying to pass a black Tesla off as an electric Mustang, and Megan Fox’s lack of neck make-up.

I’m a chauvinist: there I was the morning after watching, recommending it to someone as “the Megan Fox sex-bot movie on Netflix”. Yes, Megan pretty-much shows as much of her body here that a R-rating & no-nipple clause will allow. But Subservience has more up its sleeve than mere sleeze, not the least of which its three leads: all of whom put out intense performances like they’re out to prove something.

It’s been easy to write off Megan’s acting career as ostentatious, but she does try serious work when & where the industry will allow (“Passion Play”; “Midnight in the Switchgrass”) and she presents great value to the role here, despite it being a robot, and another vessel in a filmography defined by transfixing the male gaze. Her gender-swapped body double Michele Morrone (“365 Days”) is here as well, playing Megan’s stooge, and Madeline Zima as Mike’s terminally-ill wife. Madeline shocked me since, growing up with “The Nanny,” I wasn’t prepared to see little Gracie fully grown & fully naked. She puts on a persuasive show, though, and could find work in more erotic thrillers moving forward, if that’s what she decides.

The most pronounced flaw is in the film’s otherwise-strong script, which introduces dynamic world-building that plays a passive second to the movie’s main focus, which is Megan usurping the family. A subplot about a construction crew being replaced raises valid questions about the world’s future labour force, but it doesn’t go anywhere narratively except to illustrate that Megan has murderous tendencies, when the same point is already proven in her attempts to kill Madeline.

Subservience’s on-the-nose dialogue about modern relationships is compelling enough without being overcomplicated by empty lore, or its two endings. Producers could have saved some money, too, had they just concentrated on the sex-bot in the house. That part of the movie is good, for reasons other than solely Megan, Michele, or Madeline’s smokey stares.


Poster sourced from impawards.com. I never thought I would say this, but Subservience’s broader strokes may have played better had the film been a limited series instead. What do you think? Why are the surgeons’ mouths sealed shut? What is the social structure of a society where all labour is replaced by automation? Just ‘what’ were those things on the soles of Megan’s shoes? Leave your thoughts in the comments below!

Dub’s Take: Hard Target 2 (2016)

A spoiler-free mini movie review.


3 out of 5

In 2009, when working at Blockbuster, I had to recommend movies to strangers. But my tastes are eclectic & subtitled and, sometimes, it was easier to suggest something I knew customers liked already instead of a personal favourite. One of those well-rented titles was “Vicky Cristina Barcelona”. One shift, I suggested it to a middle-aged woman, and she opposed because “Woody Allen is a child molester.” Oh, okay then. I wouldn’t have picked it because it’s crap.

Which leads us to today’s sidebar: even if someone has been exonerated of a crime, it doesn’t mean the court of public opinion ever really adjourns. Regardless of one’s feelings toward Robert Wagner; Depp and/or Heard; Kevin Spacey; or Allen, these people continue to work, and it’s up to each viewer’s own moral barometer whether they support these endeavours as their careers progress.

And so it goes that Robert Knepper (T-Bag on “Prison Break”) finds himself on that shortlist. Seeing Knepper’s name on the cast for Netflix’s recently-added direct-to-video sequel didn’t dispel me from watching it the same way I avoid a Woody Allen movie now: Knepper was great on Prison Break for its entire run playing a cogent asshat, so I assumed his presence in “Hard Target 2” would amount to him being a grade-A asshat here as well. And he is, even if his performance falls victim to some obvious ADR.

HT2 has great casting. Along with Knepper, we have Van Damme’s substitution in Scott Adkins; Bizarro World’s Kate Beckinsale: Rhona Mitra; and Boba Fett himself, Temuera Morrison as Knepper’s lackey. Adkins is awesome – maybe not a thespian (he’s better with tongue-in-cheek material, like his appearances in “Metal Hurlant Chronicles” & “John Wick 4”) but he’s been doing this a long time and at least looks like he’s enjoying himself.

Sadly, though, it’s with a heavy heart I report Miss Mitra’s femme-fatale in a leather tank-top isn’t given much to work with in the way of juicy lines or mindful direction. However, she’s vindicated in the film’s best scene, starting with her slow-motion dual-wielding mini-crossbows in front of an explosion, and ending with her pontificating on her character’s own awesomeness with a “Scarface”-sized pile of cocaine in the background. It’s great.

Most of Hard Target 2 is great. It’s nice when that happens. But there is a creepy guy in the cast. Up to you.


Poster sourced from imfdb.org. Yessir, that was Adkins in a fat suit playing the German in John Wick 4. Do you feel it’s time for mainstream Hollywood to give him more substantial roles? How do you feel about Kevin Spacey dipping his toe back into acting? Do you have anything good to say about more than 85% of Woody Allen’s output in the last thirty years, or are you done with him, too? So many questions – let me know what you think in the comments below!

Dub’s Take: The Legend of Tarzan (2016)

A spoiler-free mini movie review.


“Tarzan 2016” is a thing. What starts promisingly with Christoph Waltz & the great Djimon Hounsou squaring off is squashed once the title screen arrives, and conscious viewers notice the ‘registered trademark’ icon next to the logo. It still begs belief eight years post-release and reeks of corporate interference & franchise ensnarement. It’s mind-boggling thinking of what legal finagling forced such a decision – then you pause the movie on Netflix and it displays the logo on its idle screen without it. It isn’t even on the poster!

You can’t say the writers didn’t try to do something different: instead of another origin story, we open with an edified, middle-aged Tarzan, who retrogresses when he’s used as a pawn in the Congolese mineral trade. But then Waltz’s bad guy devolves into the one-dimensional schtick we’ve seen him do in every role since “Inglorious Basterds”, dragging Margot Robbie’s Jane from one set-piece to another while Alexander Skarsgård’s admittedly-shredded Tarzan is in hot pursuit. The action becomes the only point to the Sisyphysian push-and-pull, and the action scenes are a mish-mash of poor CGI & muted colours. While they’re thankfully not hyper-edited, anything in motion just looks like blobs – particularly the swinging-through-trees, which recall the ‘surfing’ from the 1999 Disney film.

The Casting Director got their budget’s worth, though. Acting is Tarzan 2016’s strongest quality, but was this caliber of work necessary here? Even Samuel L. Jackson had a chance to ham it up a bit, but he’s relatively low-key as the sidekick. There’s a five-second shot where Jackson lands on a tree branch and looks down, and he’s supposed to be hundreds of feet in the air but in reality it’s probably just a green screen beneath him, and it’s believable. I wish the cast’s effort had gone to a story with more follow-through: if not a “Birth of Tarzan” then maybe “Tarzan in Europe”.

2 out of 5

Poster sourced from impawards.com. Screenshots were author-obtained. Think I’m being too hard on Christoph? How about too easy on everyone else? Like yourself a good monkey movie? Planning to watch it before it’s “removed from Netflix”? Comment why don’t ‘cha!

Jay’s Quick Take: Underworld Blood Wars

A spoiler-free movie review (not that it matters).


Which “Underworld” are we on now? Six? Seven? Seventeen? No no no, it isn’t that bad – we’re only on number Five, which for some is four too many. I personally never connected with any of the Underworld movies, except the third. My issue was always with the backstory: why is there such a complex lore for what is essentially vampires & werewolves shooting guns at each-other? I never really knew what was going on in those movies and that’s probably my fault for not paying more attention (a lot of “this character knows this other character from hundreds of years ago, and there’s a relic that does this-and-that but only under certain conditions and blah blah blah”), but I always had one-foot out the door with these sorts of things anyway. Sure, I’ve read my share of vampire stories and watched my share of monster movies, but anything tinged with a touch of magic, or involving children with superpowers, or “the fate of the world rests on this motley crew of pale attractive twenty-somethings” is more my wife’s department.

Continue reading

Capsule Reviews Vol.3

A collection of spoiler-heavy mini movie reviews.


capsulereviews3 work

365 Days

2020 – Director: Barbara Bialowas & Tomasz Mandes

I’ve been wanting to write a review of this dreck since my wife and I finished watching it. It was on the Netflix Top-10 for a good length of time and I assume that a few of her friends recommended it to her because I see no other reason to be attracted to it save for fleeting exhortation (more like extortion). What draws women to this kind of subject matter? The “50 Shades”-style “meek woman who doesn’t understand her own sexual power seduced by an overly-aggressive and socially-distant hunk of man-meat” story is all well-and-good for your dime-store Harlequin romance (and I’ve read a couple of those in my time), but as a movie – to make it work – you have to decide what side of the subject-matter line you toe. “365 Days” is pornography. And it’s hilarious, that right now, you can go on your regular Netflix account without any additional parental lock and watch a movie where there’s a full face-fuck blowjob scene with a fake dick and everything; frequent nudity (male & female); and enough bumping-and-grinding to give Sonny Jim (sic) that first uncomfortable feeling in his pants. And much like pornography, the story takes second-fiddle to the diddling, and what we are left with is a provocative experiment in adult-only content on the platform and not much else. For some, that will be enough.

Continue reading