Change Your Image
Bigideas_Baggins
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Star Trek: Voyager: Basics, Part II (1996)
Brad Dourif the Great
Looking at Basics in total we have several issues. One of the first is that it should be about 5 minutes long. Voyager learns that the baby is born, and Chakotay comes to the sensible conclusion that he really has no relation to this child, despite what the conveniently specific advice from the ancestors says. Moving on.
Instead, they know, or they should know, that they are walking into a trap, but do so anyway, and thus they are defeated. And then we learn two things: one, Seska spent her entire time on Culluh's ship giving classes about Voyager operating instructions, and two, the Kazon, who believe battle should end in the death of the loser, are perfectly willing to take the effort to keep the crew alive, because they also know that this is the start of a new season with more to come. Then we get the boring and predictable story of the crew having to survive on a primitive planet waiting to be picked back up. Predictable, because of the natives starting off antagonistic and becoming friends when one of them is saved by Chakotay thing. Also, the previous episode has J&C in a rather similar situation which is a bit unfortunate. Still, it's sort of standard Star Trek fare, so it's not that bad I guess.
Well, no. Because this time, that primitive survival thing comes at the expense of Brad Dourif as Lon Suder. Here we have a side character that is more interesting and complex than almost the main cast put together (though some of them get some interesting plot lines later in the show). Not to mention played by an actor that is also better than most of them. We could have spent the entire episode watching Suder doing Die Hard, made all the more interesting because unlike McClane, he also has to face his internal struggle of not wanting to kill anymore. There is so much that could be done with this. And to add insult to injury, all Suder gets in the end is a cliche "Vulcan" quote as he is lying next to Empty Shellska, Princess of Unsubtle Evil. You couldn't give him a proper ceremony in front of the entire crew where homage is paid to how they lost a person who did commit murder, but ultimately also saved the ship and was on track to change for the better? Hhm.
Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald (2018)
Criminally boring
You remember how those Hobbit movies tried to combine the whimsical Bilbo adventures (as per the book) with the epicness of the Rise of Sauron? Well, the thing is a movie that tries two wildly different things at once will often fail at both. Which brings me neatly to the Fantastic Beasts franchise. You can have a more family oriented, comedic movie about whacky beasts and hijinks with them, or you can have an epic movie about the rise of Grindelwald and the involvement of Dumbledore... but they cannot really be the same thing. The first FB managed to navigate these murky waters reasonably well as there was mostly a focus on the beasts stuff. But here, we go full on Grindelwald, but somehow Newt still has to be the main character. Somehow, we still have to have Queenie and Kowalski in the story, because they were so well received. Somehow, we also want Flamel and Minerva McGonagall in the movie, because we remember their names. However, Newt doesn't really want to be here nor does it make sense why he would be at the forefront of stopping Grindelwald; his involvement in FB1 was much more by accident and thus logical. Also however, the explanation for Kowalski's presence strongly disrupts established lore. And also however, McGonagall is like -5 at the time of the movie, which would make here a little too unborn to be already teaching at Hogwarts.
I hope that with with all these diverse analogies, examples and somehow/howevers I managed to lose the readers attention, because that would be perfectly in line with the movie. Character after character is introduced, age retrofitted or shockingly resurrected without most of it making sense and/or making a coherent story with beginning and end. So when the movie is finished, I really had the feeling "so... what just happened really, and why did we need to see all that...?" I really couldn't say, other than it must have created a lot of CGI jobs, because that was so abundant in almost every scene.
Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore (2022)
More = less
IMHO, there is a slight issue with the magic in Harry Potter overall, being that we don't really know how the magic system "works". That is, is there any reason not to do way more with magic than what we are shown? What is the restriction? Is it "exhausting" to perform magic, as compared to the physical equivalent of a task?
Now, in Harry Potter, this is somewhat circumvented in a clever way. Because the point of view is mostly Harry, and Harry is learning magic as the series progresses, it makes sense that he can do things later, after he has learned them. This obscures the fact why the adults don't to some extent.
However, in Fantastic Beasts this aspect is not here, and also, because the CGI budget is now endless, we see magic in the most mundane things, like servers bringing food and drinks with magic. But then, why not always travel via Portkey or apparition? Why use trains and boats at all?
Yes, I'm probably not supposed to think about this. I'm trying to be overly analytical where I should just lean back and enjoy the story. But that is the problem, I could not. I could not really follow some of the things going on (like, is the election a popular vote or is it by Qilin?) or if I could, I did not really care (why is Kama still here and why should we care about him?).
As has been said before, this series really struggles with the balance of wanting to be about the cute beasts and/or about the conflict between Dumbledore and Grindelwald, and thus failing at both. We don't really learn enough about most of the characters and for the ones we do, there is a big question as to why they're even here. Was Newt really the best guy to "lead" our group of "heroes" when he himself doesn't even want to be there? He just wants to work with his beasts. We know Jacob is here only because the audience likes him, but in this movie (as well as the previous one) the reason for his inclusion is stretched beyond any credibility. Also Tina has "no time" to be here, even though in her new function you could argue this is exactly where she should be, so instead she has been replaced by Lally, but she is a teacher on a US wizarding school; I guess they can just do without one of their classes for a few months.
At least the movie has one redeeming moment. When Newt explains, in the train, that Grindelwald can see parts of the future for some reason, he states that because of that they have to have their actions not make sense. And I'm like yeah, that indeed sums up this movie perfectly.
Captain America: The First Avenger (2011)
Almost feels like two movies
The first half was actually kind of interesting. How he became Captain America, how he is being used for the war, and there is a somewhat mystery Hydra thing going on. Then the turning point was for me quite clear, namely when CA decides to attack the Hydra base where his friend is imprisoned. From there it is almost non-stop unbelievable and often poorly CGI-ed and/or chaotically edited action. The Hydra organisation, that seems to have independently absorbed most of Germany's war effort, is just not capable of anything. It's super soldiers are dispatched without any issue by the random rag-tag assembly that was liberated along with Bucky, accompanied by a brightly coloured target which is only partly protected by a vibranium shield. There is just no tension whatsoever in any of these scenes when the bad guys are this inept. (I mean at least stormtroopers took out that Tantive IV crew pretty good, as well as the Hoth base. These guys just don't accomplish anything.)
Could the evil plan be more generic than blow up Washington and NY by the way? I mean then what? Blow up more cities? Dominate the world by killing everyone? This movie learned nothing from the Dark Knight, which shows how a bad guy can be made interesting even though also in that movie there is a lot of blowing up things.
Also the 40's atmosphere that was there in the first half of the movie, though maybe not perfect, is completely lost. Not just the futuristic weaponry, but everything, from surroundings to behaviour looks completely out of place (well, time) in the second half of the movie.
Too bad, because it could have been a lot better, based on how it started...
300 (2006)
Zack Snyder is a child
I mean, just look at the guy's filmography. Zack seems to be stuck in his teens, fascinated by explicit graphics of cool violence and some nudity. Which is fine I guess, there is a market for that kind of movie (just look at the Transformers franchise).
Thing is, though, I have found this is (no longer) the kind of movie for me, and then the bad aspects really come to the forefront. There is really nothing to this movie apart from the visuals. The story is extremely predictable, the dialogue is ludicrous, the acting over the top (probably intendedly so), the character development is non-existent. And although I don't really want to go into the political aspects of it, it's hard to escape the fact that this movie does seem to have the message of "brave white men killing evil middle-eastern people is cool".
What else is there to say about this movie, since it's so empty? Well, maybe to give out the award for the dumbest character, and it goes to: the guy carrying around the proof of his treason loosely in his robes all the time!
The Sopranos (1999)
Hard to review
Sopranos is, I admit, hard to review. First of all to be honest I never made it to the end - more on that later. Second, it's almost universally lauded as one of the greatest TV shows of all time - usually in the same breath with Breaking Bad (yes) Game of Thrones (well, if you count 4 seasons) and The Wire (do not know yet). So a negative review will garner plenty of not useful downvotes out of sheer principle that negative reviews are not appreciated, regardless of the arguments made.
Anyway. One of the reasons The Sopranos is so well received is how it was (supposedly) one of the first shows clearly moving away from the "thing of the week" format and having storylines last for entire seasons or longer. (Yes, I know, apparently Twin Peaks or Babylon 5 did not exist before Sopranos, weird huh?). And in the first 2 of 3 seasons, this was sort of true, and these are clearly the best of the show. For one thing, Tony's position is more complicated as he is not outranking everyone and has to take schemes from his mother, uncle and other people into account. There is some growth in his character and some of the others. Even though, we already see there is a clear "thing of the season" format with characters being kept alive so they can die spectacularly in the season finale. However, this gradually becomes less and less present. I am convinced the passing away of Nancy Marchand really did not help, but I also think that had she lived, the show would still have gone downhill. Stories that used to take several episodes are now resolved in one episode, and the show does in fact become a "thing of the week" affair. See my reviews of individual episodes for examples - even in a greatly praised episode Pine Barrens a situation that should have consequences (Slava having lost his friend, and the repercussions of this for Tony) is never heard from again, for some reason. Also, character development just stops, for the most part.
I had to drag myself through the later episodes, often playing them at 1,5 to 2x speed because I just lost interest. At the start of season 6, I had enough and just stopped watching, but from what I have read I have not really missed much there.
All in all, I think Sopranos does represent a significant moment in TV shows - after Sopranos, they were taken more seriously, got bigger budgets, actors, and so on. But that doesn't meant that now, looking back, it's as great as it is remembered to be.
The Princess Bride (1987)
Boring
Now, I know boring is a subjective term to describe a movie, but here it's almost not. Why? Because the pacing is so slow that I cannot understand how one would not get bored. Without much connection, we move from scene to scene, which all seem to be thought up around one single "joke" or supposedly funny setting, but had to be dragged out gor a few minutes to pad the movie's running time. As noted in other reviews, nostalgia must be at work here to produce high ratings, because watching it for my first time in my forties, I just cannot understand it, and no, I will not honor the movie by using that one word to describe it.
I tracked down this movie because it was supposed to be similar to Stardust (2007), a movie I like a lot; whilst it certainly has flaws, it actually executes the "fantasy comedy" genre quite well. This movie, as far as I am concerned, is far less funny (I kept waiting for the first joke to happen) and is to clunky and cheaply made (even for the time) to work as a fantasy. Another trigger to watch it were the Inigo Montoya lines which I had seen quoted every now and then. Well, that character was indeed the best part in the movie, but far from able to save it.
My suggestion then - if you watched this movie when you were young, leave the memory be and don't watch it again, if you are tempted to watch the movie now (as an adult), just don't, because there is really nothing here.
Zwartboek (2006)
More grey would be nice.
Supposedly, Black Book intends to be a more grey portrayal of occupied Europe. It would be nice if that meant having morally grey characters, as in characters performing acts that are understandable from their point of view, but also don't feel quite right, making one question: What would I do myself? Verhoeven, however, has a different interpretation: grey means that some Germans can be the noblest heroes without any faults, and some Dutchmen can be the meanest villains, and the net result is grey. Müntze is probably the best example of this treatment: he is just the nicest man, who has tragically lost his family to those mean and nasty allied bombing raids, has the ever so peaceful hobby of collecting stamps, is ok with a Jewish girlfriend, and wants no Dutch people killed if at all possible. Strange, then, that several times in the movie he is also being referred to as one of the most notorious SD killers, directly responsible for dozens of Dutch lives. Hey Paul, it's one or the other, and no, it's not a good way of a tragic portrayal of perception versus reality. But then again subtlety was never his specialty, like whenever there is even the slightest possibility for a nudity situation, boobs are shoved in the viewers face again, which does get tiring after a while. That style works better in something like Starship Troopers, which is meant to be an over the top satire of fascism, whilst having the added benefit of fooling even the actors. Here, though, the satire seems to be absent and we are meant to take all of it seriously, and that means that after a while there is more laughing at the movie, than laughing with the movie.
Still, it's mostly nicely made, has enough stuff happening, so it's far from the worst experience to sit through.
World Without End (2012)
Blegh!
First of all, it seems relevant to start the review with this: I have not read the book, so there goes the adaptation argument. My rating has nothing to do with any differences between this and the book, because I would not know them. I did watch Pillars (also without reading the book). Pillars is certainly not the best TV ever, but it's pretty good, and I rewatched it a couple of times, and of course it's what prompted me to give WWE a shot.
WWE is a huge step down however. One of the main issues is the characters, which are just too one dimensional. They are either saintly good or nefariously bad, often for no other reason than being bad. For instance, Walter in Pillars is just a loyal servant/friend to his lord with a sense of honour, but we certainly also see some sadistic traits in him. Similarly, Jack is not all saintly; his ambition or dedication to his craft can get the better of him.
In WWE, there is never a sympathetic aspect in sight for characters like Ralph or Godwyn, or vice versa for the good guys. No character feels real. Which means there is not much more to say about them really.
Also, some resolutions seem way too fast, and worse, unexplained. Just how do Godwyn and his mum survive having the plague? Don't know, but it's just so they can have a more unsatisfying death later on. Speaking of unsatisfying: as other reviews have noticed, the structure of the story. Again in Pillars, the "good guys" make progress all the time, but they also face setbacks - and yes, there is a bit of a grand resolution in the final episode. In WWE, it's more like the "bad guys" basically winning all the time, except how they suddenly all lose (as in die, basically) in the final minutes of the show. To me that is just far less interesting to watch.
Rome: The Stolen Eagle (2005)
Rightly forgotten
This series seems to have largely faded from memory and based on this episode, which is the only one I managed to finish (albeit barely), I can understand why. First of all, the dialogue. Could they take more effort to have everyone sound like they live in the 21st century? I would not even have been surprised if someone took a phone out of his toga to take a selfius. Next up, the writing. Yes, the stealing of the eagle is only a plot device to bring the two main characters together, I can see that. But can it maybe be a bit more believable than having two conspicuous blue idiots enter the Roman camp apparently unseen and take one of its most important artifacts? Not to mention the very lucky convenience of finding it after stumbling on the abductors of Octavius. Then, the visuals, which are highly praised, but I found it to be somewhat off-putting and cheap looking - but this can be a matter of taste I guess. Finally, also much talked about, the nudity and sex. Now, I am not offended or prude or anything, and maybe it is indeed the case that this is how it was back then. It's just that it's distracting from the story and drags down the pacing, and it is clearly done to draw in viewers. A bit more restraint would have really helped here. Like with Pompey being offered his new wife. Yes, it's important to the story how Caesar uses Atia to achieve this, and how Atia goes about it, including offering up the sex straight away as an incentive. But just leave it at the implication - showing her undressing and all that is just dragging it down and only there because "omg titties!!"
All in all then, this basically serves as my review of the entire show, because I just couldn't make it past this episode; I was glad to turn it off and not at all motivated to keep going, even though it's supposed to get a bit better. Coming back to why this show is forgotten, I also suspect GoT has something to do with that, which is basically "this but better", at least in the first four seasons.
Downton Abbey: A New Era (2022)
You will watch it, but...
Like me, if you enjoyed the TV series you will want to watch this, just to see your favourite characters in action once more. And yes, it's nice to see all the familiar faces again and see what's going on in their fictional lives, even if some of them have aged quite a bit. Thing is, even though the series is generally a "feel good" series with most of the characters ending up happily, there are still shocking events. Like what happens with Findlay and Stevens' characters. Here, however, everything basically turns out happily in no time. Any potential setback is often resolved within a minute. The major star of the movie wants to quit? Well, Daisy and Anna say a few platitudes and is all roses again. The conflict with the French mother is resolved without really having been allowed to exist. And so on. Even what happens to Smith's character is hardly unexpected, or shocking, given her age. It's all neatly tied up in the end, with everyone married and healthy, and with most of the major characters not really having changed or experienced much as the movie has been quietly passing by.
Man of Steel (2013)
Typical CGI filler
Yes, Zack Snyder has a very typical style. The best example that I have seen, where it mostly works, is probably 300. I would not say it is a very good movie, but it's a movie I can return to every now and then, because it's basically just about two hours of "violence porn" that is clearly not meant to be taken that seriously. Yeah, sometimes I'm up for that.
Here, though, the implication seems to be that the movie does take itself seriously (there is basically no funny moment in sight). And here the style fails and it looks like a 15 year old trying to make a movie for adults. The (CGI) action is excessive, hard to follow and tedious, whilst most of the story does not make much sense. For example, Krypton has expanded to hundreds of worlds, so why exactly do they all die out just because Krypton itself explodes? Or why not evacuate the planet (clearly they have space faring technology) apart from a couple of condemned criminals, so that they are the only ones to survive? Or is it really worth it to let a busload of children die just to keep your identity a secret, when it's ok to give the identity away when some guy is mean to you in a bar? I could go on and on with this, but experience tells me that the more I do the more the review will be downvoted as not useful ;-).
Now, my main question is whether this or Superman Returns is worse, but I'm not sure I can actually be bothered to rewatch the latter to figure it out. Is it possible to have a good (interesting) Superman movie? Well, it will always be tricky with a character this powerful. Maybe include some weakness in the story like he cannot save his earth dad from dying from a heart attack, despite being so powerful. Wait, what? He just lets him die when he could save him, right after denying him as parent when he was raised by him for about 20 years? Ok then. At least the dog made it out ok.
The Last Stand (2013)
Fun
Looking at some of the negative reviews, people seem to have the idea that you should take this movie seriously. Which is clearly not the case. And the movie tells you so, straight away, by having Johnny Knoxville in the cast and on the poster/cover. So no, nothing makes any sense or is even remotely believable, and I'm not even talking about minor details like having the FBI instead of the Marshals do the transport. I'm talking about having a car that's supposedly faster than anything else "including helicopters" being kept up by, no less, a helicopter, and later by other cars, not to mention the FBI jet. I'm talking about the tried and true "trained mercenaries" being bested by the village idiot and the small town law enforcement. Or about no one thinking to use a spiked chain to stop the car.
So clearly, this is not a movie about making sense. But I'm comparing it to Commando, in my opinion one of the greatest "80's action" hits there is, where not much made sense either. Is this as good? No, but it comes close, and evokes the same feeling. Just sit back and enjoy the nonsense, the spectacle, and the funny quotes ("Put the hurt on 'em, Ray!"). And, if you are Dutch like me, enjoy the accurate use of the Dutch national football team - the producers actually took the effort to obtain clothing with the "KNVB" logo on it!
The Bank Job (2008)
Not helped by its true story
... amongst other things. What I meant is that I was ready to turn the movie off when the robbers decide to take a nap in the middle of the robbery. Well, turns out when I read about the real thing that this was actually the case! Still, it does not help with keeping to watch the movie, which at that point is already severely affected by other things. The gratuitous nudity is beyond unnecessary, the film feels far to much like "we watched Lock Stock and Snatch and want to copy them, but don't know how", Jason Statham just plays Jason Statham... again, and the whole Michael X thing feels far too tacked on. Coming back to Ritchie's flicks, this movie stars the robbers as the four lads/Tommy & Turkish, Lew Vogel as Brick Top/ Hatchet Harry, Tim Everett as Boris the Blade, Gerald as Vinnie Jones, etc., all equally incompetent, and forgetting that what made it work in the former movies is the comedic undertone of it all, what Ritchie himself forgot in Revolver. It's hard to take it seriously but also not presented to take it funny so I kind of ended up feeling nothing. I just watched the aftermath unfold, whilst assuming Jason Statham would come out good because he is Jason Statham, thus removing any tension there might have been otherwise. Even the movie seems to realize this as Jason himself can't even explain why the cops just let him walk away. The are some interesting aspects to the movie like the 70's setting and the fact that in reality robbers this incompetent actually pulled this off, but in the end it's quite a disappointment.
The Big Bang Theory (2007)
Why?
First off, yes I am a chemical engineer and into Star Wars/Trek, board games, and so on. However I am also perfectly up for some self mockery. So I had the idea that this show would be great: from what I understood, it would really also be for nerds - maybe even more so because they understand more of the references. But, alas, it's not. It's about nerds, and about making them look ridiculous in an over the top way. I'm not offended though, because what the showmakers know about nerds seems to be based more about a quick skimming of the wikipedia page and some general prejudices rather than actually knowing any people. (By the way, to be nerdy, it's funny that as of writing this the popular culture section of wikipedia's entry on nerd does not even mention TBBT!)
After having set up being about nerds, what's next? Oh, a ditsy attractive woman moves in next door? Really, that's just about the laziest thing you could do in this setting. Also, and I don't believe I'm saying this given the message regarding women modern media has been giving off in the more recent years, it's pretty demeaning towards women. It's pretty clear that the only interest of Leonard towards her is in front of her, and that's also the reason she is on screen in the first place.
Finally, the laugh track (or live audience forced to laugh at gunpoint, I'm not entirely sure). I'm not sure how I feel about it, because on the one hand it's very annoying when there has to be a pause after every sentence to make room for laughter; on the other hand I think it should be there because it is the only method the show has of conveying to me when I should be laughing. Because no, everything else that happens is certainly not capable of that. I watched 5 or 6 episodes of S1 before I could not take it anymore, and I did never come to even the beginning of a slight chuckle. Why this show is so popular and managed to stay around for 12 seasons is a mystery to me, especially when I read other reviews claiming that it somehow became even worse after the first three seasons or so.
Perfume: The Story of a Murderer (2006)
What story?
The story of a murderer, the subtitle says, but a better description would be the visualization of a murderer. Never mind not having a relatable protagonist (that, I can live with), I find the movie lacking to explain what actually is the motivation of the main character - and that is whilst having the continuous voice over from John Hurt (show, don't tell anyone?). The movie's main concern seems to be its cinematography (including attempting to visualize scent), for which it is consequentially praised. Not only would it be nice to have a story as well, I also had issues with the oversaturation all the time, not to mention the rather disgusting visuals at the start of the movie.
Now, because the movie does such a poor job of telling its story, I checked out the synopsis of the book on which it is based (have not read the book), and then I found that essentially part two of the book is missing (it's given a few minutes of screen time at most); and yes, this is the part where we learn most about Grenouille's motivations, so it might have been worthwhile to give some attention to that. Now, the movie is just so... empty. What does it actually go into? Like the murders of the young girls. The town is in panic, there's even a curfew, but it's never shown just how Grenouille manages to be such a brilliant murderer that he easily gets away with it so many times. Suspension of disbelief can only go so far. Like, he can apparently smell a particular girl miles away, across mountain ranges. Even with his supposed unique ability of smell that is really stretching it, but ok. But doesn't that mean that he would go insane all the time from the sheer overdose of scents all around him? Or can he selectively block out everything but one? You guessed it... we are never told (or shown) anything about this. Again, empty. I wish my brain was empty instead of being filled with the memory of this stinker.
The Sopranos: Pine Barrens (2001)
Great episode, but...
Yes, the episode itself is great. Just see most of the other reviews for why that is.
But, I want to go into the "what happened to Valery" thing. And I know a lot has been said about it, including by Mr. Chase himself. We are supposed to appreciate the mystery as not everything has to be 100% clear.
Thing is, though, that we are once again introduced to a character of the week (well, two really) who seems to be long known to Tony. Tony even appears to be somewhat scared of Slava. He is very concerned when he is pressing Paulie over the phone as to what happened to Valery. That means, after we happen to have reached the runtime of the episode, that this still matters! If Valery was alive, as the episode mostly seems to imply, Tony would be in trouble. Even if he totally disappeared, you're telling me Slava would not get back to Tony or Silvio to find out if they knew anything? If nothing else it would be a great opportunity for something that Tony is concerned about, that you could get back to later. You know, like you would expect for a show that's supposed not to be just stand alone episodes. But no, Slava and Valery are just fodder of the week to service the main characters. At least this time that is used for SOME development of the mains, unlike other episodes (especially later ones).
My main point being: I understand it doesn't matter to the creators. It may not even matter to the audience. But it is supposed to matter to the characters in the show! They should care, and remember it when the next episode rolls around, instead of just resetting next day for a new exciting adventure like a goldfish.
The Sopranos: In Camelot (2004)
An example of the show's decline
Sopranos always suffered from a "character of the season" vibe, with examples being Mikey Palmice and Richie Aprile.
Here, however, we have a good example as any of how it's become a character of the week sitcom. Christopher's friend appears out of nowhere, but they seem to be best buds for years, and for some reason he is allowed to incur a staggering $57000 debt in the poker game, after which Chris becomes his nemesis in collecting the money. So basically the same as David Scatino before, only there Tony always had a plan if David could not pay his gaming debts. Here, are we really supposed to believe they would let a guy they know just left rehab stack up a debt that high? I would imagine they'd let him have $5000 or maybe $10000 and then be like, "hey fella, you now owe us this much, leave now and pay us, then you can come back". Also, Scatino's story was at least developed over several episodes, here it's just lightning speed with another side character. Speaking of which, the mistress is even worse. Here is a person Tony has apparently never met before, but within hours of meeting her he is strongmanning Johnny Sack, Phil Leotardo and Hesh for large amounts of money, not for himself, but just to give her without question. It would be nice if we could get some continuation with a character that is apparently that important to him. I mean, the earlier seasons showed so much depth about his relationship with his mother; here would be a good opportunity to get back to that, or maybe discover the issues he had with his father. But no, what was I thinking, she is just this weeks plot interest, no need to get back to that. One minute of dr. Melfi asking if he wanted to sleep with her just about covers the impact she has on his life.
I would really like the show to develop it's main characters like Sil or Paulie, who are basically at a standstill, instead of this sitcom style guest actor of the week stuff. My feeling is that the earlier episodes did have more of a through line and the show has become weaker and weaker with the seasons. Oh, and when I said develop, I don't mean stuff like Sil having a random interest in Columbus out of nowhere that is also never referenced again, I mean actually show something of him having a character instead of being a background stereotype.
Transformers (2007)
A classic example
Because of how well known it is, Transformers can basically serve as an archetype of a certain kind of movie - all action, no story or characters. So when you want to describe a certain movie (say, for instance, Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker), you can just say: "well, it's like Transformers".
Now don't get me wrong, I can appreciate that there is an audience for this kind of movie. Just brain off, escape from reality and enjoy the visuals, the action, a short skirt, etc.
But it's not for me. For me it's actually boring, because nothing makes any sense, or no character is more than a cardboard cutout. I can like plenty of action, when it's in service of a story. Or when it's applied in self irony, like in Commando for example. Here, the movie actually seems to take itself seriously, when there's nothing in it that warrants such an attitude.
Well, at least it's good to know that if you share my sentiment on this movie, you can surely skip all the sequels as well, which somehow are even more poorly received.
Van God Los (2003)
One of the better Dutch movies
... but still just gets a 6, which is indeed saying something about the average movie quality from my country.
First of all, as others noted, this movie gets a plus for not having the gratuitous nudity that Dutch movies are often known for; the director managed to restrain himself here, even in the earlier scenes with Angela Schijf, which normally would have called for it.
Having said that, the movie itself is somewhat mediocre. It often tries everything to be overly dramatic, what with slow motion, grainy shots, actors trying to act "intense", religious imagery, the score, etc. That becomes a bit tiring after a while. Also, given how little the three main characters seem to know of one another, you sometimes wonder if the scenes in the movie are the only moments in their life they actually are together? Or maybe when they are together they don't speak at all, like the main character does: I'd be willing to bet at least two thirds of his dialogue is voice over of his thoughts, rather than actual conversation.
All in all, a nice little story that is okay for its length, very loosely based on actual events, though "the Dutch Goodfellas" it is not...
Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (2010)
uhhh...no.
Shaun of the Dead is fantastic - I can keep watching it. Same with Hot Fuzz.
So, I had decided that Edgar Wright was kind of a guarantee for a high quality comedy, and therefore I wanted to see this movie.
Man, what a huge disappointment. Let's start with Michael Cera, who is basically teleported 1:1 from the equally disappointing Juno, minus the gold shorts. Or actually it seems that he is just always like this. To him "acting" seems to be translated into just having the same, bored and disinterested expression all through a movie. It's nigh impossible to feel any sympathy for him as a protagonist, but luckily that applies to all characters in the movie.
The story does not make any sense, and neither is it funny - and I grew up playing the 8 and 16 bit consoles of the days.
My best takeaway is that Wright intends to pay homage to and/or parody a specific thing each movie: it worked in Shaun (zombie/romcom) and Hot Fuzz (buddy cop/action), but not so much here (video games/indie rock?).
The Critical Drinker (2012)
Nah, it'll be fine
If you are interested in such questions as: "Is it possible to draw Rian Johnson's head using just a draftsman compass?" or "How many of the old classics have to be butchered?", this is the channel for you.
Anyway, that's all I really got for a review... Go away now!!
Forbrydelsen (2007)
The suspect of the week
Aka the Red Herring. The first season especially is filled with occasions where the series presents you a clear suspect, only to turn it around again. In many of these cases the persons suspected have a good story why they are innocent but refuse to divulge that because reasons. And here as a viewer I am like: "yes, I can understand why you would not tell that to everyone around you. But now you will be charged with murder if you don't... so maybe you could reconsider?" Season two tones this down somewhat; in this respect it is certainly helped by being shorter.
Also, too often, there is too much focus on "a feeling" of Sarah Lund rather than paying attention to forensic evidence.
Finally, I noticed this series is sometimes compared to Twin Peaks. I can see where that comes from, but to me Twin Peaks is far more a character drama about aspects outside of the "whodunnit" part of the series. The Killing (S1 especially) really is almost entirely about the crime that starts the series - including the time spent in the political arena, which is not really like Borgen. The focus always remains on the extend of involvement of the politicians in the murder case and the effect this has on the election.
Prometheus (2012)
The idiot mission
I know I will not be the first to do this, but it is pretty interesting to compare the crew of the Prometheus with that of the Nostromo from the first Alien movie. I guess we would have to start with the fact that the Nostromo crew would not be expected to have any skills applicable to the situation they found themselves in - after all, they are a cargo crew. Even so, once they are taken out of cryosleep to investigate something they are not suited for their decisions mostly make sense given they are still human beings with a brain. The fact that they lose, and gradually get killed, is mostly due to Ash and his hidden (company) agenda.
Here, though, you would expect the crew to be specifically chosen as experts for this first contact/scientific exploration mission. But they seem to be selected more on their lack of IQ rather than anything else. Let's start off with the two guys who are scared by some alien bodies (uhh, really, what did you expect to encounter here?) and get lost in their solo trip back to the ship. Now that in itself is somewhat believable - despite the 3D map they made, you could say they panicked. But what is far more baffling is the extremely careless attitude of the other characters. So two members of your 17 people crew panic in an extremely unique and overwhelming situation. Does it seem normal to just let them wander back, never check in with them so you only find out they are missing by the time you get back? After that, you don't even keep in constant contact with them???
Oh, and why didn't they keep constant contact? Because two characters decided to have it off, out of nowhere. It is literally Charlize Theron being distant and giving the cold shoulder all through the movie, and then just in the next sentence be like "ok, let's do it". I literally felt the movie was trolling me at this point.
These are only a few examples of the extremely stupid actions all the characters take constantly. Other things I could have talked about are taking off the helmets, petting the cute alien (when a few hours before the character was scared out of his mind by a long dead body), just opening all doors when a presumed dead guy turns up out of nowhere, and being crushed by a slowly rolling donut. Then we also have things that are just completely unbelievable, like Shaw running around happily a few minutes after cutting herself open to remove an alien squid. Oh, and none of the other characters seem to care about what just happened to her either. And just why was the medical capsule, owned by Charlize Theron, configured for men only? Not only did that not make any sense, it also did not affect the movie in any way, because Shaw just managed to do the procedure anyway, and in no time.
Speaking of the aliens, not much is making sense here either. Now, I'm not saying I wanted it to be exactly the same as in the earlier movies. That would have made sense from a continuity point of view, but I'd be willing to accept that the aliens evolved after the events of Prometheus into what we saw in Alien. Having said that, what we had in Alien was pretty logical, meaning the cycle from egg to facehugger to chestburster/full grown alien. We even found out in Aliens were the eggs were coming from, we can assume it to be like ants where a small number of them are queens.
Now, let's see what we have in Prometheus. We have the jars of goo; it seems that on men, a small amount of goo turns them in some sort of mindless zombies (and I'm being pretty generous here in saying that the small drop of goo that the guy had in his drink had the same effect as what happened to the guy that fell face first into the goo), but if a women gets infected with it via intercourse it grows into a squid of some kind. That squid can then grow several sizes without food, and implant a person somehow, resulting in an alien (but not "the" alien). Then we also have the cute snake like things that have to fit into all this somehow. It's almost impossible to make any sense out of this, certainly when compared to the clear cycle in the original movies.
With all these issues, there's not much left to enjoy the movie for, apart from, as always, the visuals, which were pretty great. I can't say much about the acting since all characters were such one dimensional idiots that the actors could not do much with them. I guess the music was ok, though I did not particularly notice it. Finally, I'm not sure what to make of the religious - philosophical aspects concerning the origin of our species. For me I think the movies worked better without this, but it's at least a somewhat original premise rather than telling us a Nostromo like situation already happened way before the first movie.
Bonus! Some of the actors' quotes, listed on this movie's wikipedia page, are absolutely hilarious, and I guess mean that they kinda forgot the movie they were making as soon as filming was wrapped. Like:
Charlize Theron "slowly sheds her suit" (slowly as in all of a sudden gives in to a guy's lust for her)
Idris Elba, "the crew is his responsibility" (like when he does not care in the slightest when two of them are lost in the complex, and seems to find it funny)
Logan Marshal Green "is the scientist, is the skeptic, as opposed to Rapace who is the believer" (like when he removes his helmet within seconds of having the air analyzed as breathable)
Disclaimer, that I maybe should end all my reviews with: I am not offended if you still like the movie, I am just explaining why I do not, trying to use objective statements as much as possible; I do not want everything to be the same as (in this case) Alien(s), but I do want it to make sense; and I do not dislike everything at the slightest plot hole or other issue (famous example: the magically appearing cliff in the Jurassic Park T-rex scene - I still like that movie). And yes, I guess the point where the amount of issues becomes too much to enjoy the movie, is subjective.
A Time to Kill (1996)
Rufus has a point
I really resent this movie for how it manipulates its audience. That is, what the movie is trying to say, you should fully sympathize with Sam Jackson's character, and if you don't, you basically belong with the guys in the white hoods. What I mean is that the movie takes the question "Is it okay for a father whose daughter was raped to take justice into his own hands and kill the perpetrators?' and repackages it by stating that in the (southern) United States it all depends on racial background. So Carl Lee had no choice but to kill the guys, because they were sure to be released without punishment otherwise. And now he will be sentenced to death for it, but only because he is black; if he was white, he would have been released immediately. But lo and behold! Because if his lawyer's brilliant move of switching races in the minds of the jury, he gets released!
Obviously, the issues for black people in the (southern) US, or in general really, are well documented, then (this movie is 25 years old at this point) and now still (I am writing this after BLM became a thing). And it is my view that these issues are very real. So if you are open to that as a viewer, it's easy to be taken along with how the movie is trying to put it to you that the inequality (of justice) for black people is the big problem here, and how we should feel good that in this case the protagonists managed to overcome that. But what the movie deliberately obscures in this way, is that it advocates for no justice at all, except the justice that an individual takes for himself. A person, regardless of (racial) background, killing two people should be brought to justice, and punished accordingly. And of course the circumstances matter - maybe it was self defense (clearly not in this case), there is the temporal insanity plea (rather clearly also not applicable in this case). Also, everyone will have an opinion on what the punishment ought to be (here in Europe it would not be the death penalty, but that is of course different in some US states), but what this movie is trying to tell us is that the justice system is almost to blame for even bringing this person to trial. A man revenging the rape of his daughter by killing the rapists should get a medal, and he would have gotten it too, if he was white, and now he (almost) gets it because the white jury had their eyes closed an convinced themselves that he was.
I am firmly convinced that however much may be wrong with how justice functions (which is anyway vastly different in various countries) and however unbearable it will be to watch people walk free when you know what they did, the alternative is still much worse. The alternative essentially being "every person for themselves" and that is kinda what we had before we had civilization.
As an aside, yes, the movie is rather well made, acted (for the most part), etc.
Even the way the story is written is not that bad, but's hard to appreciate all that for me, when what is written is such a despicable message.