Reviews

Yes, plank is a reference to Brie Larson's acting in this movie. Now, she can act (see e.g. Room), so why put in such a bland performance here?

Anyway, I wish acting was this movie's only issue. From minor points to SHIELD being used years before Iron Man 1 had that as a funny thread throughout the movie, to more major issues. Like, halfway in the movie the Skrull/Kree switch between being bad/good guys. But it's so clunkily done, it's almost literally the bad guys saying "just so you know, we're good actually" and the other good guys going "O hey, that's cool then, we'll go with that from now on, no further questions asked". Then we have in between issues like Fury already being in the bar where CM happens to stop when the only info he had to go on was she stole The Don's motorcycle. Followed up by them acknowledging they need to prove to each other that they're not Skrulls, neither effectively does so, but they are happily in the same team from that moment on anyway. Or how about when CM is captured and they feel the need to plug her in the Supreme Intelligence... just to taunt her that she's lost in the hope that she'll break free? Or why does her suit have the inherent capability to change colour (when the Kree are so sensitive that she did so)? Or what's the point of a Skrull changing into a new person in full view of everyone, including CM? Doesn't that immediately defeat the whole purpose? And yes, on and on it goes. On first viewing, even my wife, who is usually extremely casual and forgiving to movies (to the point of often thinking me too negative) noticed quite a lot of these issues and didn't feel the movie worked that well.

Finally, there is the fundamental issue of an extremely powerful, invulnerable superhero not being that interesting (which is why e.g. Superman has its kryptonite). If she can do anything without risk, what are the stakes? Why should I feel tension when she is on screen?

#Istandwithdon.

The good - well somewhat obviously, if you look at filmmaking purely as a visual art form, like paintings, then this movie scores quite high. From the long shots, the cinematography in general, the acting and the attention to detail, there is not much to dislike, and I'd say the accolades in these categories are well earned.

However, why not go the extra mile (well, inch really, in comparative cost) to also pair that with a screenplay and story that make some sense? When I say that things are constantly taking me out of the movie, I don't mean minor (but true) details like a soldier having his rifle over the left shoulder as seen in the goofs. I'm talking major issues. These characters have more adventures in 24 hours than Indiana Jones has in a month, whilst life in the trenches was typically a lot of boredom - interspersed with "random" (but tragic) casualties from artillery fire or whilst performing tasks like barbed wire repair. Anyway, here we have the spelunking in abandoned German positions (including surviving a booby trap that should have killed them), a plane that happens to crash on top of them, followed by meeting a truck convoy in an area that was left by the Germans so recently that most of the army doesn't even know it yet, to the archetypical sniper and civilian somehow surviving in the ruins scenes, being shot at by Stormtroopers (the Star Wars ones, in terms of aim, not the actual WW1 ones Germany used in the 1918 offensives), right onto the lucky downstream river ride leading to exactly the right spot, where a trench position was built in about a day in terrain, remember, just abandoned by the Germans. Phew. Up to the underground adventure I was actually quite intrigued with the movie, but from that point I lost more and more interest as it just kept going South. A pity, really, given the potential.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

... 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 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.

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.

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.